Anecdotal evidence

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Anecdotal evidence

Anecdotal evidence23-09-2019 19:22
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	I'm generally open minded. However I came here to find some proof that I can believe in as to a side to take. What I find very distracting is all of the anecdotal noise about significant weather events being the fault of AGW or CC. However I take a little more notice of things like melting glaciers. In todays news there is a story about a glacier in Austria that is melting and is being mourned as a death. https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-race-read-austrias-melting-110304595.html You read in some instances there is no melting ice and others there is, no sea level rise and in others there is. I don't intend to be dismissive about the adverse issues that are happening, but want to make sure the right cause is identified. It's just really frustrating as the truth seems to be sequestered. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
23-09-2019 20:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Harry C wrote:However I take a little more notice of things like melting glaciers. Nope. You are apparently giving creedence to unsupported anecdotes about "melting glaciers." Harry C wrote: In todays news there is a story about a glacier in Austria that is melting and is being mourned as a death. I take it that you understand the concept of not knowing what you don't know ... and I take it that the "news" made no mention of any glaciers that were either growing or that were just forming, right? The earth's orbit around the sun is not changing at any meaningful rate. As ice decreases on one spot of the earth, more ice builds on another. As some glaciers wane and die, others are born and grow. Telling me that a glacier has died only prompts me to ask which ones have been born. Harry C wrote:You read in some instances there is no melting ice and others there is, no sea level rise and in others there is. There are simple things any person can do to verify that there is no sea level rise: 1. Go to a particular beach with landmarks like lifeguard towers/shacks and notice that the surf is just as far out from the towers as it was fifty years ago (dig up old photgraphs of the beach and recall that lifeguard towers are built a certain distance from the surf for obvious reasons, and that those towers/shacks have not been moved during those decades and that the surf is not washing up to the base of the towers/shacks. 2. Notice that the British began building an air base ("Gan") on the Addu atoll in 1941. It was completed and used more heavily a decade later. The elevation was, and is, very low (average just over one meter above sea level). The base is still there. The atoll is still there. The sea level has not changed to any perceptible degree. Harry C wrote:It's just really frustrating as the truth seems to be sequestered. Nope. It's all just an exercise in common sense. Those who are too lazy to think for themselves and who need others to provide them with their opinions and beliefs will slowly transform into warmizombie Nazgul and be forever slaves to any and all Marxist calls to obedience. Don't let that happen to you. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2019 22:56
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	I've lived in Florida since 1986, and sinking has never came up. We get beach erosion, usually storm related, and the beach sand needs to be replaced. If the storms don't take the sand, they still renew it occasionally, to keep it clean and pretty for the tourists. Pretty much every coastal city, has sea walls, most are decades old, some near a century. There are also tide markers, and a few other features that have never been moved. Tide leaves a mark, over time, which hasn't changed much. We still have just as much beach. They don't generally specify which oceans are rising though, maybe ours isn't on the list yet... They don't often talk about an actual number for how much the oceans have already risen, or how they are measuring it either. Just a dire prediction, and some beach erosion pictures. Ice melts every summer, and is replenished every winter. It's not equal though, some years there is more melting, which we hear all about, but we have to dig to find how much ice forms over the winter. Global Warming, is just that, a focus on anything warming. Cooling and freezing are of no interest.
