Remember me
▼ Content

Basic arithmetic



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Basic arithmetic14-09-2016 08:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
E_i is incoming energy relative to Earth
E_o is outgoing energy, ditto

If E_i - E_o > 0 (equivalent to E_i > E_o), then the energy must go somewhere. That "somewhere" must be Earth, since... where else would it be? Increased energy -> increasing temperature. No laws of thermodynamics are violated, especially not the first one.

As for the second, there is no net flow of energy from gas to Earth, just a decrease in dissipation. This reduces E_o, making it less than E_i.

IBdaMann, don't be a dcik this time.
15-09-2016 15:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:IBdaMann, don't be a dcik this time.

I have no intention of running my responses by you for your approval. You should try not being an argumentative control freak.

In fact, if you are going to INSIST on being a science denier then you should EXPECT to be openly mocked. It's nothing personal. You thoroughly earn any ridicule you garner.

jwoodward48 wrote: E_i is incoming energy relative to Earth
E_o is outgoing energy, ditto

Wait a minute. Many brilliant minds have already done a great deal of work on this. Why don't you START with Stefan-Boltzmann?

Oh that's right. You don't LIKE it. You're busy denying it. Your religion finds it very abrasive. Well I hope you don't mind if I use it.

jwoodward48 wrote: If E_i - E_o > 0 (equivalent to E_i > E_o), then the energy must go somewhere.

No, it specifically is NOT going anywhere, per your definition. Some amount of energy is not leaving...

...and for a body this is not possible. Let's muster the courage to look at Stefan-Boltzmann:

[a.1] Radiance = Const.emissivity * Const.StfBltz * T^4
[a.2] Radiance Absorbed = Radiance * Const.emissivity = Emission
[a.3] Radiance Absorbed = Emission
[a.4] E_i = Radiance Absorbed, E_o = Emission
[a.5] E_i = E_o
----
Ergo: "E_i > E_o" is FALSE

So your theorem is "If FALSE then [Whatever You Want]"

So you can certainly have "greenhouse effect" if you violate physics.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
15-09-2016 18:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:IBdaMann, don't be a dcik this time.

I have no intention of running my responses by you for your approval. You should try not being an argumentative control freak.

In fact, if you are going to INSIST on being a science denier then you should EXPECT to be openly mocked. It's nothing personal. You thoroughly earn any ridicule you garner.


Breaking news: contrary to the forum rules and the general rules of polite debate, civility is not actually required. Everybody knows that IB is right about everything, and the way to explain that someone is wrong is to insult them. Obviously. After all, IB does it, right? And IB is the literal personification of science, and science is always right!

Also, asking somebody to not be rude is equivalent to being a control freak. The more you know...

jwoodward48 wrote: E_i is incoming energy relative to Earth
E_o is outgoing energy, ditto

Wait a minute. Many brilliant minds have already done a great deal of work on this. Why don't you START with Stefan-Boltzmann?

Oh that's right. You don't LIKE it. You're busy denying it. Your religion finds it very abrasive. Well I hope you don't mind if I use it.


Wait a minute. Many lengthy posts have already explained a great deal of consistency between global warming and Stefan-Boltzmann. Why don't you START with reading my posts?

Oh, that's right. You don't READ anything. You're busy insulting people. Your ego finds "you are wrong" to be very insulting, and you just respond in kind, right?

jwoodward48 wrote: If E_i - E_o > 0 (equivalent to E_i > E_o), then the energy must go somewhere.

No, it specifically is NOT going anywhere, per your definition. Some amount of energy is not leaving...

...and for a body this is not possible. Let's muster the courage to look at Stefan-Boltzmann:

[a.1] Radiance = Const.emissivity * Const.StfBltz * T^4
[a.2] Radiance Absorbed = Radiance * Const.emissivity = Emission
[a.3] Radiance Absorbed = Emission
[a.4] E_i = Radiance Absorbed, E_o = Emission
[a.5] E_i = E_o
----
Ergo: "E_i > E_o" is FALSE

So your theorem is "If FALSE then [Whatever You Want]"

So you can certainly have "greenhouse effect" if you violate physics.


Looks reasonable. Let's check it with actual observations!

Venus is so hot that a lead bar, placed on its surface, will melt. How could this happen? According to your equations, Venus should be well below that temperature.

Maybe it's that you are oversimplifying things. First, not everything acts as a gray body. That might affect this. Second, the multiple layers of the atmosphere should not be lumped together with the surface of the Earth. They could also bring extra complexity into the situation.

But that's just speculation. I don't really know exactly how S-B fails in this situation, but it did. Your theory has been tested, and found false. That is science.

