Remember me
▼ Content

Why I'm Skeptical


Why I'm Skeptical09-11-2018 20:00
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I don't denial the climate is getting warmer, has been for a long time, still seems to have a ways to go yet. Still plenty of ice left over from the last 'Great Freeze'. We as a species, haven't been around long enough to know what is normal, be we do know the planet is changing constantly, sometimes slow, and barely noticeable, sometimes fast and violently. I don't remember long periods, where nothing noteworthy has happened. I've read of many major historical events, which happened before we started burning fossil fuels. The actual recorded temperatures and CO2 levels, taken consistently, and standardized, doesn't go back very far, maybe a few decades. Everything else, is either patched together guesses, or just plain computer generated, based on models, using a very small, narrow data set. I believe the science to be weak, to little hard data to call Global Warming a theory. Just an interesting observation, at best.

When man entered into the Industrial Revolution, we'd already been burning fossil fuels for a while, mostly coal. But, when things started to take off, so did the need for building materials. The quick, simple, and cheap material, was wood. High demand, high profits, those big, old growth trees were the focus of lumber mills. You'd get a very large volume of premium lumber out of one tree, compared to the low yield, and poor quality of a dozen younger trees. The rise in CO2, if even relevant, could just as easily be blamed on cutting down large quantities of trees, many centuries old. Also, burning land, to clear it for development, was the common procedure, before we had heavy equipment to do it, less destructively. Not to mention, those fires weren't controlled, least not very well, none too selective either. Modern days, we have wildfires out of control, all the time, usually not started intentionally, but a lot of acreage burns every year. It's not just the CO2 released in the burning, but few plants and trees to take the CO2 out of the air. Wildfires happen naturally too, it's not just a man-made CO2 thing. I've been told many times, that burning wood is 'carbon-neutral', and doesn't matter. There is only on kind of CO2, chemically. Regardless of source, it either matters, or it don't.

Climate Change, is more of a political, economic, and environmental movement. More like a doomsday cult, than any actual crisis. It appeals to people who want power and control over others (deniers are squashed like bugs, under a lot of fancy math and computer models, terminology). You don't have to actual believe in the doomsday aspect, to want to be involved. The people pumping out the most CO2, are also the ones polluting the air, water, even the ground we grow our food on. Can't get them to clean it up on their own, because it's the right thing to do, Climate Change will force them green and clean. The vast majority of the population, is energy dependent, the bulk of which come from fossil fuels. A lot of folks would really die, if we were to just pull the plug on everything fossil fuel. Whole lot more, I suspect, than if the doomsday visions are even remotely correct. We simply can't make the change over to green energy in a few decades, without some huge gaps in service. Whole lot of money involved, the new, green version, is going to be provided by some newer players, and some of the older providers are going to be destroyed. Big shift on how much you pay, who you pay, and likely fewer options. And of course, there is a ton of research and development work, which costs a lot of money. Folk with nation/corporate checkbooks, need answers and solutions fast, which always raise the price, reduces quality. As legislation moves to control use of fossil fuels, companies dependent on them, are in a race mitigate the effects, or find quick and cost effective alternatives. It's not the possible warming effect that drives them, it's loss of their business, by 'Carbon-tax'. Politics, is about power, to control the course. Politicians really like being able to decide who get punished, and who gets reward, and of course who gets to profit most. Unfortunately, the 'pocket-stuffers', greatly outnumber the folks in office, who actually want to help. Pres. Trump should have started investigating the finances of most of our career politicians, he'd have found much of his own troubles quiet down quickly. I'm sure his tax records aren't any more shady, than most of the rich folks, legal, just not ethical.

CO2 isn't major component of the atmosphere, under 1%. The number changes so much, depends on where you look. Mostly, it's around on tenth of a percent, but being generous, should cover most, with the 1% allowance. That's spread out, over a very huge volume. I just can't imagine how it could possible have much of an influence on anything, least not in any catastrophic role. Something natural, normal, and actually needed for life on this planet. Every living thing on earth, contains carbon, and it all can't come straight out of the ground sources. Plants need the CO2, and many lifeforms feed off the plants. Seems to me, that this planet must have been much warmer, for long periods, to produce the vegetation to feed the giant fossils, called dinosaurs. Lot of plants like hot and humid climates. We can see the effects of cold, every fall and winter. Most of the planet had to been more like a year-round spring/summer. We pull a whole lot of fossil fuels from the ground, which had to be a t some point, a living, carbon-based, organism. I'm not sure how long it takes, from living/breathing, to black goo, deep in the earth. I know swamp gas doesn't take long, methane, another natural, greenhouse gas... The point being, all that carbon-based fuel, use to be part of the ecosystem on the surface, part of the environment, which seem idealistic for supporting life. Those fossil fuels, hold a very key component to life, but have been leeching out of the environment for a long time.

I tend to believe the warming, is normal, natural, and a good thing for the planet. Although the burning of fossil fuels, is pretty nasty for the environment, releasing the CO2 is also a good thing. I tend to believe a warmer planet, will put more water vapor in the air, and keep us from getting too hot. That water vapor will condense and fall. Lots of places will get rain, where it's been rare. Lot of desert land could be green again, maybe a good place for the flood area people to consider moving to. Think the oceans will mostly stay the same, maybe even drop a little. There is no baseline normal, to compare any data with, it's in constant change, and not man made. Nothing we plan on doing to change climate, is going to have any effect at all. We can't change it, think it's a bad idea if we could. We can change ourselves, prepare, and adapt, move to better, safer locations. Sure, it's human nature to want to own, and hold on to things, places. But, if we want to survive, we sometimes have to let go of the past, and figure out what we can make do, with what we have available. Planet will keep spinning, follow the same path around the sun, we can only roll with it.
09-11-2018 20:13
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
I think you've covered the subject pretty well.
10-11-2018 00:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't denial the climate is getting warmer, has been for a long time, still seems to have a ways to go yet. Still plenty of ice left over from the last 'Great Freeze'.
There is no such thing as a 'global' climate since there is no such thing as a global weather. Hereafter I will assume you mean a global temperature.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We as a species, haven't been around long enough to know what is normal, be we do know the planet is changing constantly, sometimes slow, and barely noticeable, sometimes fast and violently.
We actually do not know. We only assume.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't remember long periods, where nothing noteworthy has happened.
Define 'long period' and 'noteworthy'. Please specify in any examples how it is global in nature.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've read of many major historical events, which happened before we started burning fossil fuels.
Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Hereafter, I will assume you mean carbon based fuels.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The actual recorded temperatures and CO2 levels, taken consistently, and standardized, doesn't go back very far, maybe a few decades.
There are no recorded temperatures of the Earth or records of global atmospheric CO2 content. It is not possible to measure either.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Everything else, is either patched together guesses, or just plain computer generated, based on models, using a very small, narrow data set.
It all is.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I believe the science to be weak, to little hard data to call Global Warming a theory.

A theory doesn't require data. Data is the result of an observation, and all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Observations are evidence only. They are part of no theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. A theory of science is a falsifiable theory.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just an interesting observation, at best.
Not even an observation. It is complete fabrication.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When man entered into the Industrial Revolution, we'd already been burning fossil fuels for a while, mostly coal.
Coal is not a fossil. Fossils don't burn. Coal is primarily carbon. It may contain fossils, but it itself is not a fossil.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But, when things started to take off, so did the need for building materials. The quick, simple, and cheap material, was wood. High demand, high profits, those big, old growth trees were the focus of lumber mills. You'd get a very large volume of premium lumber out of one tree, compared to the low yield, and poor quality of a dozen younger trees.
You can actually get better wood out younger trees. Almost all the lumber sold today comes from farmed trees. All the paper we use today also comes from farmed trees. Even most Christmas trees are farmed.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The rise in CO2, if even relevant, could just as easily be blamed on cutting down large quantities of trees, many centuries old.
We don't cut down very many such trees.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Also, burning land, to clear it for development, was the common procedure, before we had heavy equipment to do it, less destructively.
Nope. Burning is still the usual method. Heavy equipment capable of removing forests is expensive.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Not to mention, those fires weren't controlled, least not very well, none too selective either.

They are actually controlled rather well. Fire is actually naturally selective. Large trees are harder to set on fire than grass, for example.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Modern days, we have wildfires out of control, all the time, usually not started intentionally, but a lot of acreage burns every year.

Most wildfires are grass fires, not forest fires. Properly maintaining a forest will reduce the chance and range of forest fires.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not just the CO2 released in the burning, but few plants and trees to take the CO2 out of the air.

Grass is an amazing plant. It will appear in literally days after a burn. Most CO2 is used by grass and ocean plants (like algaes and smaller plants).
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wildfires happen naturally too, it's not just a man-made CO2 thing. I've been told many times, that burning wood is 'carbon-neutral', and doesn't matter. There is only on kind of CO2, chemically. Regardless of source, it either matters, or it don't.

It don't. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth using surface infrared. No gas or vapor does.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change, is more of a political, economic, and environmental movement. More like a doomsday cult, than any actual crisis. It appeals to people who want power and control over others (deniers are squashed like bugs, under a lot of fancy math and computer models, terminology).

The Church of Global Warming denies both science and mathematics. A computer model is not mathematics. It is effectively a random number generator of type randU. In other words, the computer model produces the data the programmer wants it to produce.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You don't have to actual believe in the doomsday aspect, to want to be involved.
The Church of Global Warming requires the doomsday aspect. It's the only way they can justify turning the economy upside down and introducing dictatorships and oligarchies that are required to implement any 'fixes'.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The people pumping out the most CO2, are also the ones polluting the air, water, even the ground we grow our food on.
This is known as a void argument. It fails to describe who these 'people' are, what the 'pollution' is, etc.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Can't get them to clean it up on their own, because it's the right thing to do,

Cleaning up pollution is done by private industry. It's not only the right thing to do, it makes an industry more profitable. My business is in producing instrumentation for process control, aerospace, medical, and entertainment uses. A big part of my business is producing systems to allow industry to run more efficiently (less pollution) and to help industry detect any pollution that does occur and monitor it's cleanup. I have personally done more to clean up Puget Sound in this area than any of the whiners could ever hope to dream. It's a profitable and successful business.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change will force them green and clean.
No, it won't. 'Climate change' is a buzzword. It has no meaning. The phrase 'global warming' has the same problem. These phrases can only be defined by themselves.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The vast majority of the population, is energy dependent, the bulk of which come from fossil fuels. A lot of folks would really die, if we were to just pull the plug on everything fossil fuel.