23-09-2019 23:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	HarveyH55 wrote: I've lived in Florida since 1986, and sinking has never came up. Florida used to be entirely underwater. It's only underwater part of the time now! HarveyH55 wrote: We get beach erosion, usually storm related, and the beach sand needs to be replaced. If the storms don't take the sand, they still renew it occasionally, to keep it clean and pretty for the tourists. As you noted, it doesn't destroy the sand, it just moves it around. The resort property of course needs to replace THEIR sand because it went to build useless sandbars, or shifted it to someone else's property for awhile. HarveyH55 wrote: Pretty much every coastal city, has sea walls, most are decades old, some near a century. There are also tide markers, and a few other features that have never been moved. Tide leaves a mark, over time, which hasn't changed much. We still have just as much beach. They don't generally specify which oceans are rising though, maybe ours isn't on the list yet... They don't often talk about an actual number for how much the oceans have already risen, or how they are measuring it either. Just a dire prediction, and some beach erosion pictures. Yup. Seattle's the same (not quite as old!). HarveyH55 wrote: Ice melts every summer, and is replenished every winter. It's not equal though, some years there is more melting, which we hear all about, but we have to dig to find how much ice forms over the winter. Global Warming, is just that, a focus on anything warming. Cooling and freezing are of no interest. Heh. This winter, when some big snowstorm covers the midwest, they'll blame it on 'climate change' and 'global warming' just the same. I've already seen Vernor predict the UK will see another ice age out of it, right after he said the glaciers were melting! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 23-09-2019 23:58
25-09-2019 07:16
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Harry C wrote: I'm generally open minded. However I came here to find some proof that I can believe in as to a side to take...However I take a little more notice of things like melting glaciers...I don't intend to be dismissive about the adverse issues that are happening, but want to make sure the right cause is identified. I wouldn't look for proof here. This is a laypersons' forum with no expertise to offer on the matter. And something to do while bored. Climate change is obviously what causes glaciers to melt. At least *some* of this change is caused by human activity in my opinion, but it's a price we pay for modern living and given natural forces are also at work, the blame being placed on people—always rich executives and firms, of course, never the bearded fellas with the compost heaps in their backyards and money in the bank courtesy of those firms' employing them—strikes me as excessive. We don't really know what the world's gonna be like in 2100. Harry C wrote: It's just really frustrating as the truth seems to be sequestered. It's there, if you dig. The physics and chemistry websites have the best dope on it, mostly free of fright though there's technical jargon to plow through. The whole shindig's asinine. Everyone's forced to take sides, with activist groups who think the world would be a better place if we shut all our industries down, or a business-as-usual clamor who want King Coal on the throne forever. Total gridlock. Neither of those scenarios is necessary. We can have evolution away from carbon combustion at a pace we can adjust to, if we have the will. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.

25-09-2019 09:32
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Harry C wrote: It's just really frustrating as the truth seems to be sequestered. There's a great Love and Rockets song lyric "It's as simple as a flower, and that's a complicated thing". Just because something is complex doesn't mean it doesn't exist, shouldn't be bothered with or is somehow the result of a conspiracy (I direct this to the peanut gallery not you Harry). Here is my frustration in line with your own. I don't understand why there aren't better real demonstrations of the basic principles of global warming. Not an accurate model of what's going to happen but a simple proof, in the lab (but on youtube) of the nuts and bolts of how things work. We've got two liter soda bottles and demos with near 100% CO2: Mythbusters Greenhouse effect That said there are three distinct "zones" of argument/information. 1- There is the camp that claim you're a "Denier" if you question the information being put out with the premise assumed. (Bill Nye) 2- The skeptical scientists (Dale Huffman, Dr Pat Frank and many more.) 3- Conspiracy theorists and nut-jobs that try to rewrite the laws of physics. They are the greatest gift to the Bill Nye's of this world because it's easy for people to lump skeptics in with them. Good article: Skeptics versus Deniers IBdaMann wrote: ("Gan") on the Addu atoll in 1941. ...is still there. The sea level has not changed... Are you claiming that measurements have been taken? Do you have them? Also are you claiming that the lack of sinking of Gan is proof sea level is not rising? HarveyH55 wrote:They don't often talk about ... how they are measuring it either. I'm sure that information is available. NASA says it's 3" since 1992 and identifies natural variations causing 9" in some places. So 3" or 8cm in 27 years could certainly be missed and natural variation is going to muck things up clearly. VernerHornung wrote: I wouldn't look for proof here. This is a laypersons' forum with no expertise to offer on the matter. This should almost be a recurring popup window on the forum lest we forget! VernerHornung wrote:...a business-as-usual clamor who want King Coal on the throne forever. I think proportionality is important too. There are more issues than just Global Warming. King Coal takes a pretty big sh_t: Mountain Top Removal "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them Edited on 25-09-2019 09:32
25-09-2019 16:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	VernerHornung wrote: Climate change is obviously what causes glaciers to melt. Here I was thinking it was particular temperatures. VernerHornung wrote:At least *some* of this change is caused by human activity in my opinion, What human activity causes what part of what glaciers to melt in your opinion? VernerHornung wrote:We don't really know what the world's gonna be like in 2100. Ooooh, tmiddles is really going to get you for that one. Hunker down. So there might still be a planet remaining in 2100? Are you saying that the catastrophic flame-ball destruction of mother earth at the hands of those evil capitalists might not happen until after that time? VernerHornung wrote: Harry C wrote: It's just really frustrating as the truth seems to be sequestered. It's there, if you dig. The physics and chemistry websites have the best dope on it, mostly free of fright though there's technical jargon to plow through. Give us an example. VernerHornung wrote:We can have evolution away from carbon combustion at a pace we can adjust to, if we have the will. We can also continue to use the fuels we currently use as we need, if we have the will. That's certainly an option, yes? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-09-2019 21:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	VernerHornung wrote: Harry C wrote: I'm generally open minded. However I came here to find some proof that I can believe in as to a side to take...However I take a little more notice of things like melting glaciers...I don't intend to be dismissive about the adverse issues that are happening, but want to make sure the right cause is identified. I wouldn't look for proof here. This is a laypersons' forum with no expertise to offer on the matter. And something to do while bored. Climate change is obviously what causes glaciers to melt. Define 'climate change'. Meaningless buzzwords don't cause glaciers to melt. VernerHornung wrote: At least *some* of this change is caused by human activity in my opinion, but it's a price we pay for modern living and given natural forces are also at work, the blame being placed on people—always rich executives and firms, of course, never the bearded fellas with the compost heaps in their backyards and money in the bank courtesy of those firms' employing them—strikes me as excessive. We don't really know what the world's gonna be like in 2100. Then why do you keep saying we know? Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: Harry C wrote: It's just really frustrating as the truth seems to be sequestered. It's there, if you dig. The physics and chemistry websites have the best dope on it, mostly free of fright though there's technical jargon to plow through. The whole shindig's asinine. Everyone's forced to take sides, with activist groups who think the world would be a better place if we shut all our industries down, or a business-as-usual clamor who want King Coal on the throne forever. Total gridlock. Coal is cheap. Appeal to complexity fallacy. * You cannot create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics). * You cannot trap heat. * You cannot trap light. CO2 has NO ability to warm the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface. No gas or vapor does. VernerHornung wrote: Neither of those scenarios is necessary. We can have evolution away from carbon combustion at a pace we can adjust to, if we have the will. No need. Carbon based fuels are cheap. Several of them are renewable. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-09-2019 21:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Here is my frustration in line with your own. I don't understand why there aren't better real demonstrations of the basic principles of global warming. You have to DEFINE 'global warming' before you can have any theory of science about it. tmiddles wrote: Not an accurate model of what's going to happen but a simple proof, in the lab (but on youtube) of the nuts and bolts of how things work. Labs don't prove anything. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ("Gan") on the Addu atoll in 1941. ...is still there. The sea level has not changed... Are you claiming that measurements have been taken? Do you have them? Also are you claiming that the lack of sinking of Gan is proof sea level is not rising? That's exactly what he's claiming. Apparently, you're not convinced of the obvious. tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:They don't often talk about ... how they are measuring it either. I'm sure that information is available. Nope. There is no valid reference point. There is no reference for what you would call global sea level except global sea level. Land is not a valid reference point. Land moves. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-09-2019 21:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Climate change is obviously what causes glaciers to melt. Here I was thinking it was particular temperatures. Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change'. Don't you get tired of pretending you don't know that words are defined by usage? Your objections to words not meaning what you'd like them to is a perpetual waste of time. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate-change?s=ts https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atmosphere https://www.dictionary.com/browse/temperature?s=t Should you need any more: https://www.dictionary.com Into the Night wrote: CO2 has NO ability to warm the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface. No gas or vapor does. You simply made this up. It has no support of any kind and has bee thoroughly debunked here. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
25-09-2019 22:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Climate change is obviously what causes glaciers to melt. Here I was thinking it was particular temperatures. Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change'. Don't you get tired of pretending you don't know that words are defined by usage? Usage doesn't define a word. Define 'climate change'. tmiddles wrote: Your objections to words not meaning There is no meaning. No one has defined 'climate change', other than IBdaMann's mythical definition of a god. tmiddles wrote: what you'd like them to is a perpetual waste of time. Define 'climate change'. tmiddles wrote: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate-change?s=ts You cannot define 'climate change' with 'climate change'. You cannot define a word with itself! tmiddles wrote: Should you need any more: https://www.dictionary.com Dictionaries don't define words. No dictionary owns any word. They are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation and often give a sample use of the word. Usage is not a definition. Define 'climate change'. You cannot define a word with itself. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: CO2 has NO ability to warm the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface. No gas or vapor does. You simply made this up. Repetitious lie. I did not create any law of thermodynamics. These are falsifiable theories that are currently part of science. You just want to deny them. You are even trying to debunk your own physics books you quote so regularly. My support is the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. tmiddles wrote: It has no support of any kind and has bee thoroughly debunked here. Repetitious lie. RQAA The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 25-09-2019 22:47
25-09-2019 22:52
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Usage doesn't define a word. Define 'climate change'. Yeah, it does. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate-change?s=ts https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atmosphere https://www.dictionary.com/browse/temperature?s=t Should you need any more: https://www.dictionary.com Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: CO2 has NO ability to warm the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface. No gas or vapor does. You simply made this up. Repetitious lie. I did not create any law of thermodynamics. No you didn't. You made that up and it's not a law of thermodynamics. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]
25-09-2019 23:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	tmiddles wrote: Don't you get tired of pretending you don't know that words are defined by usage? Don't you get tired of having to be dishonest all the time, just to say that you were faithful in your obedience? Don't you get tired of pretending that "Climate Change" has some sort of objective, falsifiable meaning? Your objection to being denied the use of religious terms as undefined variables ... is dismissed. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2019 00:42
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Let me see... The sun dumps a bunch of thermal energy on half the planet at any given time. When as the planet rotates, part is in the shade, and cools off... While cooling, does all the thermal energy leave as IR photons, specific to CO2's preference? Or does heat leave the planet by other means as well? Energy is neither created or destroyed, only the energy the sun left during the daylight hours. Whether or not that energy is at the surface, or up in the atmosphere, it's still the same energy, and diminishing, since it's all heading out to space. At least, until the sun shines down again. I know some of the sun's energy doesn't get used for warming, it gets collected by plants and solar panels, few other chemical processes as well. More plants and solar panels would reduce the warming energy, we would need more CO2, just to break even, and stay the same temperature...
26-09-2019 02:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Usage doesn't define a word. Define 'climate change'. Yeah, it does. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate-change?s=ts https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atmosphere https://www.dictionary.com/browse/temperature?s=t Should you need any more: https://www.dictionary.com Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: CO2 has NO ability to warm the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface. No gas or vapor does. You simply made this up. Repetitious lie. I did not create any law of thermodynamics. No you didn't. You made that up and it's not a law of thermodynamics. RQAA. Repetitious distortions and contextomy fallacies (RDCF). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 26-09-2019 02:54

26-09-2019 03:01
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:When as the planet rotates, part is in the shade, and cools off... Cools off some, but not totally. Look at VENUS it stays hot at night. The Earth has a less impressive atmosphere but still the night is far far warmer than it is on the moon.
26-09-2019 05:41
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	IBdaMann wrote: What human activity causes what part of what glaciers to melt in your opinion? Probably the blast of hot air from the gaggle telling us atmosphere has nothing to do with a planet's temperature. IBdaMann wrote: Ooooh, tmiddles is really going to get you for that one. Hunker down. I don't hear bloodhounds baying on my trail yet. IBdaMann wrote: Are you saying that the catastrophic flame-ball destruction of mother earth at the hands of those evil capitalists might not happen until after that time? Odds are never at all. But we may have an expensive, tragic mess in our room if we don't clean up after ourselves like good little boys. Automakers didn't want catalytic converters when they were told to install equipment to mitigate smog. Now they take it for *granted. Why? Because it's not greed that kept Ford from installing the converters, it was the fact it would make their cars pricier than GM's unless GM also had them. As firms compete by doing things cheaply as possible, the only way to get the ball rolling was for consumers to decide the choking city air had gone on long enough to write Congress about it and form lobbies for pollution control. So Congress passed the Clean Air Act and we have an EPA. Polls show a clear majority of Americans favor action to mitigate climate change risks. And the sooner we get started, the easier it will be. IBdaMann wrote:* ...an example... Here's a brief that outlines how radiative transfer works on Earth and its sister planets Venus and Mars if you're interested: Infrared Radiation & Planetary Temperature Raymond Pierrehumbert Department of Geophysical Sciences University of Chicago https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf IBdaMann wrote: We can also continue to use the fuels we currently use as we need, if we have the will. That's certainly an option, yes? It's the only available option right now. But I don't fancy Americans have a particular will in favor of using Otto cycle internal combustion engines invented in 1881 to toodle around town. All they care about is that their furnaces, cars and TV sets work. Firms care about costs entailed in replacing motors, turbines and machinery, and I'm sensitive to such concerns. Carbon-free energy should be introduced and mandated at a pace that will allow the economy to adjust, with older capital goods replaced as they wear out. I don't prefer waiting until the radicals accede to power and ram a crash program down our throats, or something really does go wrong with climate that hurts our economy anyway. Government changes hands pretty frequently, and the Trump faction won't be on top forever. Nor can we ignore the rest of the world on this issue, either. If the global political system were to destabilize because of an adverse environmental trend, keeping our vehicles humming smoothly might be the least of our worries. tmiddles wrote: ... it's not a law of thermodynamics. ... Look at VENUS it stays hot at night. The Earth has a less impressive atmosphere but still the night is far far warmer than it is on the moon. Indeed. It's damn hard to be an advocate for the future in a sober manner today. I don't see any reason to quit the climate battlefield to the leftists. Sheesh, they've got healthcare and student loans and UBI and everything *but* energy on their platter. If we want a pro-business agenda that addresses fossil fuels specifically, then we have to get in the debate over what to do about them. The deniers have withdrawn in hopes for the status quo. They're gonna be disappointed. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
26-09-2019 05:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:When as the planet rotates, part is in the shade, and cools off... Cools off some, but not totally. Look at VENUS it stays hot at night. The Earth has a less impressive atmosphere but still the night is far far warmer than it is on the moon. Did you forget the daytime? No weather station as ever recorded a temperature as hot as that recorded on the Moon's surface. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-09-2019 06:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: What human activity causes what part of what glaciers to melt in your opinion? Probably the blast of hot air from the gaggle telling us atmosphere has nothing to do with a planet's temperature. IBdaMann wrote: Ooooh, tmiddles is really going to get you for that one. Hunker down. I don't hear bloodhounds baying on my trail yet. IBdaMann wrote: Are you saying that the catastrophic flame-ball destruction of mother earth at the hands of those evil capitalists might not happen until after that time? Odds are never at all. But we may have an expensive, tragic mess in our room if we don't clean up after ourselves like good little boys. Automakers didn't want catalytic converters when they were told to install equipment to mitigate smog. Now they take it for *granted. Why? Because it's not greed that kept Ford from installing the converters, it was the fact it would make their cars pricier than GM's unless GM also had them. Catalytic converters do not reduce smog. They are used to reduce acid rain from sour fuels. EGR systems are what reduce smog. Both were designed and built by private companies. Both Ford and GM were installing them on some cars because the market wanted them. VernerHornung wrote:* As firms compete by doing things cheaply as possible, the only way to get the ball rolling was for consumers to decide the choking city air had gone on long enough to write Congress about it and form lobbies for pollution control. So Congress passed the Clean Air Act and we have an EPA. The EPA did not create catalytic converters or EGR systems. They have not cleaned up a single thing since they were created. VernerHornung wrote: Polls show a clear majority of Americans favor action to mitigate climate change risks. And the sooner we get started, the easier it will be. News polls show nothing. There is no unbiased raw data. Define 'climate change'. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: We can also continue to use the fuels we currently use as we need, if we have the will. That's certainly an option, yes? It's the only available option right now. But I don't fancy Americans have a particular will in favor of using Otto cycle internal combustion engines invented in 1881 to toodle around town. Nah. Most would rather drive a modern Otto cycle engine. VernerHornung wrote: All they care about is that their furnaces, cars and TV sets work. How do those furnaces, cars, and TV sets get delivered with trucks using Diesel cycle engines? VernerHornung wrote: Firms care about costs entailed in replacing motors, turbines and machinery, and I'm sensitive to such concerns. I don't believe you. VernerHornung wrote: Carbon-free energy should be introduced and mandated at a pace that will allow the economy to adjust, with older capital goods replaced as they wear out. You don't get to dictate energy markets. You are not the king. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: ... it's not a law of thermodynamics. ... Look at VENUS it stays hot at night. The Earth has a less impressive atmosphere but still the night is far far warmer than it is on the moon. Indeed. It's damn hard to be an advocate for the future in a sober manner today. I don't see any reason to quit the climate battlefield to the leftists. Sheesh, they've got healthcare and student loans and UBI and everything *but* energy on their platter. If we want a pro-business agenda that addresses fossil fuels specifically, then we have to get in the debate over what to do about them. Nothing. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. VernerHornung wrote: The deniers have withdrawn in hopes for the status quo. They're gonna be disappointed. * You can't create energy out of nothing. * You can't trap heat. * You can't trap light. * You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. * You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-09-2019 11:23
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:When as the planet rotates, part is in the shade, and cools off... Cools off some, but not totally. Look at VENUS it stays hot at night. The Earth has a less impressive atmosphere but still the night is far far warmer than it is on the moon. How would you know that? None of the probes landed, ever lasted even one hour? You presume the planet is the same as earth, which hasn't been determined yet. You focus on the atmosphere, because it's convenient to help you believe another speculation about climate change. It's a different planet, with a different atmosphere, no water, and likely a few other things, not even close to ours. There are a lot of radical differences, beside CO2 levels...
26-09-2019 12:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: What human activity causes what part of what glaciers to melt in your opinion? Probably the blast of hot air from the gaggle telling us atmosphere has nothing to do with a planet's temperature. Which of the planet's temperatures? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Join the debate Anecdotal evidence:

Threads	Replies	Last post
More evidence that climate change is FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!	117	28-03-2023 18:11
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22
Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need?	1	31-10-2022 23:35
Florida Climate Change, video evidence.	12	29-03-2021 02:07
Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming	161	03-06-2020 20:20