You know what isn't science? Proof by intimidation. You, sir, are not science.
15-09-2016 20:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:Everybody knows that IB is right about everything...

We can start here if you're up for it.

jwoodward48 wrote: And IB is the literal personification of science, and science is always right!

Great, now let's press forward.

jwoodward48 wrote: E_i is incoming energy relative to
Wait a minute. Many lengthy posts have already explained a great deal of consistency between global warming and Stefan-Boltzmann.

Not a single post did this, and I read them all. But then again, you ignore my responses and simply repeat your errors.

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: Looks reasonable. Let's check it with actual observations!

Venus is so hot that a lead bar, placed on its surface, will melt. How could this happen? According to your equations, Venus should be well below that temperature.

Not at all.

Are you asking for an explanation of how you are mistaken or shall we simply remain at our current snipe level?

jwoodward48 wrote: Maybe it's that you are oversimplifying things.

That's awesome! Stefan-Boltzmann is an "oversimplification." Clearly it wouldn't be the case that you don't fully understand it.

jwoodward48 wrote: First, not everything acts as a gray body.

Are you claiming earth is one of those things?

jwoodward48 wrote: Second, the multiple layers of the atmosphere should not be lumped together with the surface of the Earth.

Absolutely correct. The bottom of any atmosphere is not the same as the top of the atmosphere, unless there is so little of it, e.g. the moon.

jwoodward48 wrote: But that's just speculation. I don't really know exactly how S-B fails in this situation, but it did. Your theory has been tested, and found false. That is science.

I offered no theory of my own. I have merely mentioned, on MANY occasions, that Stefan-Boltzmann is the relevant science here and that it shows your conclusions to be bogus. Stefan-Boltzmann is on the money; it is your misunderstanding, nay, denial of the science that runs you into trouble.

In any event, I'm marking the time and the date. You declared Venus to have falsified Stefan-Boltzmann. Awesome.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
15-09-2016 22:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No. Venus has falsified your use of SB. If I tried to use Planck's Law on a non-black body, it would fail, because that is the wrong way to use it.

Let's take away Venus's atmosphere. It is now X Kelvin. Now add the atmosphere again. Has the temperature increased?
Edited on 15-09-2016 22:23
15-09-2016 23:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: No. Venus has falsified your use of SB.

It's not my "use." It's your example. You simply don't understand why your erroneous conclusions about your example are wrong. I tried to help but you're too attached to your WACKY religious beliefs to face the science.


jwoodward48 wrote: Let's take away Venus's atmosphere.

Nope. It's why you are wrong. The atmosphere stays.

jwoodward48 wrote: It is now X Kelvin.

It is still X Kelvin.

jwoodward48 wrote: Now add the atmosphere again. Has the temperature increased?

No. So let's keep the atmosphere.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
15-09-2016 23:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's a hypothetical situation. If we took away Venus's atmosphere, would it's temperature change?
16-09-2016 00:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:It's a hypothetical situation. If we took away Venus's atmosphere, would it's temperature change?

Before I answer, what does Stefan-Boltzmann say?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
16-09-2016 00:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Your interpretation of SB is that the energy coming in must equal the energy coming out.

Now I will look at space. (wow stars)

According to IBSB (IBdamann's interpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann), the energy coming into a body must equal the energy coming out. Since the energy coming in is only proportional to the cross-sectional area of the body, excluding "fictional greenhouse gases," two bodies at the same distance from the Sun must have the same temperature at equilibrium. Additionally, since energy flows very quickly through everything (matter holds thermal energy like a strainer), it won't take long for equilibrium to be reached.

This simple statement leads to profuse ridiculousness. Take, for instance, spacesuits. They are white because that reduces the temperature of those inside. If you were correct, the colour would not matter.

Or take Venus - it is warmer than Mercury. [citation needed
] 167 C for Mercury, and 462 C for Venus. Venus has about twice the radius of Mercury, so it has about four times the cross-sectional area relative to the Sun (so four times the incoming energy, modified by solar distance) and four times the surface area (so four times the outgoing energy, modified by temperature). Ergo the size doesn't matter for this, just so you know.

So why is Venus warmer? Since the intensity of sunlight is less at Venus's orbit, it's getting less incoming energy (proportional to Mercury). Therefore, the outgoing energy is less, and by the laws of radiation, it must be colder. But it's not!
Edited on 16-09-2016 01:17
16-09-2016 01:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Your interpretation of SB is that the energy coming in must equal the energy coming out.

Correct. Did you catch that in Stefan-Boltzmann? There's a lot of good stuff in there if you give it a chance.

jwoodward48 wrote:More to come once I'm off my phone. Do not respond yet.