(assuming carbon based fuels since fossils don't burn) This is True.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Whole lot more, I suspect, than if the doomsday visions are even remotely correct. We simply can't make the change over to green energy in a few decades, without some huge gaps in service.

There is no color in energy (other than light). The use of the word 'green' is also a meaningless buzzword used for political purposes. Energy systems that are 'green', such as wind and solar, require tremendous amounts of real estate to function. They produce very little power per acre and are the most expensive forms of power generation in use. They are piddle power.

Here in Washington, we have a lot of wind farms. ALL of them combined do not produce the equivalent power of a single mid-sized coal plant.

Solar is the same way.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Whole lot of money involved, the new, green version, is going to be provided by some newer players, and some of the older providers are going to be destroyed. Big shift on how much you pay, who you pay, and likely fewer options.

The market will decide. It always does. It is best to use the energy source available in your area. Here in the NW, we have a lot of mountains and rain, making hydroelectric power quite practical for fixed power supplies. In flat areas with less rain, coal, oil, or natural gas become the most practical sources.

Mobile power supplies have different requirements. You have to take your fuel with you. Electric cars can get their power from fixed power supplies, but they have a limited range and a very long time required to refuel them. They can make a good commuter car. Gasoline cars can travel about the same distance on a tank of gas, but they can be refueled in 1 to 2 minutes, making them far more practical for cross country use.

Aircraft have to lift their fuel along with themselves and their payload. It requires a lot of energy for flight (which is why bird eat high energy foods like nuts, berries, insects, etc.!). For our machines, gasoline and kerosene make optimal fuels (depending on the size and mission of the aircraft).

HarveyH55 wrote:
And of course, there is a ton of research and development work, which costs a lot of money.

That cost, however, is spread over many companies and government programs.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Folk with nation/corporate checkbooks, need answers and solutions fast, which always raise the price, reduces quality.
This is a myth. Capitalism tends to produce products that didn't exist before, improve existing products making them cheaper and higher quality, and produce those products that people actually want. It is the only system that creates wealth. Socialism in any form and only exist by stealing wealth.
HarveyH55 wrote:
As legislation moves to control use of fossil fuels,
Such legislation is unconstitutional in the United States.
HarveyH55 wrote:
companies dependent on them, are in a race mitigate the effects, or find quick and cost effective alternatives.
If such regulations are put into place, companies will leave or shut down.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not the possible warming effect that drives them, it's loss of their business, by 'Carbon-tax'. Politics, is about power, to control the course.
True. It is about implementing socialism in the form of fascism by oligarchy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Politicians really like being able to decide who get punished, and who gets reward, and of course who gets to profit most.

Not all of them! Certainly this is what the liberals like to do.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Pres. Trump should have started investigating the finances of most of our career politicians, he'd have found much of his own troubles quiet down quickly. I'm sure his tax records aren't any more shady, than most of the rich folks, legal, just not ethical.

He doesn't have that authority. Tax records are shady not because of the people filling them out, they are shady because the IRS can't even define what 'income' actually means.
HarveyH55 wrote:
CO2 isn't major component of the atmosphere, under 1%.

The Mauna Loa station is currently reporting 0.04%.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The number changes so much, depends on where you look. Mostly, it's around on tenth of a percent, but being generous, should cover most, with the 1% allowance.

CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, so the Mauna Loa data (there are actually a lot of problems with that station it turns out), does not indicate global atmospheric CO2 content. That value is unknown.
HarveyH55 wrote:
That's spread out, over a very huge volume. I just can't imagine how it could possible have much of an influence on anything, least not in any catastrophic role. Something natural, normal, and actually needed for life on this planet. Every living thing on earth, contains carbon, and it all can't come straight out of the ground sources. Plants need the CO2, and many lifeforms feed off the plants.

Here you touch on the right thing. CO2 has NO capability to warm the Earth using surface infrared light. No gas or vapor does.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems to me, that this planet must have been much warmer, for long periods, to produce the vegetation to feed the giant fossils, called dinosaurs. Lot of plants like hot and humid climates. We can see the effects of cold, every fall and winter. Most of the planet had to been more like a year-round spring/summer.
Unknown. We can only speculate. We can't go back in time to look and see what actually happened. This is why science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We pull a whole lot of fossil fuels from the ground, which had to be a t some point, a living, carbon-based, organism.

Fossils don't burn. Neither coal, oil, nor methane are fossils. None of them come from previous living matter, even though bacteria can produce methane.

We can synthesize oil and methane from nonbiological material in a few hours. We actually do this on an industrial basis. The only requirements are a source of CO or CO2, H2, and high heat and high pressure in the presence of iron (Fe). The result is various length hydrocarbons...otherwise known as light, sweet, crude oil.

These are conditions found naturally underground.

Both oil and methane are found far deeper than any fossil layer. So is coal. We do not yet know where coal comes from (just speculations).

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm not sure how long it takes, from living/breathing, to black goo, deep in the earth.
It doesn't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I know swamp gas doesn't take long, methane, another natural, greenhouse gas...
No gas or vapor, including methane is capable of warming the Earth using surface infrared.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The point being, all that carbon-based fuel, use to be part of the ecosystem on the surface, part of the environment, which seem idealistic for supporting life.

Nope.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Those fossil fuels, hold a very key component to life, but have been leeching out of the environment for a long time.

Nope. Carbon based fuels do not come from fossils. Fossils don't burn. Both oil and methane are renewable fuels.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I tend to believe the warming, is normal, natural, and a good thing for the planet.

We have no idea what the temperature of Earth is.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Although the burning of fossil fuels, is pretty nasty for the environment,

Properly burned, coal, oil, and natural gas, produce nothing more than carbon dioxide and water. Improperly burned, these fuels will produce soot that is a particulate pollution, but is easily washed out of the air by rain. Soot is wasted fuel. Burning sour fuels (fuel that contains sulfur compounds) will produce sulfur dioxides, but these are easily scrubbed out or eliminated from the production of oil products such as gasoline.

High temperatures can oxidize nitrogen in the air, producing NO or NO2. These NOx gases can combine with soot and naturally occurring ozone to produce photochemical smog. This again can be washed out of the atmosphere by rain.

Burning also produces ozone. This highly toxic gas is only really dangerous in higher concentrations than what comes out of a car. It's that 'fresh rain' smell you detect before the onset of a thunderstorm (which also produces ozone).

Ozone is a strong oxidizer. That's what makes it such an effective 'odor eater'. Both homes and many businesses intentionally produce low levels of ozone for just such a purpose.

HarveyH55 wrote:
releasing the CO2 is also a good thing.
True. The Earth has dangerously low levels of CO2 right now. Plant growth is limited because of it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I tend to believe a warmer planet, will put more water vapor in the air, and keep us from getting too hot.

Water vapor does not cool or warm the Earth.
Liquid water (such as you see in visible clouds) does have a high specific heat (the highest of all common materials). It takes more energy to get a cloud to increase or decrease its temperature by a single degree than it does for bone dry air. It doesn't change the average temperature, but it does have the capability to limit the swing in temperature.

Water vapor does not have this high specific heat (although it is still a bit higher than dry air).
HarveyH55 wrote:
That water vapor will condense and fall.

Not necessarily. To get water vapor to condense, you must lower the temperature of the air to the point of 100% humidity. Only then will visible water form as a cloud or fog. This is the 'dew point' of the air. It is the temperature that water vapor becomes visible liquid water.

To get it to rain, you need more. You need to continue to feed that cloud with more and more water vapor, allowing it to condense, until the suspended liquid water gets so thick that droplets start combining by themselves.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Lots of places will get rain, where it's been rare.
The reason deserts are where they are has little to do with global water vapor.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Lot of desert land could be green again,
Deserts occur where they do because a mountain blocks moist air flow, or because the area is under the descending node of a Hadley cell (generally producing a high pressure area). Rain tends to occur near rising nodes of a Hadley cell. The jet stream itself is caused by two Hadley cells that have conflicting edges (one is rising, the other is falling). These are normally around 49 deg latitude. Deserts tend to form near 33 deg latitude.
HarveyH55 wrote:
maybe a good place for the flood area people to consider moving to.

I've found that people living in flood prone areas actually LIKE living there. They like all that water. People living in the bayou, the Everglades, the Keys, like it to much you couldn't blast 'em out.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Think the oceans will mostly stay the same, maybe even drop a little.

We'll never know. It's another one of those things we can't measure.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We can change ourselves, prepare, and adapt, move to better, safer locations.

People live in everything from the swamp to the desert. In everywhere from the equatorial region, to the South pole. People north of the Arctic circle, and in as hot a place as Death Valley. They live in the dry, desert regions in the high plateaus of the Himalayas. They live in the swamps of the Everglades. They live in the jungles of Brazil. They live in tornado prone places like Oklahoma, or Earthquake prone areas like L.A, or alligator infested and hurricane prone areas like Florida and the Gulf States. They are all pretty happy with where they live.

THAT is adaptability!
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, it's human nature to want to own, and hold on to things, places.

Actually, it's not. We all die. We can't take it with us. That is part of human nature.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But, if we want to survive, we sometimes have to let go of the past, and figure out what we can make do, with what we have available. Planet will keep spinning, follow the same path around the sun, we can only roll with it.

Oh, we roll with it! Quite well too!

Like most people here, much of what you know comes from grade school. This is the same grade school that teaches a tomato or a carrot is a vegetable (they aren't) or that a peanut is a nut (it isn't).

Schools today teach of a lot of crap. The idea that oil comes from dinosaurs is frankly quite bit old fashioned and outright wrong. That one is so pervasive an idea that Sinclair Oil even uses a brontosaurus in their logo. (This is a regional chain based in Salt Lake City, UT).

Major oil fields tend to occur near the edges of tectonic plates, especially where spreading action is taking place. The mid-east. The North Sea. The Gulf of Mexico and on up into Texas and even Pennsylvania. The North Slope fields of Alaska. Off the coast of California (a translational plate edge). Oil can actually be found anywhere you care to drill, as long as you are willing to go deep enough (well drilling is charged by the foot).

Currently, we have more oil than ever. It is cheaper (commodity price wise) than at most any other time in history. We are awash in oil

We have more trees then ever in the United States too, thanks to companies like Weyerhauser or Georgia-Pacific that farm them on a large scale.

It's important to understand just how pervasive the various falsehoods that are taught in grade school are. A lot of it is repeated right through University classes.

Much of what people think they know, they don't. Much of what they think they don't know, they do, but they can't explain why or even if they know it.

The Church of Global Warming denies science. It denies mathematics. It denies logic. It denies philosophy, which defines things like science, mathematics, logic, religion, and reality.


The Parrot Killer
10-11-2018 03:28
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Thanks for the lengthy critique. I use 'Climate Change' more as a title, for the group press for change. Really don't see much actual science in there. I use some of the common phrases, buzz words, mostly sarcastically, so anyone reading, might follow along, with the familiar wording. Climate Change believers have their own language, which doesn't usually mean what most would think, but they'll dump a whole lot of literature, and links, to help get you ontrack. Mostly a lot of lengthy nonsense, waste of time reading, or trying to comprehend. I think most just accept it, agree with it, just to fit in, and not appear silly and uneducated. I could careless about opinions, everyone has one, don't have to be right all the time. We learn a lot from mistakes, either our own, or from others.

You are right about it being like a church. I call it a cult, a doomsday cult. It takes a lot of blind faith, and salvation only comes if you follow without question, since there is so little time. All the articles, are based on other papers, which are based on other work, and so on... But you can't really get to an actual raw sources. Maybe if you had a lot of spare time and patience to read ever word, and follow every reference in the literature. It wears most people down quick, but they learn all kinds of impressive things to share, that they really don't understand.

I don't recall any claims of stopping the catastrophic effects, or reversing the damage, just slowing the rate. There have been a few devices, past year or so, that claim to pull CO2 from the air, but nothing that would keep up with what is claimed to being produced. I believe that CO2 is vital to life on this planet. Plants use it, and energy from the sun, to make sugars and oils, stored energy. Guess it's the same energy that is suppose to be warming the planet. More healthy, happy, plants, less energy to warm the planet.

Another thing I find amusing, is the small temperature change, over a long period of time. Temperature varies with seasons, locations, even night and day. Don't know how they are measuring it, in any scientific form, to base these predictions of doom. 2 degrees, just is that much of a difference, to cause a lot of grief.

Pretty sure the truth will come out pretty soon, they seem a little desperate. Weather isn't climate, least during the cold, winter months. But strong storms are so bad, because of CO2, least past couple of years. Can help to think of the door-to-door salvation salesmen/women, Jehovah Witnesses, who hand you some literature, and proceed to connect current events, to the 'End of Times'. They haven't called in many years, sort of miss chatting with them. Kind of wonder if they use Global Warming as a sign too...
10-11-2018 11:55
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Thanks for the lengthy critique. I use 'Climate Change' more as a title, for the group press for change. Really don't see much actual science in there. I use some of the common phrases, buzz words, mostly sarcastically, so anyone reading, might follow along, with the familiar wording. Climate Change believers have their own language, which doesn't usually mean what most would think, but they'll dump a whole lot of literature, and links, to help get you ontrack. Mostly a lot of lengthy nonsense, waste of time reading, or trying to comprehend. I think most just accept it, agree with it, just to fit in, and not appear silly and uneducated. I could careless about opinions, everyone has one, don't have to be right all the time. We learn a lot from mistakes, either our own, or from others.

You are right about it being like a church. I call it a cult, a doomsday cult. It takes a lot of blind faith, and salvation only comes if you follow without question, since there is so little time. All the articles, are based on other papers, which are based on other work, and so on... But you can't really get to an actual raw sources. Maybe if you had a lot of spare time and patience to read ever word, and follow every reference in the literature. It wears most people down quick, but they learn all kinds of impressive things to share, that they really don't understand.

I don't recall any claims of stopping the catastrophic effects, or reversing the damage, just slowing the rate. There have been a few devices, past year or so, that claim to pull CO2 from the air, but nothing that would keep up with what is claimed to being produced. I believe that CO2 is vital to life on this planet. Plants use it, and energy from the sun, to make sugars and oils, stored energy. Guess it's the same energy that is suppose to be warming the planet. More healthy, happy, plants, less energy to warm the planet.

Another thing I find amusing, is the small temperature change, over a long period of time. Temperature varies with seasons, locations, even night and day. Don't know how they are measuring it, in any scientific form, to base these predictions of doom. 2 degrees, just is that much of a difference, to cause a lot of grief.

Pretty sure the truth will come out pretty soon, they seem a little desperate. Weather isn't climate, least during the cold, winter months. But strong storms are so bad, because of CO2, least past couple of years. Can help to think of the door-to-door salvation salesmen/women, Jehovah Witnesses, who hand you some literature, and proceed to connect current events, to the 'End of Times'. They haven't called in many years, sort of miss chatting with them. Kind of wonder if they use Global Warming as a sign too...


Yes.

Try this;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL7CMqf3RLc
10-11-2018 21:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Thanks for the lengthy critique. I use 'Climate Change' more as a title, for the group press for change. Really don't see much actual science in there. I use some of the common phrases, buzz words, mostly sarcastically, so anyone reading, might follow along, with the familiar wording. Climate Change believers have their own language, which doesn't usually mean what most would think, but they'll dump a whole lot of literature, and links, to help get you ontrack. Mostly a lot of lengthy nonsense, waste of time reading, or trying to comprehend. I think most just accept it, agree with it, just to fit in, and not appear silly and uneducated. I could careless about opinions, everyone has one, don't have to be right all the time. We learn a lot from mistakes, either our own, or from others.

You are right about it being like a church. I call it a cult, a doomsday cult. It takes a lot of blind faith, and salvation only comes if you follow without question, since there is so little time. All the articles, are based on other papers, which are based on other work, and so on... But you can't really get to an actual raw sources. Maybe if you had a lot of spare time and patience to read ever word, and follow every reference in the literature. It wears most people down quick, but they learn all kinds of impressive things to share, that they really don't understand.

I don't recall any claims of stopping the catastrophic effects, or reversing the damage, just slowing the rate. There have been a few devices, past year or so, that claim to pull CO2 from the air, but nothing that would keep up with what is claimed to being produced. I believe that CO2 is vital to life on this planet. Plants use it, and energy from the sun, to make sugars and oils, stored energy. Guess it's the same energy that is suppose to be warming the planet. More healthy, happy, plants, less energy to warm the planet.

Another thing I find amusing, is the small temperature change, over a long period of time. Temperature varies with seasons, locations, even night and day. Don't know how they are measuring it, in any scientific form, to base these predictions of doom. 2 degrees, just is that much of a difference, to cause a lot of grief.

Pretty sure the truth will come out pretty soon, they seem a little desperate. Weather isn't climate, least during the cold, winter months. But strong storms are so bad, because of CO2, least past couple of years. Can help to think of the door-to-door salvation salesmen/women, Jehovah Witnesses, who hand you some literature, and proceed to connect current events, to the 'End of Times'. They haven't called in many years, sort of miss chatting with them. Kind of wonder if they use Global Warming as a sign too...

I know what you mean. Temperature variations of 2 deg F, or 0.2 deg F, don't really mean much when temperature will vary by as much as 100 deg F or more at most given locations in a single season.

The truth is out already out in the form of existing theories of science, the most blatant of which the Church of Global Warming ignores is the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They also deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. The mathematics they deny is statistical and sometimes probability mathematics.

Storm activity isn't being measured. Hurricanes, however, are. According to historical data at the National Hurricane Center, there has been no increase in the number or intensity of storms.

A 'bad' storm is a subjective term. If it damages your house, most people consider that to be a 'bad' storm, even though it may have been less intense than one just last week that didn't damage your house.

Climate is usually defined as something similar to 'weather over a long time'. The 'long time' is not specified. There is no global weather. 'Climate change' is just another buzzword for 'global warming', since THAT buzzword was getting old. It was just a way of changing the name to make the Church of Global Warming look like something different.

You can only tell a lie so many times. These people knowingly lie (hence the attempt to change the name). They know when their lie isn't being believed anymore.

The truth IS out. No one can describe how many thermometers are used to measure the temperature of the Earth. The 'greenhouse gas' model cannot work in the same environment as the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

A theory of science must be falsifiable (that is the definition of science itself). No theory of science can conflict with any other theory of science (external consistency). No theory at all, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a logical fallacy (internal consistency).

Since 'global warming' and 'climate change' are meaningless buzzwords that can only be defined by themselves, any theory built with them is necessarily a void argument fallacy. No theory is possible.

Gases like CO2, methane, water vapor, etc. DO absorb surface infrared light. When they do, they become slightly warmer. This is no different than the surface heating the air by conduction (contact) with a warmer surface. It's just a different path for heating. The air does not get hotter than the land in this way. It is still cooler than the land that heated it (either by conduction or by radiance).

The 'greenhouse gas' model attempts to use colder air to heat an already warmer surface. This is trying to make heat flow 'uphill', so to speak, and is not possible according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I call this argument of theirs the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument.

Another argument they use is I call the Magick Blanket Argument. They consider CO2 or <pick your favorite magick gas here> to act like an insulator, reducing heat, and keeping thermal energy on the ground. This argument depends on visible light heating the surface (it doesn't), and keeping infrared light from escaping (thus reducing the radiance of Earth).

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that you can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. This law is colorblind. It does not care about a particular frequency of light. It combines all frequencies. The Church of Global Warming is constantly trying to change this law to get around this. The Magick Blanket argument also leaves the upper atmosphere colder than it otherwise would be. This is a reduction of entropy to do this, and is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

Occasionally I see the Church of Global Warming deny the 1st law of thermodynamics, by creating energy out of nothing, claiming this energy is from the Magick Holy Gas.

I have also seen them deny Kirchoff's Law as well, attempting to split things up, when Kirchoff clearly describes that it makes no difference at all. (One usually runs into this law in electronics, but it applies to all energy nodes).

Thus, the Church of Global Warming denies science. They will do anything they can to try to change these theories and laws to maintain their fundamentalist view.

Philosophy defines religion and what it is. One of the best definitions I've heard is based on the common characteristics of all religions.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument. This by itself is not a fallacy. Only the failure to recognize a circular argument is the fallacy.

In Christianity, for example, it is the initial circular argument that Christ exists, and He is who He says He is (namely, the Son of God). All other arguments in Christianity stem from this initial argument.

Atheism, too, has an initial circular argument which states that no god or gods exist. All other arguments in atheism stem from this initial circular argument. These are circular because it is not possible to prove whether any god or gods do or do not exist.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

One that tries to prove their religion is failing to recognize the circular nature of their religion. This is what a fundamentalist does. It is one that commits the circular argument fallacy.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist dooms-day religion. So is the Church of the Ozone Hole and the Church of Green. These have a common stem: they all stem from the Church of Karl Marx.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-11-2018 21:54
12-11-2018 19:21
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
'Climate Change' does include all the key parts of a cult. Some would have to be pretty well dedicated, to read and be able to regurgitate the contents of the vast amount of literature, required, to minimally follow a long with the crowd, maybe someday get to meet, and discuss the topic with one of the higher priests. Each paper, is only a small piece of the puzzle. You want to understand one paper, you are referred to several others to read, which still doesn't answer any questions, but cites several nore papers and books. Spend all your time reading, you neglect family and friends, who don't understand, or care that much about 'Climate Change'. You got all this new knowledge, want to share and discuss, maybe actually get to the answer to the question, that got it all started in the first place. That's about the point when all is lost, the new friends will help you dig in deeper, they are the only ones who understand you anymore, and interest in discussing cult matters. All you really get is more confusion, fewer answers, you tend to accept things, that you don't think are quite right, but everything else starts to make more sense. Gets to be a habit, just accept everything as true, on faith that the high priest know what they are doing. You no longer question, there is no other truth.

Not sure about Marxism, but definitely a strong move to socialism. The real catastrophe isn't the severe weather, but the period of anarchy that comes, between on form of government falling, and the new one coming to power. Never a smooth transition, always a lot of resistance.
12-11-2018 20:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
'Climate Change' does include all the key parts of a cult. Some would have to be pretty well dedicated, to read and be able to regurgitate the contents of the vast amount of literature, required, to minimally follow a long with the crowd, maybe someday get to meet, and discuss the topic with one of the higher priests. Each paper, is only a small piece of the puzzle. You want to understand one paper, you are referred to several others to read, which still doesn't answer any questions, but cites several nore papers and books. Spend all your time reading, you neglect family and friends, who don't understand, or care that much about 'Climate Change'. You got all this new knowledge, want to share and discuss, maybe actually get to the answer to the question, that got it all started in the first place. That's about the point when all is lost, the new friends will help you dig in deeper, they are the only ones who understand you anymore, and interest in discussing cult matters. All you really get is more confusion, fewer answers, you tend to accept things, that you don't think are quite right, but everything else starts to make more sense. Gets to be a habit, just accept everything as true, on faith that the high priest know what they are doing. You no longer question, there is no other truth.

Not sure about Marxism, but definitely a strong move to socialism. The real catastrophe isn't the severe weather, but the period of anarchy that comes, between on form of government falling, and the new one coming to power. Never a smooth transition, always a lot of resistance.


Socialism IS Marxism. It can only exist by stealing wealth. It requires a dictatorship or an oligarchy (dictatorship by committee) to implement it. It comes in two forms: communism, where the government simply takes your property and business; and fascism, where the government lets you keep the property and business but tells you how to run it (while you take all the risks). BOTH forms are described by Karl Marx. Both Hitler and Mussolini were big fans of Karl Marx and even talked with him, just as Stalin did in Russia.

Capitalism is the only system that creates wealth. It best operates under a republic, such as the United States as it was originally organized.

Under Marxism, the independent corporation must be destroyed as it is an 'evil' entity and does not support the State. Similarly, an independent religion must be destroyed in favor of the State as God.

Anarchy is not the goal. The goal is to implement fascism by oligarchy. There will be no anarchy.

But there may be a civil war.


The Parrot Killer
19-11-2018 21:52
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
I'm skeptical because Global Warming (Climate Change) is a buzzword which can only be defined in a circular manner... It is a Void Argument.

Beyond that truth, GW proponents make regular use of the "Inversion Fallacy" tactic... Global Warming worshipers proclaim that it is "everybody else" who is denying science (they refer to these people as 'science deniers') while it is actually THEY who deny various laws of science, such as the SB Law. They don't realize that they are religious because they are blinded by their fundamentalism...
19-11-2018 22:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
This an absolutely false assertion created by Nightmare. Climate change is defined as the long term change in the average of Mean Global Temperature.

Talking about circular arguments is like saying we cannot tell the length of a day or night because they change with the seasons.

I happen to disagree with the idea of man-made climate change due to CO2 but on the basis or real scientific evidence and not wild-assed guesses. The sun has a specific spectroscopic bandwidth and the three very small bands in which CO2 can absorb ANY energy are in a section of that spectrum that contains very little energy. I argue that all of that incoming energy has been absorbed completely at levels of CO2 around 200. After striking the ground some rare kinds of terrain can radiate energy in those missing bands but I recon that they are absorbed completely within a foot or two of the ground with another 50 ppm. Though another paper I read claims that it is 10 feet. This difference appears to be with calculating the likelihood of a photon of the correct spectrum hitting a CO2 molecule.

So at levels of 250 ppm there is no more energy for CO2 to absorb and hence any additional CO2 has no environmental effects.

By the way - the precursor to NOAA also reached this conclusion in 1905.
19-11-2018 22:53
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
'Climate Change' does include all the key parts of a cult. Some would have to be pretty well dedicated, to read and be able to regurgitate the contents of the vast amount of literature, required, to minimally follow a long with the crowd, maybe someday get to meet, and discuss the topic with one of the higher priests. Each paper, is only a small piece of the puzzle. You want to understand one paper, you are referred to several others to read, which still doesn't answer any questions, but cites several nore papers and books. Spend all your time reading, you neglect family and friends, who don't understand, or care that much about 'Climate Change'. You got all this new knowledge, want to share and discuss, maybe actually get to the answer to the question, that got it all started in the first place. That's about the point when all is lost, the new friends will help you dig in deeper, they are the only ones who understand you anymore, and interest in discussing cult matters. All you really get is more confusion, fewer answers, you tend to accept things, that you don't think are quite right, but everything else starts to make more sense. Gets to be a habit, just accept everything as true, on faith that the high priest know what they are doing. You no longer question, there is no other truth.

Not sure about Marxism, but definitely a strong move to socialism. The real catastrophe isn't the severe weather, but the period of anarchy that comes, between on form of government falling, and the new one coming to power. Never a smooth transition, always a lot of resistance.


Socialism IS Marxism. It can only exist by stealing wealth. It requires a dictatorship or an oligarchy (dictatorship by committee) to implement it. It comes in two forms: communism, where the government simply takes your property and business; and fascism, where the government lets you keep the property and business but tells you how to run it (while you take all the risks). BOTH forms are described by Karl Marx. Both Hitler and Mussolini were big fans of Karl Marx and even talked with him, just as Stalin did in Russia.

Capitalism is the only system that creates wealth. It best operates under a republic, such as the United States as it was originally organized.

Under Marxism, the independent corporation must be destroyed as it is an 'evil' entity and does not support the State. Similarly, an independent religion must be destroyed in favor of the State as God.

Anarchy is not the goal. The goal is to implement fascism by oligarchy. There will be no anarchy.

But there may be a civil war.


We are in total agreement on this subject. The question that we should have foremost in our minds is why schools no longer teach the real history of this civilization or the true definitions of socialism, communism and fascism which are all have the same end.
19-11-2018 23:34
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Wake wrote:
This an absolutely false assertion created by Nightmare. Climate change is defined as the long term change in the average of Mean Global Temperature.

And that definition is a circular definition. It is essentially saying "climate change IS climate change". It remains a Void Argument.

Also, I'm not sure how one would even go about measuring a "global temperature"... It would take a heck of a lot of thermometers, for starters...

Wake wrote:
Talking about circular arguments is like saying we cannot tell the length of a day or night because they change with the seasons.

Non-sequitur... not sure what any of that has to do with circular arguments or circular reasoning...

Wake wrote:
I happen to disagree with the idea of man-made climate change due to CO2 but on the basis or real scientific evidence and not wild-assed guesses.

What is 'real scientific' evidence and how does it differ from 'fake scientific' evidence and 'non-scientific' evidence? Evidence is evidence, and science only makes use of conflicting evidence, not supporting evidence.
20-11-2018 11:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
Wake wrote:
This an absolutely false assertion created by Nightmare. Climate change is defined as the long term change in the average of Mean Global Temperature.

Talking about circular arguments is like saying we cannot tell the length of a day or night because they change with the seasons.

I happen to disagree with the idea of man-made climate change due to CO2 but on the basis or real scientific evidence and not wild-assed guesses. The sun has a specific spectroscopic bandwidth and the three very small bands in which CO2 can absorb ANY energy are in a section of that spectrum that contains very little energy. I argue that all of that incoming energy has been absorbed completely at levels of CO2 around 200. After striking the ground some rare kinds of terrain can radiate energy in those missing bands but I recon that they are absorbed completely within a foot or two of the ground with another 50 ppm. Though another paper I read claims that it is 10 feet. This difference appears to be with calculating the likelihood of a photon of the correct spectrum hitting a CO2 molecule.

So at levels of 250 ppm there is no more energy for CO2 to absorb and hence any additional CO2 has no environmental effects.

By the way - the precursor to NOAA also reached this conclusion in 1905.


Very well said.

Personally I think that arguing about the finer points of if it exists in such an advanced physics way is pointless however.

The vast majority of people will never underestand the slightest about that. Those we have here, like t or not, are far above the general population in science awareness.

I think that the best attack point is to show that there simply is no problem from a slight warming. That all the catastrophies are just insignificant none problems.
20-11-2018 18:42
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
It won't allow me to attach a 126 kb image.
Wouldn't it be funny if all the nuclear testing that's been done is what's created the problem? But that would require a better understanding of physics to understand what kind of a problem it might pose. Although I'm not sure how much energy is in a thermonuclear explosion. I'm not even sure why they compare it to the Sun for.
Of course wouldn't it be ironic if North Korea's nuclear testing is what caused the earthquake that took out their underground facility? Kind of doubt myself that something a man can make could do something like that. Just doesn't seem reasonable if you consider logic. Doesn't seem like something small could have much energy in it if you ask me.
Edited on 20-11-2018 19:03
20-11-2018 19:07
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
This an absolutely false assertion created by Nightmare. Climate change is defined as the long term change in the average of Mean Global Temperature.

Talking about circular arguments is like saying we cannot tell the length of a day or night because they change with the seasons.

I happen to disagree with the idea of man-made climate change due to CO2 but on the basis or real scientific evidence and not wild-assed guesses. The sun has a specific spectroscopic bandwidth and the three very small bands in which CO2 can absorb ANY energy are in a section of that spectrum that contains very little energy. I argue that all of that incoming energy has been absorbed completely at levels of CO2 around 200. After striking the ground some rare kinds of terrain can radiate energy in those missing bands but I recon that they are absorbed completely within a foot or two of the ground with another 50 ppm. Though another paper I read claims that it is 10 feet. This difference appears to be with calculating the likelihood of a photon of the correct spectrum hitting a CO2 molecule.

So at levels of 250 ppm there is no more energy for CO2 to absorb and hence any additional CO2 has no environmental effects.

By the way - the precursor to NOAA also reached this conclusion in 1905.


Very well said.

Personally I think that arguing about the finer points of if it exists in such an advanced physics way is pointless however.

The vast majority of people will never underestand the slightest about that. Those we have here, like t or not, are far above the general population in science awareness.

I think that the best attack point is to show that there simply is no problem from a slight warming. That all the catastrophies are just insignificant none problems.


Actually there hasn't been any warming since at least 1979. Obama ordered NASA to prepare a paper "proving" the existence of AGW. This is quite easy to do. All you have to do is use all of the ground based weather station data. Most of these stations are in or close to major cities or large and growing population. Thus the population growth over the last century has caused massive growth in the Urban Heat Island Effect - heat retained in concrete structures and highways. These measurements which are completely unpredictable totally overwhelm the rural measurements around these urban sites.

NASA HAD the weather satellite data from the weather satellite systems which were launched and active in 1979 but chose to ignore it in order to follow orders from the office of the President.

Here is the "proof" of AGW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

You can observe that the "warming" occurred exactly at the time of the most massive urban growth - about 1979 onward.

If you use the NASA data from the weather satellites which are the true way of measuring MGT you get: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2018_v6.jpg

And from that you can see that there is no other changes in temperature around the zero point. Actually averaging that 40 year period shows a DECREASE in temperature and not an increase. And what's more the later part of this which appears to be a rising temperature of 1/10th the other chart is during the 11 year solar cycle in which sun spots reach their peak causing warmer temperatures on Earth due to solar heating of the upper atmosphere. (see "solar maximum").

What warming we have had is NOT from anything man has had to do with it but from the recovery from the dual Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum which pulled the entire solar system into a much lower temperature. On the Earth we saw this as the Little Ice Age.

The recovery of the Sun from these minimums only takes about a decade but the Earth is a large place and takes a very long time to heat back up to "normal" temperatures. So we've been recovering since about 1860 noticably.

We are a water planet with 70% of the surface covered with water and water is a famous heat reservoir so it takes a large amount of time to warm. The Greenland low altitude glaciers that formed in the Little Ice Age are almost back to their pre-Little Ice Age positions. The polar ice is presently acting as it did before the LIA and melts and reforms depending upon the normal chaotic weather patterns.

In 1650 or so (pre-LIA) a Portuguese ship's Captain sailed from Japan to Portugal through the Northern Passage. Now, the Northern Passage we have today is a very difficult passage that is only passable one year out of three or four. And in the 1600's there was little way of carrying food and navigation was extremely rudimentary so passages had to be very fast in order to have a living crew once into the warmer waters of the Gulf Stream and a rapid way back home. This means that this ship had to sail almost directly across the Arctic Ocean which had to be almost clear of ice. In these days navigation consisted of shooting the height of the Sun until it reached "Solar Noon" which would give you the latitude of your position from a chart that showed the change in solar noon per day of a year.

So extremes of weather are perfectly normal. Politicians since this country began have been garnering more and more power. This AGW was nothing more than a fear tactic to gather more power.
20-11-2018 21:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
This an absolutely false assertion created by Nightmare. Climate change is defined as the long term change in the average of Mean Global Temperature.

Talking about circular arguments is like saying we cannot tell the length of a day or night because they change with the seasons.

I happen to disagree with the idea of man-made climate change due to CO2 but on the basis or real scientific evidence and not wild-assed guesses. The sun has a specific spectroscopic bandwidth and the three very small bands in which CO2 can absorb ANY energy are in a section of that spectrum that contains very little energy. I argue that all of that incoming energy has been absorbed completely at levels of CO2 around 200. After striking the ground some rare kinds of terrain can radiate energy in those missing bands but I recon that they are absorbed completely within a foot or two of the ground with another 50 ppm. Though another paper I read claims that it is 10 feet. This difference appears to be with calculating the likelihood of a photon of the correct spectrum hitting a CO2 molecule.

So at levels of 250 ppm there is no more energy for CO2 to absorb and hence any additional CO2 has no environmental effects.

By the way - the precursor to NOAA also reached this conclusion in 1905.


Very well said.

Personally I think that arguing about the finer points of if it exists in such an advanced physics way is pointless however.

The vast majority of people will never underestand the slightest about that. Those we have here, like t or not, are far above the general population in science awareness.

I think that the best attack point is to show that there simply is no problem from a slight warming. That all the catastrophies are just insignificant none problems.


Actually there hasn't been any warming since at least 1979. Obama ordered NASA to prepare a paper "proving" the existence of AGW. This is quite easy to do. All you have to do is use all of the ground based weather station data. Most of these stations are in or close to major cities or large and growing population. Thus the population growth over the last century has caused massive growth in the Urban Heat Island Effect - heat retained in concrete structures and highways. These measurements which are completely unpredictable totally overwhelm the rural measurements around these urban sites.

NASA HAD the weather satellite data from the weather satellite systems which were launched and active in 1979 but chose to ignore it in order to follow orders from the office of the President.

Here is the "proof" of AGW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

You can observe that the "warming" occurred exactly at the time of the most massive urban growth - about 1979 onward.

If you use the NASA data from the weather satellites which are the true way of measuring MGT you get: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2018_v6.jpg

And from that you can see that there is no other changes in temperature around the zero point. Actually averaging that 40 year period shows a DECREASE in temperature and not an increase. And what's more the later part of this which appears to be a rising temperature of 1/10th the other chart is during the 11 year solar cycle in which sun spots reach their peak causing warmer temperatures on Earth due to solar heating of the upper atmosphere. (see "solar maximum").

What warming we have had is NOT from anything man has had to do with it but from the recovery from the dual Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum which pulled the entire solar system into a much lower temperature. On the Earth we saw this as the Little Ice Age.

The recovery of the Sun from these minimums only takes about a decade but the Earth is a large place and takes a very long time to heat back up to "normal" temperatures. So we've been recovering since about 1860 noticably.

We are a water planet with 70% of the surface covered with water and water is a famous heat reservoir so it takes a large amount of time to warm. The Greenland low altitude glaciers that formed in the Little Ice Age are almost back to their pre-Little Ice Age positions. The polar ice is presently acting as it did before the LIA and melts and reforms depending upon the normal chaotic weather patterns.

In 1650 or so (pre-LIA) a Portuguese ship's Captain sailed from Japan to Portugal through the Northern Passage. Now, the Northern Passage we have today is a very difficult passage that is only passable one year out of three or four. And in the 1600's there was little way of carrying food and navigation was extremely rudimentary so passages had to be very fast in order to have a living crew once into the warmer waters of the Gulf Stream and a rapid way back home. This means that this ship had to sail almost directly across the Arctic Ocean which had to be almost clear of ice. In these days navigation consisted of shooting the height of the Sun until it reached "Solar Noon" which would give you the latitude of your position from a chart that showed the change in solar noon per day of a year.

So extremes of weather are perfectly normal. Politicians since this country began have been garnering more and more power. This AGW was nothing more than a fear tactic to gather more power.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2018 22:00
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
This an absolutely false assertion created by Nightmare. Climate change is defined as the long term change in the average of Mean Global Temperature.

Talking about circular arguments is like saying we cannot tell the length of a day or night because they change with the seasons.

I happen to disagree with the idea of man-made climate change due to CO2 but on the basis or real scientific evidence and not wild-assed guesses. The sun has a specific spectroscopic bandwidth and the three very small bands in which CO2 can absorb ANY energy are in a section of that spectrum that contains very little energy. I argue that all of that incoming energy has been absorbed completely at levels of CO2 around 200. After striking the ground some rare kinds of terrain can radiate energy in those missing bands but I recon that they are absorbed completely within a foot or two of the ground with another 50 ppm. Though another paper I read claims that it is 10 feet. This difference appears to be with calculating the likelihood of a photon of the correct spectrum hitting a CO2 molecule.

So at levels of 250 ppm there is no more energy for CO2 to absorb and hence any additional CO2 has no environmental effects.

By the way - the precursor to NOAA also reached this conclusion in 1905.


Very well said.

Personally I think that arguing about the finer points of if it exists in such an advanced physics way is pointless however.

The vast majority of people will never underestand the slightest about that. Those we have here, like t or not, are far above the general population in science awareness.

I think that the best attack point is to show that there simply is no problem from a slight warming. That all the catastrophies are just insignificant none problems.


Actually there hasn't been any warming since at least 1979. Obama ordered NASA to prepare a paper "proving" the existence of AGW. This is quite easy to do. All you have to do is use all of the ground based weather station data. Most of these stations are in or close to major cities or large and growing population. Thus the population growth over the last century has caused massive growth in the Urban Heat Island Effect - heat retained in concrete structures and highways. These measurements which are completely unpredictable totally overwhelm the rural measurements around these urban sites.

NASA HAD the weather satellite data from the weather satellite systems which were launched and active in 1979 but chose to ignore it in order to follow orders from the office of the President.

Here is the "proof" of AGW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

You can observe that the "warming" occurred exactly at the time of the most massive urban growth - about 1979 onward.

If you use the NASA data from the weather satellites which are the true way of measuring MGT you get: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2018_v6.jpg

And from that you can see that there is no other changes in temperature around the zero point. Actually averaging that 40 year period shows a DECREASE in temperature and not an increase. And what's more the later part of this which appears to be a rising temperature of 1/10th the other chart is during the 11 year solar cycle in which sun spots reach their peak causing warmer temperatures on Earth due to solar heating of the upper atmosphere. (see "solar maximum").

What warming we have had is NOT from anything man has had to do with it but from the recovery from the dual Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum which pulled the entire solar system into a much lower temperature. On the Earth we saw this as the Little Ice Age.

The recovery of the Sun from these minimums only takes about a decade but the Earth is a large place and takes a very long time to heat back up to "normal" temperatures. So we've been recovering since about 1860 noticably.

We are a water planet with 70% of the surface covered with water and water is a famous heat reservoir so it takes a large amount of time to warm. The Greenland low altitude glaciers that formed in the Little Ice Age are almost back to their pre-Little Ice Age positions. The polar ice is presently acting as it did before the LIA and melts and reforms depending upon the normal chaotic weather patterns.

In 1650 or so (pre-LIA) a Portuguese ship's Captain sailed from Japan to Portugal through the Northern Passage. Now, the Northern Passage we have today is a very difficult passage that is only passable one year out of three or four. And in the 1600's there was little way of carrying food and navigation was extremely rudimentary so passages had to be very fast in order to have a living crew once into the warmer waters of the Gulf Stream and a rapid way back home. This means that this ship had to sail almost directly across the Arctic Ocean which had to be almost clear of ice. In these days navigation consisted of shooting the height of the Sun until it reached "Solar Noon" which would give you the latitude of your position from a chart that showed the change in solar noon per day of a year.

So extremes of weather are perfectly normal. Politicians since this country began have been garnering more and more power. This AGW was nothing more than a fear tactic to gather more power.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Excuse me but your belief that an entire branch of science does not exist is totally incorrect.
20-11-2018 22:18
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Excuse me but your belief that an entire branch of science does not exist is totally incorrect.


What are you even talking about, Wake? Which branch of science is supposedly being denied?
21-11-2018 01:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Excuse me but your belief that an entire branch of science does not exist is totally incorrect.


What are you even talking about, Wake? Which branch of science is supposedly being denied?


Wake denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law. He also denies mathematics. He calls this a 'branch of science'.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 01:39
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Excuse me but your belief that an entire branch of science does not exist is totally incorrect.


What are you even talking about, Wake? Which branch of science is supposedly being denied?


Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs. Nightmare denies that you can tell the components of a materials by knowing its temperature and spectrum and equally knowing the material you can tell the amount of energy via its spectrum since that changes with temperature.

He has continued this sham for so long now that it is a running joke.
21-11-2018 01:50
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Excuse me but your belief that an entire branch of science does not exist is totally incorrect.


What are you even talking about, Wake? Which branch of science is supposedly being denied?


Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs. Nightmare denies that you can tell the components of a materials by knowing its temperature and spectrum and equally knowing the material you can tell the amount of energy via its spectrum since that changes with temperature.

He has continued this sham for so long now that it is a running joke.


Are you making some wild assed claim that elements have something like a ground state/rest mass and different states like n1, n2, etc.?
What a bunch of bullsh1t. Next you're going to say one electron per layer for every neutron/proton until you get into the Paulie Exclusion Principle.
This all total B. S. because I'm making stuff up to sound smart.
It'd be pure insanity to think that heavier elements could have more than one electron in each layer of it's shell. Of course we all know that atoms don't have shells.
Next are you going to say that the electromagnetic radiation emitted changes based on the mass of an element and if it's something like 2/4 He VS 1/1 H? Right! LMAO!!!!!!

It's Pauli. All it basically states is that 2 electrons can't have the same spin. This is ridiculous, it's like saying if 2 electrons are in the same layer of a shell that they have to have different spins.
Правильно?
And as a result it's electromagnetic radiation emissions would change? Who could believe such garbage? I don't

Edited on 21-11-2018 02:09
21-11-2018 02:39
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Excuse me but your belief that an entire branch of science does not exist is totally incorrect.


What are you even talking about, Wake? Which branch of science is supposedly being denied?


Wake denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law. He also denies mathematics. He calls this a 'branch of science'.


So mathematics is a branch of science now? Hahaha When did this happen?
21-11-2018 02:42
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Wake wrote:

Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs

I don't believe you.
21-11-2018 09:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Excuse me but your belief that an entire branch of science does not exist is totally incorrect.


What are you even talking about, Wake? Which branch of science is supposedly being denied?


Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs. Nightmare denies that you can tell the components of a materials by knowing its temperature and spectrum and equally knowing the material you can tell the amount of energy via its spectrum since that changes with temperature.

He has continued this sham for so long now that it is a running joke.


Doesn't work for reflections, Wake. Doesn't tell you the temperature of anything either. You are still denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law and now also denying Wien's law.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 09:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Excuse me but your belief that an entire branch of science does not exist is totally incorrect.


What are you even talking about, Wake? Which branch of science is supposedly being denied?


Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs. Nightmare denies that you can tell the components of a materials by knowing its temperature and spectrum and equally knowing the material you can tell the amount of energy via its spectrum since that changes with temperature.

He has continued this sham for so long now that it is a running joke.


Are you making some wild assed claim that elements have something like a ground state/rest mass and different states like n1, n2, etc.?
What a bunch of bullsh1t. Next you're going to say one electron per layer for every neutron/proton until you get into the Paulie Exclusion Principle.
This all total B. S. because I'm making stuff up to sound smart.
It'd be pure insanity to think that heavier elements could have more than one electron in each layer of it's shell. Of course we all know that atoms don't have shells.
Next are you going to say that the electromagnetic radiation emitted changes based on the mass of an element and if it's something like 2/4 He VS 1/1 H? Right! LMAO!!!!!!

It's Pauli. All it basically states is that 2 electrons can't have the same spin. This is ridiculous, it's like saying if 2 electrons are in the same layer of a shell that they have to have different spins.
Правильно?
And as a result it's electromagnetic radiation emissions would change? Who could believe such garbage? I don't

Random BS that has nothing to do with what Wake is trying to talk about, or temperature.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 20:44
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs

I don't believe you.


Is that somehow supposed to change reality. I am getting the idea that you are really Nightmare posting under another assumed name to appear to have someone agreeing with him/you.
21-11-2018 20:52
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs

I don't believe you.


Is that somehow supposed to change reality. I am getting the idea that you are really Nightmare posting under another assumed name to appear to have someone agreeing with him/you.

Idk what you are in reality... I'm just saying that I don't believe your claims about yourself... credentials are meaningless on an internet forum...

Why are you skeptical about global warming, if you are (it seems like you are a proponent of it)... I am skeptical because the term itself is a meaningless buzzword and basing an argument on a buzzword is a void argument.

I'm already skeptical from a logical standpoint, let alone a scientific one. I'm also skeptical from a scientific standpoint because global warming isn't a falsifiable theory... it isnt even science. It is a religion, and one with MANY fundamentalist believers at that...
21-11-2018 21:12
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I think I understand 'man-made' CO2, it how it has the power to do evil things. Fossil fuels come from deep in the ground. From what I understand, if you go deep enough, you get down to molten rock, the lake of fire, all those liars and deceivers, will eventually be swimming in. When we burn those fossil fuels, it re-energizes those hell-created CO2 molecules, which only function is to scorch the planet, and send those wicked sinners to hell, before they get a chance to 'turn, before you burn...' Who can resist the temptation of burning a cheap, convenient, plentiful fuel, that packs more energy, than anything readily available? We aren't sinning, because we burn it, don't know any better. It's the Climatologist who lie and deceive us, who should be more concerned about how warm the climate will be, after they depart.
21-11-2018 21:35
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs

I don't believe you.


Is that somehow supposed to change reality. I am getting the idea that you are really Nightmare posting under another assumed name to appear to have someone agreeing with him/you.

Idk what you are in reality... I'm just saying that I don't believe your claims about yourself... credentials are meaningless on an internet forum...

Why are you skeptical about global warming, if you are (it seems like you are a proponent of it)... I am skeptical because the term itself is a meaningless buzzword and basing an argument on a buzzword is a void argument.

I'm already skeptical from a logical standpoint, let alone a scientific one. I'm also skeptical from a scientific standpoint because global warming isn't a falsifiable theory... it isnt even science. It is a religion, and one with MANY fundamentalist believers at that...


Indeed, anyone can claim any credentials. But only those with the knowledge of those sciences can properly answer the questions about it.

I am not skeptical about AGW - I know for a fact that it does not exist. That only a minute percentage of scientists ever believed in it and that it was almost entirely pushed by politicians as nothing more than another means of gaining power. Virtually the entire cast of the IPCC are politicians and not scientists.

Even crazy Dr. Michael Mann sued two other scientists in Canadian courts for character assassination after they said that nothing he published even vaguely resembled reality. As a requirement of the court for allowing him time to prepare his case he was REQUIRED to turn his temperature data over to the two he was suing. He never did that because his data was all forged. He recently lost the case and is required to pay all legal expenses.

Even NASA got into the data forging act has been shown by several papers which you can find on-line referred to here: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/nasa-massively-tampering-with-the-us-temperature-record/

The effects of CO2 absorption has been studied since Arrhenius published his paper circa 1880 or so. From the very beginning he SAID that this was only a theory. That he ran no experiments himself and only used the spectrum of sunlight bounced off of the moon as measure in another paper by someone else. All of his suppositions were disproven in a paper published by the science department of the Department of Commerce, I believe, which was the forerunner to NOAA. It's been several years since I read it after seeking references for a paper I was preparing. Since they published almost exactly what I was writing there was no sense in trying to publish known science.

The only thing different was my admission that high energy light can degrade to the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs releasing more energy which CO2 could absorb. But rough calculations showed this to be virtually nothing and I discovered another modern paper that had already made that point as well.

I have explained how and why NASA has published this EXTREMELY false paper on global warming and showed the actual warming for the last 39 years is zero. I have shown that what we have isn't warming but the Earth recovering from the Little Ice Age. That NONE of the "climate" changes have changed anything anywhere on the Earth to different condition than there were before the Little Ice Age. The Greenland glacier melt has shown farms under the melts and the glaciers still have a little more way to melt and very little time to do it in.

I have even shown that sea level changes are not a world-wide event but highly localized and having to do with weather events more than climate events.

And finally there are now a string of papers starting with the Russian paper in 2015 identifying long term solar minimums that are going to bring on another little ice age. This has finally been verified by NASA who is publishing papers agreeing with the Russian paper that if all of this is true we can expect a very long cold period starting in 2050+/- 11 years.

So if there is anything to be skeptical about it is the onset of another little ice age and NOT global warming.
21-11-2018 21:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs

I don't believe you.


Is that somehow supposed to change reality. I am getting the idea that you are really Nightmare posting under another assumed name to appear to have someone agreeing with him/you.

Idk what you are in reality... I'm just saying that I don't believe your claims about yourself... credentials are meaningless on an internet forum...

Why are you skeptical about global warming, if you are (it seems like you are a proponent of it)... I am skeptical because the term itself is a meaningless buzzword and basing an argument on a buzzword is a void argument.

I'm already skeptical from a logical standpoint, let alone a scientific one. I'm also skeptical from a scientific standpoint because global warming isn't a falsifiable theory... it isnt even science. It is a religion, and one with MANY fundamentalist believers at that...


Wake's is a member of the Church of Global Warming. His, however, is of another sect, you might say. While he believes that CO2 is somehow capable of using infrared light emitted by the Earth to warm the Earth, he doesn't believe that man is the cause of it (though occasionally he slips up in a paradox on that point).

He has claimed to be an accomplished mariner, an expert on spectrographic instruments, worked on the space station, an expert biologist studying the animal life in the San Francisco bay, a martial arts expert, and of course, a physicist and a mathematician. All of these claims have been used to based the authority of his argument upon.

These sorts of claims of his expertise are rather common with him. I point out this particular sect of the Church of Global Warming because you may not have seen it before.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 21:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think I understand 'man-made' CO2, it how it has the power to do evil things. Fossil fuels come from deep in the ground. From what I understand, if you go deep enough, you get down to molten rock, the lake of fire, all those liars and deceivers, will eventually be swimming in. When we burn those fossil fuels, it re-energizes those hell-created CO2 molecules, which only function is to scorch the planet, and send those wicked sinners to hell, before they get a chance to 'turn, before you burn...' Who can resist the temptation of burning a cheap, convenient, plentiful fuel, that packs more energy, than anything readily available? We aren't sinning, because we burn it, don't know any better. It's the Climatologist who lie and deceive us, who should be more concerned about how warm the climate will be, after they depart.


People do better in warmer climates. Our bodies are better equipped to handle being too warm rather than being too cold. Edible plants do better too.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 22:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs

I don't believe you.


Is that somehow supposed to change reality. I am getting the idea that you are really Nightmare posting under another assumed name to appear to have someone agreeing with him/you.

Idk what you are in reality... I'm just saying that I don't believe your claims about yourself... credentials are meaningless on an internet forum...

Why are you skeptical about global warming, if you are (it seems like you are a proponent of it)... I am skeptical because the term itself is a meaningless buzzword and basing an argument on a buzzword is a void argument.

I'm already skeptical from a logical standpoint, let alone a scientific one. I'm also skeptical from a scientific standpoint because global warming isn't a falsifiable theory... it isnt even science. It is a religion, and one with MANY fundamentalist believers at that...


Indeed, anyone can claim any credentials.

Yup. One of the reasons why neither of us believe you.
Wake wrote:
But only those with the knowledge of those sciences can properly answer the questions about it.

What 'sciences' are referring to Wake?
Wake wrote:
I am not skeptical about AGW - I know for a fact that it does not exist. That only a minute percentage of scientists ever believed in it and that it was almost entirely pushed by politicians as nothing more than another means of gaining power. Virtually the entire cast of the IPCC are politicians and not scientists.

Yet you believe CO2 can somehow warm the Earth using infrared light from the surface.
Wake wrote:
Even crazy Dr. Michael Mann sued two other scientists in Canadian courts for character assassination after they said that nothing he published even vaguely resembled reality. As a requirement of the court for allowing him time to prepare his case he was REQUIRED to turn his temperature data over to the two he was suing. He never did that because his data was all forged. He recently lost the case and is required to pay all legal expenses.

Irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
Even NASA got into the data forging act has been shown by several papers which you can find on-line referred to here: ...deleted Holy Link...
All global temperature is forged, Wake. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
The effects of CO2 absorption has been studied since Arrhenius published his paper circa 1880 or so. From the very beginning he SAID that this was only a theory.
No, it was an observation. We still use that data today.
Wake wrote:
That he ran no experiments himself

Yes he did. He ran extensive experiments on the properties of CO2.
Wake wrote:
and only used the spectrum of sunlight bounced off of the moon as measure in another paper by someone else.
A brilliant technique, in my opinion, in attempting to measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It wasn't accurate, of course, but it DID show that the atmosphere contains CO2.
Wake wrote:
All of his suppositions were disproven in a paper published by the science department of the Department of Commerce, I believe, which was the forerunner to NOAA.
None of his observed properties of CO2 were falsified by anyone, Wake.
Wake wrote:
It's been several years since I read it after seeking references for a paper I was preparing.
Since they published almost exactly what I was writing there was no sense in trying to publish known science.
I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
The only thing different was my admission that high energy light can degrade to the wavelengths
Light does not degrade into other wavelengths, Wake.
Wake wrote:
that CO2 absorbs releasing more energy which CO2 could absorb.
You can't create energy out of nothing, Wake.
Wake wrote:
But rough calculations showed this to be virtually nothing and I discovered another modern paper that had already made that point as well.
I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
I have explained how and why NASA has published this EXTREMELY false paper on global warming and showed the actual warming for the last 39 years is zero. I have shown that what we have isn't warming but the Earth recovering from the Little Ice Age. That NONE of the "climate" changes have changed anything anywhere on the Earth to different condition than there were before the Little Ice Age. The Greenland glacier melt has shown farms under the melts and the glaciers still have a little more way to melt and very little time to do it in.

Greenland isn't losing ice, Wake.
Wake wrote:
I have even shown that sea level changes are not a world-wide event but highly localized and having to do with weather events more than climate events.

It's not possible to measure the global sea level, Wake.
Wake wrote:
And finally there are now a string of papers starting with the Russian paper in 2015 identifying long term solar minimums that are going to bring on another little ice age.

This idea has been kicking around for hundreds of years.
Wake wrote:
This has finally been verified by NASA who is publishing papers agreeing with the Russian paper that if all of this is true we can expect a very long cold period starting in 2050+/- 11 years.

So now you've joined the Church of Global Cooling as well.
Wake wrote:
So if there is anything to be skeptical about it is the onset of another little ice age and NOT global warming.

You push both religions, Wake. I'll let you resolve your own paradoxes.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 23:50
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake's is a member of the Church of Global Warming. His, however, is of another sect, you might say. While he believes that CO2 is somehow capable of using infrared light emitted by the Earth to warm the Earth, he doesn't believe that man is the cause of it (though occasionally he slips up in a paradox on that point).

Ahhhhhh, gotcha... Yeah, I'd consider that to be another sect of the Church of GW, much like there are different sects of Christianity.

Into the Night wrote:
He has claimed to be an accomplished mariner, an expert on spectrographic instruments, worked on the space station, an expert biologist studying the animal life in the San Francisco bay, a martial arts expert, and of course, a physicist and a mathematician. All of these claims have been used to based the authority of his argument upon.

Oh wow, that's a lot of claims. To be honest, I believe his credential claims even less after hearing all that...

Into the Night wrote:
These sorts of claims of his expertise are rather common with him. I point out this particular sect of the Church of Global Warming because you may not have seen it before.

Thanks. I definitely have run across it before, although it is much rarer, well, in my specific experiences of it anyway.
23-11-2018 16:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:

Spectroscopy. Look I have extensive knowledge of spectroscopy having designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs

I don't believe you.


Is that somehow supposed to change reality. I am getting the idea that you are really Nightmare posting under another assumed name to appear to have someone agreeing with him/you.

Idk what you are in reality... I'm just saying that I don't believe your claims about yourself... credentials are meaningless on an internet forum...

Why are you skeptical about global warming, if you are (it seems like you are a proponent of it)... I am skeptical because the term itself is a meaningless buzzword and basing an argument on a buzzword is a void argument.

I'm already skeptical from a logical standpoint, let alone a scientific one. I'm also skeptical from a scientific standpoint because global warming isn't a falsifiable theory... it isnt even science. It is a religion, and one with MANY fundamentalist believers at that...


Indeed, anyone can claim any credentials. But only those with the knowledge of those sciences can properly answer the questions about it.

I am not skeptical about AGW - I know for a fact that it does not exist. That only a minute percentage of scientists ever believed in it and that it was almost entirely pushed by politicians as nothing more than another means of gaining power. Virtually the entire cast of the IPCC are politicians and not scientists.

Even crazy Dr. Michael Mann sued two other scientists in Canadian courts for character assassination after they said that nothing he published even vaguely resembled reality. As a requirement of the court for allowing him time to prepare his case he was REQUIRED to turn his temperature data over to the two he was suing. He never did that because his data was all forged. He recently lost the case and is required to pay all legal expenses.

Even NASA got into the data forging act has been shown by several papers which you can find on-line referred to here: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/nasa-massively-tampering-with-the-us-temperature-record/

The effects of CO2 absorption has been studied since Arrhenius published his paper circa 1880 or so. From the very beginning he SAID that this was only a theory. That he ran no experiments himself and only used the spectrum of sunlight bounced off of the moon as measure in another paper by someone else. All of his suppositions were disproven in a paper published by the science department of the Department of Commerce, I believe, which was the forerunner to NOAA. It's been several years since I read it after seeking references for a paper I was preparing. Since they published almost exactly what I was writing there was no sense in trying to publish known science.

The only thing different was my admission that high energy light can degrade to the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs releasing more energy which CO2 could absorb. But rough calculations showed this to be virtually nothing and I discovered another modern paper that had already made that point as well.

I have explained how and why NASA has published this EXTREMELY false paper on global warming and showed the actual warming for the last 39 years is zero. I have shown that what we have isn't warming but the Earth recovering from the Little Ice Age. That NONE of the "climate" changes have changed anything anywhere on the Earth to different condition than there were before the Little Ice Age. The Greenland glacier melt has shown farms under the melts and the glaciers still have a little more way to melt and very little time to do it in.

I have even shown that sea level changes are not a world-wide event but highly localized and having to do with weather events more than climate events.

And finally there are now a string of papers starting with the Russian paper in 2015 identifying long term solar minimums that are going to bring on another little ice age. This has finally been verified by NASA who is publishing papers agreeing with the Russian paper that if all of this is true we can expect a very long cold period starting in 2050+/- 11 years.

So if there is anything to be skeptical about it is the onset of another little ice age and NOT global warming.


I was following the case.

Can you link to where he has lost?
23-11-2018 18:51
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Tim, Dr. Michael Mann was one of the leading proponents of Global Warming. His data was so obviously false that he could get one line in anything but Mad Magazine was laughable. Researchers even turned up Emails between his cohorts sending him messages on how to fake the data to make it appear that his predictions were really correct.

Dr. Mann denied being a part of this and his University kept him on but this failure pretty much shows that he was part of the counterfeiting of data.

https://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/things_get_hot_for_michael_mann.html

Now, you have to ask yourself - since this is an actual court ruling that shows that NASA and Dr. Mann were on the same path and one has been shown to be using phony data why hasn't this been front page news?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/

If you follow his links you discover that suddenly NASA has restored the original temperature lists. Furthermore the heating that is shown in Wikipedia under Global Warming and attributed to NASA hasn't changed. We STILL have True Believers telling us that this year was the hottest ever when it wasn't even close to the 1930's.

Since that counterfeited NASA chart showed the majority of "warming" from 1979 to the present exactly how can they explain that considering they have weather satellites that show that NO heating other than normal chaotic weather patterns have occurred during this time period?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/
23-11-2018 21:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Tim, Dr. Michael Mann was one of the leading proponents of Global Warming. His data was so obviously false that he could get one line in anything but Mad Magazine was laughable. Researchers even turned up Emails between his cohorts sending him messages on how to fake the data to make it appear that his predictions were really correct.

Dr. Mann denied being a part of this and his University kept him on but this failure pretty much shows that he was part of the counterfeiting of data.

https://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/things_get_hot_for_michael_mann.html

Now, you have to ask yourself - since this is an actual court ruling that shows that NASA and Dr. Mann were on the same path and one has been shown to be using phony data why hasn't this been front page news?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/

If you follow his links you discover that suddenly NASA has restored the original temperature lists.

NASA has no 'temperature lists'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
Furthermore the heating that is shown in Wikipedia under Global Warming and attributed to NASA hasn't changed.

Part of why Wikipedia is not valid is a reference for anything.
Wake wrote:
We STILL have True Believers telling us that this year was the hottest ever when it wasn't even close to the 1930's.

That we do.
Wake wrote:
Since that counterfeited NASA chart showed the majority of "warming" from 1979 to the present exactly how can they explain that considering they have weather satellites that show that NO heating other than normal chaotic weather patterns have occurred during this time period?

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2018 21:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim, Dr. Michael Mann was one of the leading proponents of Global Warming. His data was so obviously false that he could get one line in anything but Mad Magazine was laughable. Researchers even turned up Emails between his cohorts sending him messages on how to fake the data to make it appear that his predictions were really correct.

Dr. Mann denied being a part of this and his University kept him on but this failure pretty much shows that he was part of the counterfeiting of data.

https://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/things_get_hot_for_michael_mann.html

Now, you have to ask yourself - since this is an actual court ruling that shows that NASA and Dr. Mann were on the same path and one has been shown to be using phony data why hasn't this been front page news?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/

If you follow his links you discover that suddenly NASA has restored the original temperature lists.

NASA has no 'temperature lists'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
Furthermore the heating that is shown in Wikipedia under Global Warming and attributed to NASA hasn't changed.

Part of why Wikipedia is not valid is a reference for anything.
Wake wrote:
We STILL have True Believers telling us that this year was the hottest ever when it wasn't even close to the 1930's.

That we do.
Wake wrote:
Since that counterfeited NASA chart showed the majority of "warming" from 1979 to the present exactly how can they explain that considering they have weather satellites that show that NO heating other than normal chaotic weather patterns have occurred during this time period?

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Because you do not understand science does not mean it doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

"Black-body radiation has the unique absolutely stable distribution of radiative intensity that can persist in thermodynamic equilibrium in a cavity.[16] In equilibrium, for each frequency the total intensity of radiation that is emitted and reflected from a body (that is, the net amount of radiation leaving its surface, called the spectral radiance) is determined solely by the equilibrium temperature, and does not depend upon the shape, material or structure of the body."

WHAT??? TEMPERATURE??? Why that cannot be - you have already denied such a science exists.
26-11-2018 22:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim, Dr. Michael Mann was one of the leading proponents of Global Warming. His data was so obviously false that he could get one line in anything but Mad Magazine was laughable. Researchers even turned up Emails between his cohorts sending him messages on how to fake the data to make it appear that his predictions were really correct.

Dr. Mann denied being a part of this and his University kept him on but this failure pretty much shows that he was part of the counterfeiting of data.

https://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/things_get_hot_for_michael_mann.html

Now, you have to ask yourself - since this is an actual court ruling that shows that NASA and Dr. Mann were on the same path and one has been shown to be using phony data why hasn't this been front page news?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/

If you follow his links you discover that suddenly NASA has restored the original temperature lists.

NASA has no 'temperature lists'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
Furthermore the heating that is shown in Wikipedia under Global Warming and attributed to NASA hasn't changed.

Part of why Wikipedia is not valid is a reference for anything.
Wake wrote:
We STILL have True Believers telling us that this year was the hottest ever when it wasn't even close to the 1930's.

That we do.
Wake wrote:
Since that counterfeited NASA chart showed the majority of "warming" from 1979 to the present exactly how can they explain that considering they have weather satellites that show that NO heating other than normal chaotic weather patterns have occurred during this time period?

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Because you do not understand science does not mean it doesn't exist.
...deleted Holy Link and Quote...

Wikipedia is deleted on sight, Wake. You cannot use it as a reference. Wikipedia is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law you deny applies to all bodies. It states that radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

You cannot decrease radiance of the Earth and increase its temperature at the same time, Wake. No gas or vapor is capable of trapping thermal energy or heat. The radiance is not 'spectral'. Is is all combined frequencies.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-11-2018 22:45
27-11-2018 22:02
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim, Dr. Michael Mann was one of the leading proponents of Global Warming. His data was so obviously false that he could get one line in anything but Mad Magazine was laughable. Researchers even turned up Emails between his cohorts sending him messages on how to fake the data to make it appear that his predictions were really correct.

Dr. Mann denied being a part of this and his University kept him on but this failure pretty much shows that he was part of the counterfeiting of data.

https://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/things_get_hot_for_michael_mann.html

Now, you have to ask yourself - since this is an actual court ruling that shows that NASA and Dr. Mann were on the same path and one has been shown to be using phony data why hasn't this been front page news?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/

If you follow his links you discover that suddenly NASA has restored the original temperature lists.

NASA has no 'temperature lists'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
Furthermore the heating that is shown in Wikipedia under Global Warming and attributed to NASA hasn't changed.

Part of why Wikipedia is not valid is a reference for anything.
Wake wrote:
We STILL have True Believers telling us that this year was the hottest ever when it wasn't even close to the 1930's.

That we do.
Wake wrote:
Since that counterfeited NASA chart showed the majority of "warming" from 1979 to the present exactly how can they explain that considering they have weather satellites that show that NO heating other than normal chaotic weather patterns have occurred during this time period?

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Because you do not understand science does not mean it doesn't exist.
...deleted Holy Link and Quote...

Wikipedia is deleted on sight, Wake. You cannot use it as a reference. Wikipedia is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law you deny applies to all bodies. It states that radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

You cannot decrease radiance of the Earth and increase its temperature at the same time, Wake. No gas or vapor is capable of trapping thermal energy or heat. The radiance is not 'spectral'. Is is all combined frequencies.


Why do you throw around terms like Stefan-Boltzmann and then show you don't understand it at all?
28-11-2018 00:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim, Dr. Michael Mann was one of the leading proponents of Global Warming. His data was so obviously false that he could get one line in anything but Mad Magazine was laughable. Researchers even turned up Emails between his cohorts sending him messages on how to fake the data to make it appear that his predictions were really correct.

Dr. Mann denied being a part of this and his University kept him on but this failure pretty much shows that he was part of the counterfeiting of data.

https://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/things_get_hot_for_michael_mann.html

Now, you have to ask yourself - since this is an actual court ruling that shows that NASA and Dr. Mann were on the same path and one has been shown to be using phony data why hasn't this been front page news?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/

If you follow his links you discover that suddenly NASA has restored the original temperature lists.

NASA has no 'temperature lists'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
Furthermore the heating that is shown in Wikipedia under Global Warming and attributed to NASA hasn't changed.

Part of why Wikipedia is not valid is a reference for anything.
Wake wrote:
We STILL have True Believers telling us that this year was the hottest ever when it wasn't even close to the 1930's.

That we do.
Wake wrote:
Since that counterfeited NASA chart showed the majority of "warming" from 1979 to the present exactly how can they explain that considering they have weather satellites that show that NO heating other than normal chaotic weather patterns have occurred during this time period?

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.


Because you do not understand science does not mean it doesn't exist.
...deleted Holy Link and Quote...

Wikipedia is deleted on sight, Wake. You cannot use it as a reference. Wikipedia is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law you deny applies to all bodies. It states that radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

You cannot decrease radiance of the Earth and increase its temperature at the same time, Wake. No gas or vapor is capable of trapping thermal energy or heat. The radiance is not 'spectral'. Is is all combined frequencies.


Why do you throw around terms like Stefan-Boltzmann and then show you don't understand it at all?


radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

Using this equation, please describe how radiance is inversely proportional to temperature, Wake.

102=34 * x * y ^ 4

Please determine the values for X and Y, Wake. Be sure to show your work.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-11-2018 00:15




Join the debate Why I'm Skeptical:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming5608-10-2018 19:56
20 Reasons To Be Skeptical Of Human-Induced Global Warming6927-09-2018 20:50
Letter to NASA From Skeptical NASA Employees426-07-2017 02:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact