There is still no Global Warming science.
| 23-07-2015 19:31 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Dear arthur18 I'm not sure what you are referring to, when you say that all climate scientists have refused a public debate on the issue. There are many examples of individual climate scientists engaging with the public and the media about their research, as well as whole organisations that promote the current knowledge about climate change (e.g. WMO GHG bulletin, released annually, http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/documents/GHG_Bulletin_10_Nov2014_EN.pdf). This document is now provided in six different languages. I'm also not sure about the debate that you are referring to. The science evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change is un-disputed in the scientific community, and has been for several decades now. There are now formal declarations confirming human induced global warming from over 30 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences. The only debate that remains is purely of a political nature. |
| 24-07-2015 04:52 | |
| arthur18☆☆☆☆☆ (42) |
What I am referring to is the scientist will not debate other climate scientists who do not believe in AGW. Even the ones at the IPCC are not so sure anymore. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_author_will_admit_error_if_five_more_years_of_no_warming/ What exactly does Storch mean by this statement. Storch:" There are two conceivable explanations—and neither is very pleasant for us." It's not very pleasant that the models don't work or that it's inconvenient for their alarmist views? Please also note the forum comments under the article too. I have hundreds of articles like the ones above, including errors in the IPCC reports that have yet to be fixed, majority of evidence that has not been reviewed including data from college grads. in their reports. Let me know If you want me to send them all to you. |
| 24-07-2015 10:15 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Hi arthur18 First: Hans von Storch is not 'at the IPCC', he is currently the director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht and a professor at Hamburg University. Second: you are basing your whole argument on a single news paper article? If I believed everything that I read in the media I would think that eating chocolate is good for me. If you have a published statement from a science academy or institution, or a peer reviewed article published in a reputable scientific journal that supports your views about the IPCC, then I would be very interested in reading such material, but please don't send me any more newspaper articles, or blog entries. Third: almost all climate scientists agree that there has been a pause in the global surface temperature warming over the past decade or so, and there have been many papers published and a lot of research funded trying to figure out why. At the moment, our best understanding seems to indicate that the oceans have taken up additional heat in some regions, but this work is still very much on going. Fourth: nowhere in the article does Storch say that recent climate change is not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. Fifth: the link at the bottom of the article 'no more warming for four more years' leads to the UK Met Office website. I have no idea why Andrew Bolt has decided to call them 'Britain's warmist met' since the Met Office is the national government funded weather and climate prediction centre. No where on the Met Office webpage does it say that there will be no more warming for four years, and the quotation from the Met Office webpage has been cited incorrectly. It actually reads: "Averaged over the five-year period 2015-2019, global average temperature is expected to remain high and is likely to be between 0.18°C and 0.46°C above the long-term (1981-2010) average of 14.3°C. This compares with an anomaly of +0.26°C observed in 2010 and 2014, currently the warmest years on record." There is nothing in this quotation that actually supports Andrew Bolt's argument, the Met Office is simply stating that global surface temperatures are likely to remain very high over the next five years, and that the global mean surface temperatures recorded in 2010 and 2014 are the warmest on record. Six: global surface temperature is only one metric of climate change. This is why we refer to climate change as climate change, and not global warming. There has been no slow down or pause in the global surface ocean temperature increase. Equally, there is no observed slow down or pause in the decline of ice sheet melting, or in the increase in ocean acidification or ocean deoxygenation. Seven: IPCC reports are based on published peer reviewed literature, from scientists all over the world. The reports are a huge under-taking to produce and most of the work is done by volunteers. Of course there will be a few errors or mistakes and typos, as with any large document, but over all the science of the IPCC is robust, and reflects the views of the scientific community. Do you really think that the IPCC 2007 lead authors would have beeen awarded a Nobel Peace Prize if the IPCC process was not robust? It is not possible to include everyone's work in the reports, as they are already large enough, but I know of several PhD students that have their work included in the IPCC. Like I have said before on this forum, if you are serious about understanding whether climate change is 'real' or not, you need to stop basing all of your arguments on newpaper articles blogs, and other unreliable sources of information, and find out more about the science that is being done all over the world. There are lots of sources of reliable information, such as national meteorological institution websites, science academy documentation such as the Royal Society, information available from the UN/WMO, journals such as Nature and Science, Climate Science departments in Universities, National Administrations such as NOAA in the US, and the IPCC reports. |
| 24-07-2015 11:43 | |
| arthur18☆☆☆☆☆ (42) |
Mr Storch used to be at the IPCC. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.htmlhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/ http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/ Sorry but it seems climate science is losing credibility very quickly, particularly when we constantly hear comments such as "the science is settled" When Einstein formulated his theory of relativity, he not only challenged skeptics to prove him wrong, he helped them to construct an experiment to verify or debunk it. Climate nuts -- like Mann and those in East Anglia -- tried to keep contradictory data/theories from being heard and Al Gore thinks skeptics need to be punished. Do you really believe that Mann's hockey stick graph was a true and correct in reporting the statistics or could it have been made to look alarmist? Using tree rings as a basis for the whole graph. Exactly how accurate can this be? What would the error rate be? |
| 24-07-2015 17:06 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
I would appreciate it if you would not insult my colleagues at the University of East Anglia, who have been exonerated of any legal or scientific wrong-doing. Even if you don't believe the court rulings, you surely must admit that they must have done a pretty bad job at manipulating their data, seeing as both NOAA and NASA, who use different methods from CRU, have found almost identical trends in mean global surface temperature changes (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature). Professor Storch has contributed to the writing and editing of IPCC reports as a lead author, but to my knowledge, has never been employed by the IPCC. You seem to have made your mind up, and are now cherry picking any source of information from the internet that seems to support your opinion on climate change, rather than looking for robust sources of evidence on all aspects of climate change, and then making an informed decision based on evidence and fact. If you have a genuine question about a specific aspect of climate change that you do not understand, or would like clarification on, then I am happy to discuss this with you. Likewise, if you have a reliable source of evidence that seems to dispute an aspect of climate change science, I am happy to discuss this with you. However, if you only wish to post entries of ramblings about your opinions on climate change, which can only be backed up by newspaper articles and links to climate change denialist websites, then I'm afraid I have better things to do with my time, and I won't bother to reply to you. I seriously doubt that you have even attempted to read any of the IPCC reports, or any of the links that I have posted to you. |
| 25-07-2015 10:47 | |
| arthur18☆☆☆☆☆ (42) |
Are my opinions ramblings, simply because I do not agree with the so called consensus. As for the term "climate change denialist websites", it's certainly not what I expect to hear from a scientist but more like someone who is an alarmist troll who has been schooled in how to put down anyone with a differing viewpoint. These trolls also say the same about newspaper articles, even though they quote climate scientists and their data and graphs. I have not attached any newspaper articles, but if you really want to help the AGW cause, you can try to answer the two questions below, one of which I have already asked. Do you believe that Mann's hockey stick graph based purely on tree ring data, some of which is from only one species of tree, is a true representation of the past and more recent climate to an acceptable level of error margin, considering we are talking about measurements to within one hundredth of a degree Celsius. The other question relates to what data was inputted into the climate models? As we all know the climate is very dynamic and there are numerous aspects as to what affects the climate. Apart from increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, what other inputs were used to create these models and what weightings were given to each different aspect? |
| 25-07-2015 18:07 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Let's get a few things straight here: Your posts so far have largely been ramblings *not* because you do not believe in climate change, but because you do not seem to base your opinions on any credible evidence. I am not an alarmist troll. I certainty don't think that climate change is the end of the planet, or even the end of the human race, but I am concerned that a lot of people, particularly those in developing countries, will face serious consequences as a result of climate change, not to mention the impacts that other species will face/are already facing. I have not been 'schooled' to put anyone down. I'm not even sure what you mean by this. I am trying to encourage you to ask reasonable questions about specific aspects of climate change that you do not understand/disagree with, rather than a mass onslaught of your opinions that I have no idea where to even begin addressing. I am also trying to encourage you to be more open minded, and consider all the options, before making up your mind. For me, climate change is not a question of belief - it is happening, and it is caused largely by anthropogenic influences. I know this because of the scientific evidence from many measurements of many different variables - including but by no means limited to surface temperature - which indicates that the climate is warming and humans are the main contributing factor. Do you believe in gravity? Of course not - you simply know that it exists. What we do not know, is exactly how the climate will change in the future - this is what a lot of scientists in a lot of different institutions all over the world are working on, from a broad range of disciplines. Now to address your questions: There have been many reviews into the original Mann hockey stick graph, including one by Hans Von Storch (in 2004 I think). These reviews in general have found that the statistical methods used by Mann et al have a tendancy to underestimate variability, by up to a factor of 2. There have, however, been numerous subsequent studies using a wide variety of methods, based on a wide range of data (tree rings from many species, and also other data, such as glacial deposits, lake bed deposits, etc.) Here is a graph showing all of these other studies, including the Mann et al study, published in the 4th IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html. This page provides very detailed information about how this graph was constructed. The following text from the IPCC report summarises the graph: "The instrumental temperature data that exist before 1850, although increasingly biased towards Europe in earlier periods, show that the warming observed after 1980 is unprecedented compared to the levels measured in the previous 280 years, even allowing for the greater variance expected in an average of so few early data compared to the much greater number in the 20th century. Recent analyses of instrumental, documentary and proxy climate records, focussing on European temperatures, have also pointed to the unprecedented warmth of the 20th century and shown that the extreme summer of 2003 was very likely warmer than any that has occurred in at least 500 years (Luterbacher et al., 2004; Guiot et al., 2005; see Box 3.6)." Therefore, with respect to your question - statistical issues have been found with the method used by Mann et al, however, their conclusions still stand, as they have been independently replicated by many other studies. As you can see, there is quite a large error associated with the proxies used to create the IPCC graph, however, the recent temperature trend stands out above this error. I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to 'measurements within one hundredth of a degree Celcius'. The proxy data do not have to be this accurate, because the recent temperature trend is so large. An example: if you measure the height of a sunflower one day, and it is 15 cm tall, and one week later it is 20 cm tall then you know that it has grown by about 5 cm. You didn't need to measure to 0.1 cm accuracy to be able to come up with this conclusion. In fact, if you were simply trying to determine whether it had grown at all within the week, then you would only need to measure to an accuracy of about +/- 2 cm, and you would still have very high confidence that the sunflower had grown, and not stayed the same height. Another point that I would like to make is that the hockey stick graph is only a single line of evidence out of hundreds of lines of evidence that show that the climate is changing, and I'm not sure it is wise to be so fixated on this one piece of evidence. Climate science is not based on the hockey stick graph. There are hundreds of measurements of other variables from all over the world, such as surface ocean temperature, ocean alkalinity, ocean oxygen content, sea ice extent, glacier extent, ice sheet extent, greenhouse gas measurements in the troposphere and stratosphere, outgoing radiation measurements made in space, polewards migration of species, mass extinctions, coral reef bleaching, isotopic measurements of CO2, measurements of solar activity, measurements of volcanic activity, etc. As for your second question: I'm not sure if I can really answer this without having more information. Which climate models are you referring to? There are many different types of climate models - do you mean the global climate models presented in the IPCC reports? If you tell me which models you would like to know about then I can be more specific, but in general, global climate models are run using current and predicted greenhouse gas emissions from national inventories, which are reported annually. They also account for solar forcing, volcanic forcing, climate feedbacks, such as those associated with the ice caps melting, carbon sinks, such as the ocean and land biosphere, land use change, human population change, and so on. They are pretty comprehensive. Sometimes they are run in specific ways to investigate specific things. For example, you can run a global climate model with no greenhouse gas forcing, and only solar and volcanic forcing, plus the natural carbon sinks, from 1750 to present day to see if the model can reproduce the observed temperature changes over the past 250 years. What happens is that the models can't produce the observed temperature changes unless you put the greenhouse gas forcing back in. They don't even get close to reproducing the observed temperature record, in fact, which gives us quite high confidence that the observed warming is due to greenhouse gas forcing. But yet again, there are numerous other data sets that confirm this conclusion (e.g. outgoing radiation changes and isotope measurements) - we do not rely on the models alone. Another point I would like to make about climate models is that our understanding of climate change is based on measurements and data, not climate models. Climate models are a useful tool, for helping us to try and understand something that we cannot measure. This is why we use climate models to try and determine future climate change. But we certainly do not rely on the models, and we know that they can be wrong. If 10 different global climate models are run for the period 2000 - 2100, and all 10 models produce results that indicate that the climate will continue to warm, then we think that it is probably likely that this is what will happen, but we do not know for sure. I hope I have answered your questions - please let me know if there is anything else you would like to discuss. |
| 26-07-2015 10:43 | |
| arthur18☆☆☆☆☆ (42) |
What is the IPCC's real agenda? I know this is an old document, but the more I read about what goes on in the IPCC, the more I ignore their stance as it seems to be more political than scientific. This is just a general comment. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm |
| 26-07-2015 10:46 | |
| arthur18☆☆☆☆☆ (42) |
More critics of the IPCC. http://www.habitat21.co.uk/energy151.html |
| 27-07-2015 07:50 | |
| arthur18☆☆☆☆☆ (42) |
Climate Scientist. I do have some more questions if you have time to answer them. 1. Is the Global Warming Petition Project document, genuine? 2. If the current trends in CO2 emissions continue until the year 2100, let's assume for arguments sake that the planet will warm by 2.5 degrees Celsius. Now lets assume that all CO2 emissions caused by industry were to stop today (we know this can't happen), but lets assume it did happen. What would be the likely warming by the year 2100 in this scenario. |
| 27-07-2015 12:05 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Hi arthur18 The IPCC has no political agenda. It's sources of funding are from the WMO, the UNEP and from national governments. Because the IPCC is so intergovernmental in nature, it is policy neutral and not policy-prescriptive. It's agenda is simply to report on the scientific consensus about climate change, and to do so in a more user-friendly, accessible, and read-able way than one typically finds in scientific journals. This is why each report has a document called 'summary for policy makers'. This document contains the same scientific content as the main report, but it is written in as user friendly format as possible, without too much scientific 'jargon'. The IPCC itself does not carry out any research or measure any climate data. It simply reviews the literature from the scientific community. This task is done by IPCC lead and contributing authors who are from the scientific community. The IPCC process is by no means perfect, and it doesn't always get things right. In fact, the IPCC process has been criticised and reviewed numerous times now. There are many climate scientists who think that the process needs to be changed, and this is being looked into for the next report. Sometimes the IPCC has been accused of over-estimating the impacts of climate change, and more recently, the IPCC has been accused of under-estimating the impacts. But time after time, review after review, the overall science of climate change reported by the IPCC has been found to be robust. What you have to remember is that the IPCC reports are largely written by volunteers from the scientific community. About 800 of them, with additional people contributing their research and ideas. This is a huge undertaking, when you think about it. It is not surprising really that sometimes the reports contain mistakes, like the Himalayan glacier mistake of the 4th IPCC report. It is also not surprising that sometimes not everyone gets along perfectly. With regards to Christopher Landsea, I actually think he actually had a reasonable point. Obviously we don't really know the whole story as to why he decided to withdraw, and it may be that he had a personal disagreement with one of the chapter editors, or something. Landsea is a hurricane specialist, and he disagrees that it is currently possible to determine whether climate change is causing an increase in hurricanes/hurricane damage. He absolutely believes in anthropogenic climate change, which is clear from his article here, from 2011: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/. It would also appear that the IPCC have now taken on board his point. In the most recent IPCC report (5th report), this is what is stated about climate change and hurricanes: "AR4 concluded that it was likely that an increasing trend had occurred in intense tropical cyclone activity since 1970 in some regions but that there was no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. Subsequent assessments, including SREX and more recent literature indicate that it is difficult to draw firm conclusions with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends prior to the satellite era and in ocean basins outside of the North Atlantic." "No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin." In this section of the 5th report, published in 2013, Landsea's work is cited, so he has by no means been excluded from the IPCC process, and is a contributing scientist to the IPCC 5th report. And with regards to the other people that have voiced concerns, or withdrawn from the IPCC process, the webpage link that you gave showed the names of about 7 people. If we assume that the real number is three times this, because the webpage might not be entirely up to date, this comes to 21 people. In the total history of the IPCC, the number of scientists that have contributed to the reports is maybe about 5000 people (this is quite a ball-park figure, since I haven't actually counted them all, and some people contribute to more than one report), which means that only ~0.5% of these scientists have seriously complained or withdrawn from the IPCC process. This is a tiny percentage, and is actually very positive. I think that most medium and large companies would have a higher percentage of resigned and disgruntled employees than 0.5%. And people will always be people. You are never going to be able to get everyone to agree when so many people are coming together to create one report. There are bound to be disagreements and arguments. Another thing to consider is that the IPCC faces more scrutiny than probably anyone else. The IPCC scientists know that the reports are going to be picked apart, word by word, and they try their best to make sure that the science is clear and not ambiguous. There have been so many independent reviews and investigations into the IPCC process over the years, and none have found any issues with the overall underlying science, even though there have been issues found with the IPCC process and some mistakes on specific things. Nobel Peace prizes can be revoked, and if the IPCC had been found to be distorting the science, then I'm sure that they would never have received a Nobel Peace prize, let alone still have one. |
| 27-07-2015 14:09 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Hi arthur18 No, I do not think the the Global Warming Petition Project is genuine. And here are my reasons why: The petition is based around a single publication from 2007, in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. This in itself raises alarm bells with me. Why is the publication 8 years old, and why it is not published in a climate science journal? I looked into the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons into a bit more detail and this is what I found. It is the journal published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is a politically motivated organisation with the brief of "fighting government take-over of medicine". The association is extremist conservative, and promotes ideas such as HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there are links between abortion and breast cancer. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in any academic database, such as Web of Science, and has been criticised by numerous medical professionals and institutions. The authors have published the article in the style of a PNAS article, to try and make it look more official, which prompted the National Academy of Sciences to make a statement saying that it had never been submitted to PNAS and that they did not agree with the way the science had been presented. If the science underpinning the petition was credible, then they would have had no problems publishing it in a credible climate science journal that is also used by the academic community. On the website, it states that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons was chosen because the Journal agreed to waive copyright. This is a pretty poor excuse and in this day and age, with the amount of open access climate journals around, really shouldn't be the deciding factor in where you choose to publish. In addition, the way in which the authors have mis-cited published scientific work throughout the paper is quite shocking. If you were to go through all of the publications that they have cited, I am sure that almost all of them state that climate change is happening and that humans are the main contributor. The authors have picked specific sentences from each publication to cite, and re-written the science into a work of fiction. They have made all of the figures themselves, rather than using figures that already exist in the papers that they have cited - this strikes me as odd, as it is not uncommon to use figures from other publications with permission, rather than to replicate them just for the sake of it. The authors are not climate scientists - Arthur Robinson is a biochemist and also happens to have a political career as a Republican. Willie Soon is a physicist who is known to have received a lot of money from the oil industry. I believe that he had to have a paper retracted from the journal Climate Research after it caused an outrage, and it was found that the peer-review process had been compromised. The second thing that is extremely suspicious is that fact that the qualifications of the 'scientific experts' who have signed the petition are not given. All that is given is a list of how many have PhDs, BScs, etc, and what fields they are experts in. It doesn't say what universities or affiliations each person is associated with, so we don't even know if they are still working in science. My brother has a masters in science - he is an electronics engineer, he works for a company making audio equipment and he doesn't know much about climate change. But by the petition's standards, he would qualify as one of the 'scientists' who have signed the petition. There are 320 million people in the US. If only 0.5% of them have either PhDs or undergraduate degrees in a science field, that makes 1.6 million people. The petition has about 31000 signatures, which is about 2% of the total number of people in the US who have a science qualification. If you add up the number of people listed in each specialised field on the webpage, you can only account for about half of the 31000 signatories. This is because half either left this part of the form blank, or filled in a specialisation that was not science related. Most of the 'experts' listed are not climate scientists, but are physicists. Only 0.5% of the signatories have expertise in climatology and atmospheric science. As for your other question about CO2 emissions and warming - I can definitely answer this, but I will wait until tomorrow if that's okay. |
| 28-07-2015 19:29 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Hi arthur18 Here is a response to your second question: I found this paper in the journal Nature Geoscience on this topic, which is quite interesting (see: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2060.html). Essentially, the paper mentions that there have been numerous previous studies (it cites about 9 other papers) that have looked into what would happen to global temperature if CO2 emissions suddenly stopped, and these studies have found that global mean temperatures would remain at a roughly constant level for several centuries (i.e. no warming or cooling). The Frolicher et al (2013) paper, however, finds that there might in fact be a small decrease in global mean temperature of ~0.5 deg C until about 2100, followed by a prolonged increase in global mean temperature for several centuries, but only an increase of about 0.3-0.5 deg C above 2000 levels (see figure 1b, if you have access). Frolicher et al (2013) state that the reasons for these long-term changes in global mean temp: The initial decrease is likely due to a decrease in atmospheric radiative forcing, since CO2 emissions have stopped, as well as heat uptake by the ocean. In the long-term, the effect of reduced atmospheric radiative forcing is overcompensated by reduced heat uptake by the ocean, plus feedback effects associated with where the ocean heat uptake occurs (most ocean heat uptake occurs at high latitude). So essentially, although there is less radiative forcing from CO2, and therefore less heating of the atmosphere, this is counteracted by the ocean, which takes up less heat from the atmosphere. I.e., the heat going into the ocean is less than the reduction in heat caused by reduced radiative forcing, hence causing a net warming of the atmosphere. It is worth bearing in mind that these results come from model simulations (since it is not possible to measure the future), and that not all the model runs in Frolicher et al (2013) show this decrease followed by a prolonged increase. So, based on our current understanding and modelling capability, it is reasonably likely that there would be no great change in global mean surface temperature for the next few hundred years if all CO2 emissions stopped today, although a small amount of cooling or heating on the order of ~0.5 deg is certainly possible. I hope this answers your question. |
| 03-08-2015 10:42 | |
| arthur18☆☆☆☆☆ (42) |
Climate Scientist, Thanks for answering my questions. Is there any reason that you do not include your real name and the organisation you work for? Have you ever been on the WUWT web site? It would be interesting to hear from you on the forum, particularly on the recent topic of "The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide". Some very compelling arguments that the vast majority of people on the forum agree with. I would be interested to hear your thoughts. |
| 05-08-2015 14:10 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Hi arthur18 You're welcome. I suppose that I would prefer to remain anonymous as a way of protecting myself from unwanted personal attacks. Several colleagues that I know and work with have been personally threatened. I have heard of the WUWT website, but hadn't really taken a closer look, so thanks for pointing it out to me. There are definitely some interesting posts - very cleverly and thoroughly written, so I will have to take a very thorough look at the evidence the arguments are based on before I can comment. |
| 26-09-2015 01:24 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14404) |
Abraham3 wrote: I didn't claim Global Warming was false. I simply stated that there is no Global Warming science. There is no falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). QED. |
| 26-09-2015 01:27 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
Surface Detail wrote: You don't know what "falsifiable" means. You don't get to say how Global Warming is falsifiable. If there exists a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false) then it needs to speak for itself. Post it here for public scrutiny. What? You can't post it here? Is that because none exists? That's what I'm saying. |
| 26-09-2015 01:52 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
climate scientist wrote:Your posts so far have largely been ramblings You're one to speak! You're a fraud, plain and simple. You are no scientist, you are a religious WACK-JOB. First, you have no "Climate" science. None. Secondly, there is no falsifiable model within the body of science for "Climate" or for "Global Warming." There is no "greenhouse effect" and no "greenhouse gases." Third, one cannot be a "scientist" for that which is not in the body of science. Fourth, an actual scientist would know that there is no role for "evidence" in the body of science, only falsifiable models that help us predict nature. The scientific method has one purpose, to prove falsifiable models false. The scientific method uses data/measurements/observations to help prove a model false but cares nothing for "evidence" that indicates something might be true. climate scientist wrote: I am not an alarmist troll. No, you're just another ordinary, religious climate lemming. Go pray to "Climate" (PBUH) climate scientist wrote:For me, climate change is not a question of belief - it is happening, and it is caused largely by anthropogenic influences. So, yes, it's entirely a question of your WACKY faith. You have no science whatsoever to support your claims. All you have is your religious dogma. climate scientist wrote: I know this because of the scientific evidence from many measurements of many different variables "Evidence" is the stuff of religions. Ask any Christian and he'll tell you that all the scientific evidence points to God being real and active in our lives. Ask any climate lemming like yourself and the answer is the same "Global Warming is real and active in our lives." I wish all your devout religious believers would snap out of your delusions. climate scientist wrote: There have, however, been numerous subsequent studies using a wide variety of methods, based on a wide range of data (tree rings from many species, and also other data, such as glacial deposits, lake bed deposits, etc.) Hey, climate lemming, studies do not constitute science. In fact, the more common word for them is "trivia." If you are getting the impression that I don't hold your religion in high regard it's because I don't. |
| 26-09-2015 03:21 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
IBdaMann wrote:Surface Detail wrote: Why didn't you quote the rest of my post? I explained one way in which global warming could be falsified, and you simply ignored it. Troll. |
| 26-09-2015 03:29 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
Surface Detail wrote: Hey, moron, learn what a falsifiable model is. You don't get to decide how a falsifiable model is falsifiable. It's inherent in the model, you scientifically illiterate Global Warming worshipper. Post your falsifiable Global Warming model here in this thread or stop pretending you have Global Warming science. Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate. |
| 26-09-2015 03:38 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
IBdaMann wrote:Surface Detail wrote: That's it. Keep on digging. |
| 26-09-2015 03:51 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
Surface Detail wrote: Thanks for tipping your king right away so you wouldn't waste our time. If you ever want to play again, bring your falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Oh, when you next pray to "Climate" go ahead and say a Global Warming prayer for me too. Thanks. Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate. |
| 26-09-2015 04:01 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
IBdaMann wrote:Surface Detail wrote: We know who you are, and we know what you're doing. It's pathetic. You're not even trying to make a scientific argument. I think you'll find the folks on this board are a bit brighter than your average media consumers and can see right through your rather obvious industry shilling. |
| 26-09-2015 06:56 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
Surface Detail wrote:We know who you are, and we know what you're doing. I previously responded to your post, I watched it register/save, I verified that it posted and then later it was gone. Did someone delete it? Surface Detail wrote:It's pathetic. You're not even trying to make a scientific argument. You're absolutely brilliant. Of course I can't make any scientific arguments; Global Warming is a religion. Let's look at the facts: Christianity is a religion based on an unfalsifiable dogma called "The Word of God" and Christians refer to nonbelievers as "Heathens that don't accept the Word of God." Christians claim that the overwhelming "evidence" reveals that God is real and active in our lives and that if we don't repent then our sins will be our doom. Global Warming is a religion based on an unfalsifiable dogma called "The Science" (a name which really confuses its congregation) and the Warmazombies and the Climate Lemmings refer to nonbelievers as "Deniers that don't accept the The Science." Warmazombies and Climate Lemmings claim that the overwhelming "evidence" reveals that Climate is real and active in our lives and that if we don't repent then our sins will be our doom. No conjecture asserted, only observations. I think you'll find the folks on this board are a bit brighter than your average media consumers and can see right through your rather obvious industry shilling.[/quote] I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 26-09-2015 07:17 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
Surface Detail wrote:We know who you are, If you look on the left-hand side of my post it tells you who I am. Surface Detail wrote: and we know what you're doing. Did you figure out that I was POSTING? I should just call you "Sherlock." I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 28-09-2015 11:47 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Damn, IBdaMann - I think you've sussed me out! My cover is blown! You're right, although my job description includes the words 'research scientist' and I work in the Environmental Science department at a well respected University, it is in fact all a complete farce. And there I was saying that I make high precision greenhouse gas measurements in the atmosphere, but you know what, in actual fact, I just go to work and pray to the Climate God, who tells me what the CO2 mole fraction in the atmosphere is today. It's as easy as that! Now I am wondering why I spent 4 years doing a PhD - silly me! And it's not just me you know - all ~70 researchers who work in my department are doing the same thing. The funny thing is that we are pretty much all funded by the government. They must be such fools to fund us to support our made up religion! But then again, we've been doing pretty well at pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. I mean, our religion actually started in the 1960s, and its still going stronger than ever today. In fact, I would say that it is the most successful scam in all history - wouldn't you? Almost too successful to be true, some people would say. We've managed to dupe almost every government and scientific institute in the world into believing and funding our religion - that's pretty good going for a conspiracy if you ask me! And I think we must all be telepathic as well, you know. Because it's not as though we have departmental meetings to discuss how we are going to fool people next. No way - that might give us away!! But somehow, all the climate science researchers in the world seem to know what needs to be done next, and how we should go about it. I'm telling you - it's got to be telepathy - there's no other explanation!! I wonder how much money over the last forty years has been wasted on funding our climate science religion globally? It must be billions. I mean, we've persuaded governments to fund climate science research bases in Antarctica for several decades, which are not cheap by the way, not to mention all those satellites that we've fooled NASA into building and launching – and they are still planning more – haha, such idiots! All that money spent just to fund our religion, and we make up the numbers of our 'science' anyway! We have managed to verify plate tectonic theory, prevent an ozone disaster, discover hydrothermal vents, and figure out how ocean circulation works along the way, but those are not really worth shouting about. Besides, we probably made those up too! Anyway, I'm impressed that you've figured it all out - you must be like, Einstein, or something! |
| 28-09-2015 18:45 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
climate scientist wrote:Damn, IBdaMann - I think you've sussed me out! My cover is blown! I'm sure I have. You might be able to fool the scientifically illiterates on this site but I see through your gibberish. In fact, let's show everyone else as well. Explain to me, in your own words, the "greenhouse effect" in such a way that: 1) you don't violate the laws of physics, and 2) you make it clear how some atmospheric gases are "greenhouse gases" while others specifically are not. That should be a piece of cake, right? I couldn't ask for anything easier, right? climate scientist wrote: You're right, although my job description includes the words 'research scientist' and I work in the Environmental Science department at a well respected University, it is in fact all a complete farce. The word "farce" seems apropos. I'm enjoying your attempts at sarcasm. I'm going to truly enjoy watching you EVADE the above EASY question. climate scientist wrote:And it's not just me you know - all ~70 researchers who work in my department are doing the same thing. The funny thing is that we are pretty much all funded by the government. They must be such fools to fund us to support our made up religion! I smell government grant money involved. climate scientist wrote: But then again, we've been doing pretty well at pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. You don't have to convince me. climate scientist wrote:I mean, our religion actually started in the 1960s, and its still going stronger than ever today. Yes, I'm aware. climate scientist wrote: In fact, I would say that it is the most successful scam in all history - wouldn't you? On this we also agree. climate scientist wrote: Almost too successful to be true, some people would say. Nope. As incredible the success story might be, here it is before us in real life. This is no illusion. Some religions are just more successful than others. climate scientist wrote: We've managed to dupe almost every government and scientific institute in the world into believing and funding our religion No, no, no....your religion is being USED by every government to generate new, increased levels of (tax) revenues, and institutions are USING your religion to acquire government funding. Governments are USING the pre-determined "conclusions" they are buying from institutions to generate new, increased levels of (tax) revenues. Etc. Etc. It's an international economy unto itself. The dollars that are spent/paid are very real. climate scientist wrote:I wonder how much money over the last forty years has been wasted on funding our climate science religion globally? Absolutely, and your lame attempts at sarcasm make it clear you feel threatened by the idea of your particular funding drying up. So, answer the above question or EVADE and confirm everything I've written. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 29-09-2015 10:30 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
I noticed that you only commented on certain sections of my post – this is called 'cherry picking' and is a common known tactic of climate change deniers, such as yourself. Nice to know that you are conforming to a stereotype, eh? Your question is in fact rather easy. A greenhouse gas is a gas that can absorb and emit radiation in the thermal infrared spectrum. For example, water vapour, CO2, and CH4 are all greenhouse gases, because they have this property. Most of the Earth's atmosphere consists of gases that are not greenhouse gases, because they do not emit and absorb radiation in the thermal infrared spectrum. Examples include O2, N2, and Ar. The greenhouse effect is caused by the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Incoming short-wave radiation from the sun enters the Earth's atmosphere. About 1/3 of this incoming shortwave radiation is reflected back out to space by the top of the Earth's atmosphere. About ½ is absorbed by the Earth's surface. The remainder (about 1/6) is reflected by the Earth's surface back into space. The short-wave energy that is absorbed by the Earth's surface is converted into heat energy, which is then radiated from the Earth's surface as long-wave (infrared) radiation. Some of this infrared outgoing radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and is then re-emitted in all directions (both upwards and downwards). The upwards emitted radiation leaves the planet's atmosphere and enters space. The downwards emitted radiation warms the surface of the Earth and the lower atmosphere. Without the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the surface temperature on Earth would be about 30 degrees C lower than it is today. I'm sure that you are now going to post some smart-arsed nonsense response, telling me how 'scientifically illiterate' I am, however, in my opinion, this is a rather cowardly approach. Your responses would be much more effective, if instead of simply telling people that they are wrong, you are able to explain to them exactly why they are wrong, e.g. which law of physics they are violating, and why? But perhaps this is beyond you, Einstein? And now, I have a question for you. It is a VERY EASY question, especially for someone of your superior scientific knowledge. Can you please explain (in your own words) what you think the term 'science' means, and why you think climate science research (as presented in white literature) does not qualify as science. Of course, you do not have to answer at all, if you wish to EVADE, but I will take it as a sign that you are giving up. |
| 29-09-2015 20:30 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
climate scientist wrote:I'm sure that you are now going to post some smart-arsed nonsense response, telling me how 'scientifically illiterate' I am Absolutely. You might as well be a Christian minister preaching the Word of God as a scientific explanation for the damaging effect of sins upon our souls. You babble nonsense about the non-existent and claim it to be science. When you do use science terminology you use it incorrectly. It's worth repeating: Scientifically Illiterate climate scientist wrote:, however, in my opinion, this is a rather cowardly approach. I know, I know, you don't like your scientific illiteracy exposed to sunlight. That being the case, you shouldn't advertise it on a public discussion forum. climate scientist wrote: Your responses would be much more effective, if instead of simply telling people that they are wrong, you are able to explain to them exactly why they are wrong, e.g. which law of physics they are violating, and why? Which is exactly what I have done at every step, moron. Being scientifically illiterate, you have obviously missed the science I have been correcting. The onus is on you to learn the science, and to be able to discern it from your religion. climate scientist wrote: I noticed that you only commented on certain sections of my post – this is called 'cherry picking' No, you moron, it's called responding to the points warranting responses. Are you new at this? I am free to ignore any of your crap that should rightfully be ignored. Cherry-picking is what members of your congregation do to data (of all kinds) in order to fabricate "signs" and "evidence" of Global Warming for the other congregational dupes. climate scientist wrote: Your question is in fact rather easy. Watch, you're not going to answer the question I asked, but instead you are going to answer questions I did not ask. Remember, my question was very clearly "What is the greenhouse effect?" and not "What causes the greenhouse effect" or "What is a greenhouse gas?" I'll happily get to those questions once I get you to clearly define this "greenhouse effect" in a non-physics-violating manner. Can you do that? climate scientist wrote: A greenhouse gas is a gas that ... climate scientist wrote: The greenhouse effect is caused by .. When we get to these above questions, we'll have what you already typed so you won't have to go over it again...unless you want to revise it so it adheres to, say, physics. climate scientist wrote: A greenhouse gas is a gas that can absorb and emit radiation in the thermal infrared spectrum. Eventually you are going to have to explain how thermal energy is created without any work being performed, in violation of the 1st LoT. I will extend to you the courtesy of predicting what will occur. You will scramble to your climate lemming friends and beg them for help. "What do I do now?" you'll ask. You'll tell them that the 1st LoT says that no energy can be created in all this absorbing and emitting, regardless of the frequency band. They will tell you "Dude, don't sweat it. Just tell him that the "greenhouse gases" slow the rate of thermal radiation into space." ...and that is what you will do. I'm waiting for you to provide that response because that, too, is a violation of physics, but because you are a fraud, you haven't the vaguest idea why. So just let me know when you want to "go there." climate scientist wrote: For example, water vapour, CO2, and CH4 are all greenhouse gases, because they have this property. What is clear is that you are a dupe who simply will not question anything you are directed to believe. List for me eight atmospheric gases that are specifically not "greenhouse gases." climate scientist wrote: Most of the Earth's atmosphere consists of gases that are not greenhouse gases, because they do not emit and absorb radiation in the thermal infrared spectrum. Examples include O2, N2, and Ar. Yes, they most certainly do. Who told you that those gases cannot absorb any infrared EM? All gases have differing EM absorption signatures and you seem to be quibbling that CO2 is stronger in some areas of its signature than those areas of, say, O2's signature. How does the arbitrary nature of our human labelling of EM "bands" translate into a "greenhouse effect" caused by gases that meet your definition? You're trying to sell a mythical concept via over-convolution of technical specifics. Your thought is that if you make it too confusing, people will give up and just agree. I'm not buying it. All of your babble is just babble. Nothing of what you have mentioned overcomes your violation of the 1st LoT. climate scientist wrote: Without the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the surface temperature on Earth would be about 30 degrees C lower than it is today. Please explain this. This should be good for a laugh, then I'll tear it up. Hint: The composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on the temperature. The quantity, yes, but the composition, no. climate scientist wrote:And now, I have a question for you. It is a VERY EASY question, especially for someone of your superior scientific knowledge. Bring it on! climate scientist wrote: Can you please explain (in your own words) what you think the term 'science' means, and why you think climate science research (as presented in white literature) does not qualify as science. Absolutely. This is an easy question that I'll be happy to answer. "Science", or better worded our "body of science" is a collection of falsifiable models that help us predict nature. To have science there must be a falsifiable model. There are many falsifiable models that don't help us predict nature, and they are not science. There is no model within the body of science that defines "climate" ergo there is no "climate" science. Also, you've heard/read countless climate lemmings try to rationalize how "climate" models can't possibly be expected to make usable predictions. When these people make these excuses, they reveal why they are not talking about science. "Climate" is obviously a religious term claimed by the Global Warming faith. It is intuitive why nobody defines "climate" before using the term, just as Christians never define "soul" before using the term. Religious terms are bandied about as required by the dogma that uses them. However quantity of usage does not make a term "defined by science." Just as there can be no such thing as "soul science" there cannot be any such thing as "climate science" until such a time as someone develops a falsifiable model that defines "climate" and that also subsequently survives the scientific method. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 29-09-2015 21:11 | |
| branner Administrator  ☆☆☆☆☆(34) |
IBdaMann wrote: Forum admin here. Please use a civilized language on Climate-Debate.com. It would be great to attract more active users with interesting points to discuss and share, so please don't scare them away from participating with rude language. Ok? |
| 29-09-2015 21:28 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
branner wrote:IBdaMann wrote: I'm with you and I'm open to suggestions. I'd appreciate the board's recommended way to: 1) point out a religious WACK-job 2) identify crap for what it is 3) point out a complete fraud 4) respond to someone who is engaging in uncivilized sarcasm (or is that, by definition, civilized)? I'm all for keeping discussions civilized except when I encounter abusive troll frauds who insist on driving the discussion into the muck...and it's for those instances that I ask for your guidance. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 29-09-2015 22:13 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
IBdaMann obviously has no intention at all of participating in rational argument. Despite its relatively inactivity, there have been some interesting discussions on this forum over the past couple of years, and the forum still achieves high placings in searches for "climate debate". IBdaMann, for whatever reason, is clearly intent on shutting down any further proper debate here by spamming the threads with his mixture of rhetoric and abuse. Unfortunately, this is what happens to forums that become popular enough attract the attention of those who stand to lose out by any change from the status quo. Expect more of it as the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris draws closer. |
| 29-09-2015 22:24 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
Surface Detail wrote: What is clear is that you realize you cannot counter the science that runs counter to your religious dogma and thus you wish to silence anyone presenting such science. You obviously consider "rational argument" as that which agrees with your religious creed and which does not infuse any annoying science that makes your dogma look foolish. You had your opportunity to engage in perfectly rational discussions of science and you EVADED at every opportunity. Go run off and pray to "Climate". I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 29-09-2015 22:38 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Repeatedly asserting that climate science violates conservation of energy and that this has been somehow overlooked by all the world's climatologists is not rational argument. Nor is calling anyone who disagrees with your ridiculous assertions a religious WHACK-job. It is simply and obviously an attempt to close down any real discussion here. |
| 29-09-2015 23:20 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
Surface Detail wrote: Repeatedly asserting that climate science violates conservation of energy and that this has been somehow overlooked by all the world's climatologists is not rational argument. You're gibbering again. I explained quite clearly how the violation of the 1st LoT you presented is a violation of the 1st LoT. Your insistent repetition of the exact same violation of the 1st LoT does not somehow help it overcome the manner in which it violates the 1st LoT. I understand that your religious dogma is inflexible and cannot change; that's the nature of religious dogmas. However, seeing that your religious dogma happens to violate the 1st LoT, you should expect that every time you repeat your religious dogma that it will be repeated that it violates the 1st LoT. As you preach your faith, you are not interested in any rational discussion. You are only interested in preaching it. You need for it to be a one-way conversation, i.e. you preach and others believe without question, just as you did. Of course that doesn't work when you run into a someone who is not gullible, who asks questions and who doesn't simply believe as ordered. You still have not been able to satisfactorily account for additional thermal energy with no work being performed, i.e. your violation of the 1st LoT. You have made no attempt to show that work is actually being performed somewhere in your model such that it would adhere to the 1st LoT. Ergo, YOU are the one uninterested in rational discussion. You are the scientifically illiterate who doesn't know how address the science needed to have a rational discussion. The problem is at your end. Surface Detail wrote: Nor is calling anyone who disagrees with your ridiculous assertions a religious WHACK-job. First, I believe I spelled it "WACK-job." If I didn't then that's my mistake. Second, I am very selective in using that term. I don't just hurl it at people willy-nilly. I did specifically call you a "WACK-job" because you worked hard to earn it, but it looks like the moderator would prefer I use a different term. I'm standing by for suggestions. Surface Detail wrote: It is simply and obviously an attempt to close down any real discussion here. The reason there is no real discussion here is that you refuse to have one and you EVADE science at first appearance. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 29-09-2015 23:37 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Every single national and international scientific organisation in the world accepts the reality of anthropogenic global warming on the basis of strong theoretical and empirical evidence. Your comical and unsupported assertion that global warming defies the first law of thermodynamics, and that all these scientists are therefore wrong, is absurd. Apart from this ridiculous assertion, you have offered no scientific justification whatsoever for your argument; you have merely resorted to rhetorical devices. Since it is not possible to counter rhetoric with science in any meaningful fashion, there is no point in further "discussion" with you. I leave you to your delusion. |
| 30-09-2015 00:29 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
Surface Detail wrote:Every single national and international scientific organisation in the world accepts the reality of anthropogenic global warming 1. No they don't, and 2. You don't speak for them. Common beliefs that I notice that seem to be shared amongst climate lemmings and warmazombies are the belief that they speak for countless untold others and the confused belief that when they preach "The Science" that they are actually empowered to speak for science. Surface Detail wrote: ... on the basis of strong theoretical and empirical evidence. Science requires a falsifiable model. "Evidence" and "signs" alone are the stuff of religions. Observations are excellent at inspiring falsifiable models, but until that happens, there is no science and any organization that claims to have science only on the basis of having a compilation of trivia is clearly not a science organization. You would not have made this assertion if you were at all familiar with what science is and how it differs from religion. Surface Detail wrote: Your comical and unsupported assertion that global warming defies the first law of thermodynamics, and that all these scientists are therefore wrong, is absurd. First, you are once again implying that you somehow speak for countless untold "scientists," a clear sign of your true insecurity in your own position. Second, although I was very clear and specific in how the 1st LoT was violated in your example, you have not countered with any specific error on my part. You have not explained how the blatant violation of the 1st LoT is actually somehow overcome. In effect, you have expressed that you can find nothing wrong with what I wrote and you tipped your king. Third, your entire assertion is nothing more than saying that I must somehow be absurdly wrong for disagreeing with the opinions of fictitious, imaginary people for whom you do not speak. That is absurd. You can't contest the science presented to you so you pout simply because I disagree with your religious dogma. Sad. Surface Detail wrote: Apart from this ridiculous assertion, you have offered no scientific justification whatsoever for your argument; I have stated the science many times. The science does not change. You assert that thermal energy is created through the absorption and emission of infrared EM, i.e. with no additional work being performed. This is a flat out violation of the 1st LoT that states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed via changing form, and that if energy is to be created, work must be performed. Your "greenhouse effect" remains a violation of the 1st LoT until you address this science that I have repeated MANY times. [/quote]Since it is not possible to counter rhetoric with science in any meaningful fashion, there is no point in further "discussion" with you. I leave you to your delusion.[/quote] Childish. I can see your lower lip curling right now. You're embarrassed and you just want to get away. I would advise you that no matter where you go, the 1st LoT will not change. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 30-09-2015 01:09 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
IBdaMann wrote:Surface Detail wrote: Every single national and international scientific organisation in the world accepts the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Yes, they do. For example, the UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences do: http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/ Name one such organisation that disputes the reality of anthropogenic global warming. You won't be able to because you're lying. Edited on 30-09-2015 01:11 |
| 30-09-2015 02:47 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
Surface Detail wrote:Yes, they do. No, they don't. You don't get to cite a mere few examples when your assertion is that all national and international science organizations are of a certain position. You need to provide verifiable statements made by each and every science organization stating this to be their position for your otherwise absurd assertion to be considered true. In the meantime, you are not authorized to speak for each and every science organization on the planet. Which brings me to what you consider a science organiszation. There are many political and activist organizations that include the word "Science" in their names, even though they have nothing to do with science and everything to do with political activism. The UK Royal Society is an example of a political interest organization whose members seek to project maximum self importance. The UK Royal Society differs little from the IPCC. Both house clergy of the Global Warming religion who do not support their views with any science. Surface Detail wrote:Name one such organisation that disputes the reality of anthropogenic global warming. To what end? Oh, wait! You want me to feed your assumption that science is determined by popularity and "consensus." This goes back to your inability to distinguish science from religion. Governments leverage the Global Warming religion to increase tax revenues and to increase their own power/control. Governments pay good money to buy "studies" with the predetermined conclusions that support their efforts to increase tax revenues and to increase power/control. If your point is that obviously all organizations on the planet want in on the gravy train, then I don't disagree. None of this, however, bestows any Global Warming science on any organization whatsoever. We're back to square one. There is no Global Warming science, regardless of the (financially induced) popularity of the religion. Have you noticed that you've had plenty of time to seek out Global Warming science to post here in this thread and rub in my face...but you can't find a shred, and can only insist that I must be wrong for disagreeing with your dogma? Really, go back and look at everything you've posted and you'll find that you physics violations are all you can muster. Doesn't that open your eyes to anything? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 30-09-2015 11:18 | |
| climate scientist★★☆☆☆ (257) |
Wow, you get really worked up about this stuff, don't you Einstein! Although I'm not sure I can really call you that any more. I mean, your scientific knowledge is severely lacking. We're not really debating climate science any more, just basic physics and chemistry. I'm guessing you didn't listen much in high school. Your scientific knowledge is flawed on several accounts: Greenhouse gases *do not* slow the rate of thermal radiation into space. They do what I explained in my previous post. If you do not believe me, find a physics text book and read it. O2, N2 and Ar are not greenhouse gases because they do not absorb and emit radiation in the thermal infrared part of the EM spectrum. This is because they are composed of either two identical molecules (in the case of O2 and N2) or one monotomic molecule (in the case of Ar). When these molecules vibrate, they have no net change in their dipole moment, and therefore do not absorb and emit infrared radiation. Other gases that are not greenhouse gases include hydrogen, helium, neon, krypton, Xenon, and so on. If you don't believe me, find a physics text book and read it. Your comment about the composition of the atmosphere having no relevance to the temperature of the planet is wrong. Venus is twice as far from the sun as Mercury, and only receives about 25% of the incoming solar radiation that Mercury receives. Mercury's temperature range is from about -170 degrees C to + 430 degrees C. The temperature on Venus is about +460 degrees C, and is the hottest planet in the solar system. It's atmosphere is comprised of 96% CO2. Venus is a planet that has experienced a runaway greenhouse effect. If you don't believe me, find a physics text book and read it. I'm not sure why you are so fixated on the 1st Law of thermodynamics being violated. It is not being violated. If you do not believe me, find a book on atmospheric thermodynamics and read it. And chill out, Einstein, there's no need to get yourself in a flap about all this. |
Join the debate There is still no Global Warming science.:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The History of Science | 10 | 22-04-2024 16:30 |
| A Science Test | 18 | 09-12-2023 00:53 |
| Magic or Science | 7 | 06-12-2023 00:29 |
| Science and Atmospheric Chemistry | 6 | 25-11-2023 20:55 |
| The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect" | 291 | 05-11-2023 22:46 |