OK, I'm standing by.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
16-09-2016 01:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I have edited my post with an actual argument.
16-09-2016 03:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Or take Venus - it is warmer than Mercury. [citation needed
] 167 C for Mercury, and 462 C for Venus. Venus has about twice the radius of Mercury, so it has about four times the cross-sectional area relative to the Sun (so four times the incoming energy, modified by solar distance) and four times the surface area (so four times the outgoing energy, modified by temperature). Ergo the size doesn't matter for this, just so you know.

So why is Venus warmer? Since the intensity of sunlight is less at Venus's orbit, it's getting less incoming energy (proportional to Mercury). Therefore, the outgoing energy is less, and by the laws of radiation, it must be colder. But it's not!


Take Venus...please! Mars is gonna be pissed!

Venus is a strange planet. It is a great example of why using the S-B law to calculate an effective temperature doesn't work well. It's all about the albedo problem and the effects of this weird atmosphere.

The atmosphere of Venus is almost all carbon dioxide. As opposed to other gases, the molecular weight of carbon dioxide is heavy, a whopping 28. (12+8+8)

This incredibly heavy atmosphere produces tremendous pressures on the surface, some 90 times our own atmosphere. Above this are clouds of sulfuric acid. A nice pleasant holiday spot.

This atmosphere is a LOT of mass. Much more than that of Earth. All that mass is absorbing infrared energy (the bulk of energy from the sun) like crazy. By the time you reach the surface, you have so much mass over you absorbing energy the surface of Venus is essentially like being UNDER our surface to a point where pressure is 90 times that of surface atmospheric pressure here. It's a hot one down there, folks!

The daytime for Venus is long, about 3 months long. The nighttime is equally long. The rotation speed and the orbit geometry are almost close enough to just keep one side facing the sun all the time.

Here's where it gets really strange.

The atmosphere, even though it is so thick and heavy, is still mobile. It still moves around. Energy converted into thermal energy moves around to the night side of the planet. Daytime temperatures and nighttime temperatures on Venus are virtually identical. This despite the enormously long days and nights. This is the power of thermal conduction.

Venus was never like Earth. It is not an Earth 'gone bad'. It never had much hydrogen or oxygen in it's atmosphere. If such gases were ever present, the surface of Venus would be covered in oil (probably an asphalt like substance). The heat and pressure are certainly there to do it. There's even the presence of an iron catalyst in the surface itself.

No such feature has been found on the planet. The surface is basically gray-brown. Venus is bright and shiny in the visible spectrum because of the sulfuric acid overcast.

Sending a spacecraft to Venus is extremely difficult. Both the United States and the USSR sent such a craft. These spacecraft must descend through acid clouds (that attacks any metal), deal with crushing pressures, land softly on the surface, deal with temperature hot enough to melt solder connections in their electronics, and somehow last long enough to send signal back to Earth.

The USSR craft lasted about 5 minutes before dissolving.

The US craft, which was never designed to actually land, never made it to Venus. A bug in the navigational software of the launch vehicle caused by a missing hyphen caused the launch vehicle to deviate from course sufficiently to order a destruct.

Programmers. *sigh*


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-09-2016 03:09
16-09-2016 03:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
And thus you can see the issues with holding two debates at once.

I was establishing that the atmosphere can and does affect the average temperature. I totally agree that Venus is not a failed Earth. In fact, I get a bit grumpy when people say that. So Venus is useless as an example in our debate - you agree with me that atmosphere is capable of affecting average temperature, right? The point of disagreement is whether our specific atmospheric changes will affect our temperature.

But IB, apparently, does not agree. And thus my post, which seems painfully obvious to me but probably isn't. It will be necessary until IB reads up on this and obtains more than a basic knowledge of thermodynamics and heat. As it is said, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." The world is rather complex, and seeming violations of basic laws may reveal themselves to be in accordance with said laws, just in a very weird way. Note that I'm not being intellectually elite - just a few days ago, I was making noob mistakes that seem a bit shameful now. But they aren't! Never shame people for not having knowledge, or they might never return to the halls of knowledge and obtain any. (That's directed to you, IB. Into's discussion informed me and drove me to learn more. Yours did not.)
16-09-2016 03:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
And thus you can see the issues with holding two debates at once.

I was establishing that the atmosphere can and does affect the average temperature. I totally agree that Venus is not a failed Earth. In fact, I get a bit grumpy when people say that. So Venus is useless as an example in our debate - you agree with me that atmosphere is capable of affecting average temperature, right? The point of disagreement is whether our specific atmospheric changes will affect our temperature.

But IB, apparently, does not agree. And thus my post, which seems painfully obvious to me but probably isn't. It will be necessary until IB reads up on this and obtains more than a basic knowledge of thermodynamics and heat. As it is said, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." The world is rather complex, and seeming violations of basic laws may reveal themselves to be in accordance with said laws, just in a very weird way. Note that I'm not being intellectually elite - just a few days ago, I was making noob mistakes that seem a bit shameful now. But they aren't! Never shame people for not having knowledge, or they might never return to the halls of knowledge and obtain any. (That's directed to you, IB. Into's discussion informed me and drove me to learn more. Yours did not.)


Actually, no. The atmosphere is not capable of affecting average temperature.

That might seem like I'm denying my own argument at first, so let me explain.

When you consider the average temperature of a planet, you need to consider the planet as a whole, land, sea, and sky.

If you consider only the surface, you find yourself in an illusion. That is because it is what you directly experience when stumbling around like the rest of us. If you consider an average, do you count the freezing temperatures in the tropopause? How about the top of the thermosphere? How about the bottom of the deepest sea? What about temperatures found underground? What about the mantle and the core? Do we count those?

The atmosphere certainly does affect surface temperatures. Just having a cloud pass overhead affects the surface temperature beneath it.

On Venus, atmospheric absorption of incoming IR makes a big difference just because there is much atmosphere, and that atmosphere is being directly warmed by the Sun in great amounts.

Here on Earth, that direct warming by CO2 absorption is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Orientation of the molecule is important for absorption. CO2 will only absorb if the molecule happens to be more or less broadside to the photon when it arrives. Only about 1% of the CO2 is oriented this way at any given time (by probability), so the total warming affect works out to about 0.0004% of the total.

The remainder of any warming is by land and sea.

On Venus 1% of 99% is still a very significant number, especially when you factor in the pressures involved. Essentially, 10% of the IR energy coming into the Venusian atmosphere is going into directly heating that atmosphere.

It may not sound like much, but it's a hell of a lot. That's enough to turn Venus into the hellhole it is.

Average temperature of Venus, however, is somewhat less than Mercury. Higher levels in the atmosphere is where you find your cool air. Under the surface temperatures are probably comparable for a planet that size. There is no sea.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-09-2016 03:51
16-09-2016 04:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That... answers a lot of questions that I had, actually.

But in the end, most of the weather occurs in the bottom layers of the atmosphere. Ice borders the lower atmosphere, and only that layer can melt it. So my question is: what does it matter what temperature the upper atmosphere is? As you said yourself, we live in the lower part, and that is all we experience. It makes up our whole "world", if not our world. A change in the lower part will matter much more than a change in the upper part, all other things being equal.
16-09-2016 06:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
That... answers a lot of questions that I had, actually.

But in the end, most of the weather occurs in the bottom layers of the atmosphere. Ice borders the lower atmosphere, and only that layer can melt it. So my question is: what does it matter what temperature the upper atmosphere is? As you said yourself, we live in the lower part, and that is all we experience. It makes up our whole "world", if not our world. A change in the lower part will matter much more than a change in the upper part, all other things being equal.


While I understand our concern about the surface temperature (that's why we read the weather report!), the contribution of warming by CO2 is really so minimal you can safely ignore it.

Warming of the surface and the sea is the primary determinant of surface temperatures on Earth. Different terrain warms differently. Clouds affect warming of the surface by getting 'in the way', but are warmed as a result of doing so.

When you combine convection with clouds, you can get some real beauts of thunderstorms. Drives the tornado and the hurricane too. All from just heat and moisture.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2016 07:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But what about all of the scientists who say that global warming is happening? Am I supposed to believe that they are all lying to me, or all wrong?

(Self-cynical note: Based on observation of previous discussion, I have identified this argument, "argument from authority", to be one of the last arguments I make before agreement.)
16-09-2016 20:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But what about all of the scientists who say that global warming is happening? Am I supposed to believe that they are all lying to me, or all wrong?

(Self-cynical note: Based on observation of previous discussion, I have identified this argument, "argument from authority", to be one of the last arguments I make before agreement.)


We've actually covered this before. What follows is a summary.

Most scientists work for universities directly, or in grant programs. At your typical university, you go to the grant office (every university has one) which links you to grant money.

That grant money always comes from the government.

Many other scientists work for various government installations directly, like NASA.

Since government owns the university, and all the grant money through the grant office comes from the government, most scientists effectively work for the government.

The government WANTS Global Warming. It gives them power and allows them to expand their programs. Government is not out to solve problems. If they did, they could not justify the continuance of a program built to solve a problem.

So NOAA, NASA, the university system, and the grant system all are telling these scientists to either support Global Warming, or lose their money (be fired, don't get their grant, etc.)

The scientist is NOT part of the conspiracy. They are simply trapped.

This is why most scientists that speak out against Global Warming are independently funded. They have nothing that holds them to anything.

Some independent scientists actually do believe in Global Warming. They accept this argument on faith, so they can study some aspect about it.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2016 21:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But how would a hoax benefit the government? What would drive them to conspire?
17-09-2016 05:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Wait a second! The government does not withhold money from scientists if they don't like their results! How are the scientists forced to do anything?
17-09-2016 16:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait a second! The government does not withhold money from scientists if they don't like their results! How are the scientists forced to do anything?

Are you naive? Do you not understand that the government is a completely political animal?

The government will only buy / pay for what it wants.

No government is going to pay for ideas, or support for ideas, that it does not want.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
17-09-2016 18:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You're just conjecturing. Do you have any proof of this, or are you just throwing out baseless accusations? From what I've seen, the only defunding that's happening is the defunding of climate-change-supporting studies by Republicans.
17-09-2016 22:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You're just conjecturing. Do you have any proof of this, or are you just throwing out baseless accusations? From what I've seen, the only defunding that's happening is the defunding of climate-change-supporting studies by Republicans.


You have just made a compositional error. People in government are not uniform. Government is not uniform.

There are good people in government (a LOT of them!) and there are evil people in government (a LOT of them!). Those that follow the law and uphold the various constitutions are the good people in government.

The Republicans, by defunding Global Warming studies, are moving towards constitutional government (a republic). There is NO authorization by the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government the power to declare a substance a 'pollutant' or to spend money on studying the effects of it. They have no authority to fund universities either.

Individual States have these powers, as long as they follow their own constitutions when exercising them.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 00:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...what? How did I make a compositional error?

Scientists will not tweak their data to produce. They don't do that. Admittedly some do - and then immediately get ripped apart by their colleagues!
18-09-2016 01:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...what? How did I make a compositional error?

You improperly assigned the characteristics of a class (government) across the elements of that class (government workers). Even evil governments have good people in them.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Scientists will not tweak their data to produce. They don't do that. Admittedly some do - and then immediately get ripped apart by their colleagues!


There is no data to produce. Any tweaking is fudging.

In the case of the inability to measure a global temperature, any scientist that makes such a claim as measuring or calculating global temperature IS getting called on it!

It only takes one to call them on it.

You are making the argument of consensus in science. Consensus has nothing to do with science.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-09-2016 01:24
18-09-2016 01:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I made an error in your second quoted sentence. I meant "scientists will not tweak their data to produce a wanted result."

Consensus has nothing to do with science


I am beginning to wonder whether you have anything to do with science. The scientific method itself loops around to the beginning, going through consensus and peer review. Consensus determines what is confirmed by science. If it's not consensus, then who determines what "science" says?

Besides, you didn't answer my question. If the government can apparently bribe scientists to tweak their data, and there is no backlash, no scientists speaking out about this, nothing at all, the entire body of scientists must be corrupt. If that's the case, why do you trust anything that science says? Paranoia like that can't be selective.

The government does not affect the results of the studies it funds.
18-09-2016 04:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:I am beginning to wonder whether you have anything to do with science.

Good. Good. Confirm that you are scientifically illiterate.

You think consensus is part of science! Awesome! So, is science determined by democratic vote? Who owns science anyway such that they get to hold the vote? Is it like the academy awards where the world watches in anticipation as the "science determining committee" announces what has been deemed "science"?

The answer is that you are a moron who cannot distinguish between religion and science, as embarrassing as that is. You think science works like a religion whereby a Vatican Council determines what is science.

It doesn't work that way at all. In science no one's opinion matters. There's no consensus ever. There's never any vote. Science is not subjective in any way.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature, that no one has yet shown to be false.

The scientific method is a systematic attempt to show a falsifiable model false.

No consensus to be found anywhere.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
18-09-2016 04:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"That no one has shown to be false"

Who shows things to be false? The scientists! Consensus is reached when most scientists relevant to a field agree that a model is reached.
18-09-2016 04:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Also, you accuse me of thinking that science is democratic. Then you accuse me of thinking that science is determined by a select few. How does your mind even work? It should be splitting in two from all the inconsistencies!
18-09-2016 09:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I made an error in your second quoted sentence. I meant "scientists will not tweak their data to produce a wanted result."

Consensus has nothing to do with science


I am beginning to wonder whether you have anything to do with science. The scientific method itself loops around to the beginning, going through consensus and peer review. Consensus determines what is confirmed by science. If it's not consensus, then who determines what "science" says?


Accusing people AGAIN. F**k you.

No one. No one owns science. No peer review board, no association, no government, no scientist or group of scientists.

Stop worshiping the Great God Consensus. The Church of Global Warming is making you dumb.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Besides, you didn't answer my question. If the government can apparently bribe scientists to tweak their data, and there is no backlash, no scientists speaking out about this, nothing at all, the entire body of scientists must be corrupt. If that's the case, why do you trust anything that science says? Paranoia like that can't be selective.

Argument of the Stone. This has already been answered by me...three times now.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The government does not affect the results of the studies it funds.

Yes it does. To figure the government is not going to affect the results by deciding whether to fund the next grant based on the current study is being myopically stupid.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-09-2016 09:09
18-09-2016 09:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
"That no one has shown to be false"

Who shows things to be false? The scientists! Consensus is reached when most scientists relevant to a field agree that a model is reached.


Go learn what a null hypothesis is. You can either re-read IBDaMann's post that explains it VERY clearly, or you can go look it up yourself.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 09:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, you accuse me of thinking that science is democratic. Then you accuse me of thinking that science is determined by a select few. How does your mind even work? It should be splitting in two from all the inconsistencies!


Awww. Too bad. You feel accused. F**k you. You have been accusing both me and IBDaMann. Doesn't feel so good, does it?

You stand accused. Science is not determined democratically or by a select few. If you can't figure out that 10 is greater than zero and 2 is greater than zero, you have your own problem to deal with.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 09:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Do you really not see how vitriolic IB is? I haven't done half as much as he has.
18-09-2016 11:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Do you really not see how vitriolic IB is? I haven't done half as much as he has.


I am not going to judge a pissing match for you. You have insulted me without cause. You have discarded my arguments. You continue to attack IBDaMann and ignore his arguments. I don't care how vitriolic he is. You've earned it. Deal with it.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 13:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, there are quite a few parts here.

I am not going to judge a pissing match for you.


By all means! If you want to remove yourself from this, then stop mentioning how bad I am because I insult IB. I would love that. But you haven't. Stop wobbling back and forth - either our pissing match is your business or it isn't.

You have insulted me without cause.


The one true accusation. Alas, I am not good at withholding emotions, probably because I am bad at noticing tone. (Also, the different medium of communication affects things. [Need I specify why? It's not like you have to specify your vague statements.]). There is, however, a bit of incorrectness: there is a bit of cause. If you show a lack of understanding of such basic concepts as "temperature," I have good reason to suspect that you have not taken courses that discuss temperature beyond a high school student's understanding. It's my tone that was without cause (and keep in mind I'm shitty at reading tone).

You have discarded my arguments.


No, I've taken them into consideration. Some do not satisfy my curiosity for knowledge and my desire to understand rather than blindly believe (your "unfounded assertion" arguments). Some do not demonstrate understanding of basic physics concepts. This is basically my entire complaint. Stop making assertions without proof or explanation, and learn what temperature and the 2nd LoT actually mean. Then I'll accept your arguments.

You continue to attack IBdaMann and ignore his arguments.


As he has me and mine.

Is this your business or no? Your "pissing match" comment seems to indicate no.

I don't care how vitriolic he is.


Then why do you care how vitriolic I am to him?

You've earned it.


How have I earned it any less than he has? Furthermore, since he is the initiator (see his "welcome") of our conflict, I really don't see how slightly contributing to the problem places everything on me.

TL;DR: If what he's doing to me is okay, than what I'm doing to him is okay. Fair is fair. Fair is not "he's my friend, I'll be lenient and side with him against jwood".

Deal with it.


Sure. This is my attempt to do so; getting you out of our "pissing matches" will make it easier to handle. Ganging up on someone can't be done with only one person.
18-09-2016 14:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But let's get back to the topic. It's consensus for now.

Consensus is a thing, regardless of how important it is. (I'll stop linking to Wikipedia once it stops being useful)

But how useful is it?

"You are making the argument of consensus in science. Consensus has nothing to do with science."

I will be summarizing the folllowing: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_meaning_of_consensus_in_science

(Of course, you'll accuse them of being part of the conspiracy...)

Consensus is not everything, but there's been new data recently, and a shifting in consensus from "the earth's climate cannot change" to "the earth's climate changes around a constant mean" to "the earth's climate can change; there is not necessarily a constant mean around which the climate orbits." This suggests that the new consensus is probably correct, when combined with the conclusive data and the models cross-checked by the thousands of scientists looking into this.

He writes it better than I do, though:

Powell's original question was how we know anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real. The simple answer is that the data demonstrate it. It has become almost impossible to deny that the planet is warming, based on multiple independent evaluations of the measured surface temperatures, global remote sensing from orbit, and large-scale environmental changes, especially in the Arctic. But how do we know that the primary cause of global warming is CO2 from burning fossil fuels? Because both theory and data show that temperatures rise with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and the isotopic analyses of the added CO2 demonstrate that it came from the burning of old carbon (fossil fuel).

To go beyond these simple truths, particularly to predict the course of future warming, scientists must delve into complex calculations and computer models that are difficult for laypersons and even most scientists to judge. Here we have an advantage over the historical examples Powell cites, since there are thousands of climate scientists around the world working on these problems, checking each other's work. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports represent researchers from 195 countries, and UN rules require unanimity in approval of the report language on climate change. Today we are flooded with climate data, and ultimately it is data, not models, that matter in science.

In his final paragraph, Powell summarizes:

Of course scientists have been wrong in the past, but they did not stay wrong. As new data arrive, scientists changed their position, some enthusiastically, some begrudgingly. A few were unable to make the transition, going to their graves clinging to their long-held positions. A new generation, with no allegiance to the old ways, came along to replace them. Thus data transform heresy into truth.


So, how do you plan on rebutting both the natureOfScience and the globalWarming components of that webpage? (Please tell me it isn't just "they're in on the conspiracy", that's too unimaginative.)
19-09-2016 00:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay, there are quite a few parts here.

I am not going to judge a pissing match for you.


By all means! If you want to remove yourself from this, then stop mentioning how bad I am because I insult IB. I would love that. But you haven't. Stop wobbling back and forth - either our pissing match is your business or it isn't.
It's my business now. Not as a judge. YOU made it so.

jwoodward48 wrote:
You have insulted me without cause.


The one true accusation. Alas, I am not good at withholding emotions, probably because I am bad at noticing tone. (Also, the different medium of communication affects things. [Need I specify why? It's not like you have to specify your vague statements.]). There is, however, a bit of incorrectness: there is a bit of cause. If you show a lack of understanding of such basic concepts as "temperature," I have good reason to suspect that you have not taken courses that discuss temperature beyond a high school student's understanding. It's my tone that was without cause (and keep in mind I'm shitty at reading tone).

I know exactly what temperature is. You don't. Every molecule has a temperature, either individually or collectively. Temperature is vibrating molecule(s). Nothing more, nothing less.
jwoodward48 wrote:
You have discarded my arguments.


No, I've taken them into consideration. Some do not satisfy my curiosity for knowledge and my desire to understand rather than blindly believe (your "unfounded assertion" arguments). Some do not demonstrate understanding of basic physics concepts. This is basically my entire complaint. Stop making assertions without proof or explanation, and learn what temperature and the 2nd LoT actually mean. Then I'll accept your arguments.

No, you have discarded my arguments. Even those you agreed with at one time.

You do not know what the 2nd LoT means. You even admitted it at one time. You do not know what temperature means or how it's defined.

You can look this stuff up or read it in a physics textbook. I have explained my reasoning and my assertions. DON'T call me a liar again.

jwoodward48 wrote:
You continue to attack IBdaMann and ignore his arguments.


As he has me and mine.

Is this your business or no? Your "pissing match" comment seems to indicate no.

I don't care how vitriolic he is.


Then why do you care how vitriolic I am to him?

Because you were vitriolic with me without cause. You attacked me, you attacked my credentials (you have no idea what they are), you attacked my business, you attacked my ability to conduct my business by saying I don't know my business, you attacked my country.

And after I tried to demonstrate patience with you, even after the first warning.

He can be as vitriolic as he likes. You can't justify it. You're an ingrate. You have joined that which he despises most: The Church of Global Warming and the Church of Marxism.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You've earned it.


How have I earned it any less than he has? Furthermore, since he is the initiator (see his "welcome") of our conflict, I really don't see how slightly contributing to the problem places everything on me.

DON'T play innocent with me. He saw you for what you are before I did. He often has.

jwoodward48 wrote:
TL;DR: If what he's doing to me is okay, than what I'm doing to him is okay. Fair is fair. Fair is not "he's my friend, I'll be lenient and side with him against jwood".

Fair is fair. If you want to go down that road with me, now you have TWO people using vitriolic language against you.

Guess how you get yourself out of this predicament?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Deal with it.


Sure. This is my attempt to do so; getting you out of our "pissing matches" will make it easier to handle. Ganging up on someone can't be done with only one person.

I am not the judge of the pissing match. But your pissing on me has made me a participant.

I have no intention of just forgiving you. Not until you show more than just saying 'sorry'.

Here is your way out:

1) renounce your membership in the Church of Global Warming and its teachings.
2) renounce your membership in the Church of Marx and its teachings.
3) stop attacking people, even those that attack you. This must be demonstrated over time.

If you show me 3), then I have an indication that you are actually willing to discuss things. That alone is the restitution I require. We can work on 1) and 2) if you can perform 3).

Until then, I cannot accept your apology.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 01:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But let's get back to the topic. It's consensus for now.

Consensus is a thing, regardless of how important it is. (I'll stop linking to Wikipedia once it stops being useful)

But how useful is it?

"You are making the argument of consensus in science. Consensus has nothing to do with science."

I will be summarizing the folllowing: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_meaning_of_consensus_in_science

(Of course, you'll accuse them of being part of the conspiracy...)

Consensus is not everything, but there's been new data recently, and a shifting in consensus from "the earth's climate cannot change" to "the earth's climate changes around a constant mean" to "the earth's climate can change; there is not necessarily a constant mean around which the climate orbits." This suggests that the new consensus is probably correct, when combined with the conclusive data and the models cross-checked by the thousands of scientists looking into this.

He writes it better than I do, though:

Powell's original question was how we know anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real. The simple answer is that the data demonstrate it. It has become almost impossible to deny that the planet is warming, based on multiple independent evaluations of the measured surface temperatures, global remote sensing from orbit, and large-scale environmental changes, especially in the Arctic. But how do we know that the primary cause of global warming is CO2 from burning fossil fuels? Because both theory and data show that temperatures rise with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and the isotopic analyses of the added CO2 demonstrate that it came from the burning of old carbon (fossil fuel).

To go beyond these simple truths, particularly to predict the course of future warming, scientists must delve into complex calculations and computer models that are difficult for laypersons and even most scientists to judge. Here we have an advantage over the historical examples Powell cites, since there are thousands of climate scientists around the world working on these problems, checking each other's work. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports represent researchers from 195 countries, and UN rules require unanimity in approval of the report language on climate change. Today we are flooded with climate data, and ultimately it is data, not models, that matter in science.

In his final paragraph, Powell summarizes:

Of course scientists have been wrong in the past, but they did not stay wrong. As new data arrive, scientists changed their position, some enthusiastically, some begrudgingly. A few were unable to make the transition, going to their graves clinging to their long-held positions. A new generation, with no allegiance to the old ways, came along to replace them. Thus data transform heresy into truth.


So, how do you plan on rebutting both the natureOfScience and the globalWarming components of that webpage? (Please tell me it isn't just "they're in on the conspiracy", that's too unimaginative.)


Consensus has no meaning in science. It has no place there.

Consensus is a political or religious term.

A lot of people don't understand this simple concept. This includes you, so I will try to explain:

If all the scientists but one have a consensus on a theory, that doesn't make it true. If that one scientist finds conflicting evidence for a theory that results in a positive test result for the null hypothesis, that alone will falsify the theory. That theory must be modified or destroyed. Consensus will not save it. Past peer reviews will not save it. No magazine, association, or government cannot save it.

If a theory is formed, tested against internal and external consistencies, and tested for the null hypothesis at least once, then the theory is valid. No consensus, peer review, magazine, association or government can change that.

The more negative results for the test of the null hypothesis the theory passes, or the longer no positive result can be found, the confidence in the theory goes up. No consensus, peer review, magazine, association, or government can change that.

Powell is making a circular argument. The data does not demonstrate it. There is no data. There is only the conclusion that there is.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 04:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But that's models. When we're discussing binary issues, like "is the earth warming," one piece of evidence for your side does not invalidate the thousands of pieces of evidence that support my side. That's a double standard.

From a historical viewpoint, this very similar to the ozone issue. We fixed it, no economics collapsed, and everything was fine. Chances are, since everything's been set up on the same board, scientists are right again. When scientists are not torn by conflicting theories, consensus tends to be correct. It isn't proof, but in effect, it supports global warming.
19-09-2016 19:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But that's models. When we're discussing binary issues, like "is the earth warming," one piece of evidence for your side does not invalidate the thousands of pieces of evidence that support my side. That's a double standard.
No.

That's how science works.
jwoodward48 wrote:
From a historical viewpoint, this very similar to the ozone issue. We fixed it, no economics

We didn't fix it. There was nothing wrong in the first place. The hole is still there, for the same reasons it's always been there and always will be.
jwoodward48 wrote:
collapsed, and everything was fine.

Bullshit. The incredible amount of money wasted on the ozone hole is NOT fine.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Chances are, since everything's been set up on the same board, scientists are right again.

They weren't right then, they are aren't right now. They are in the same prison they were before.
jwoodward48 wrote:
When scientists are not torn by conflicting theories, consensus tends to be correct. It isn't proof, but in effect, it supports global warming.

Consensus has NOTHING to do with science.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Basic arithmetic:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact