Remember me
▼ Content

But the Climate is Always Changing!



Page 1 of 5123>>>
But the Climate is Always Changing!24-01-2016 17:34
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvzdd2tKqh4
26-01-2016 17:59
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
That's right. CO2 has no effect on temperature. There were ice ages when CO2 was thousands ppm. Eemian was 3 to 4 C hotter than today when CO2 was only 280 ppm. Even if there is no CO2 in the air, the world can be several C hotter than today.
26-01-2016 20:39
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
That's right. CO2 has no effect on temperature. There were ice ages when CO2 was thousands ppm. Eemian was 3 to 4 C hotter than today when CO2 was only 280 ppm. Even if there is no CO2 in the air, the world can be several C hotter than today.


"CO2 has no effect on temperature." You keep coming up with stuff but provide no quantitative evidence to support it. The statements that follow do not support that conclusion.

What you seem to forget is that atmospheric composition is not the only cause of climate change. Other factors can overwhelm it just as it can overwhelm them depending on the circumstances. It is like saying a child was run over by truck yesterday, therefore if we take all trucks off the road then there would be no more children killed in traffic accidents.

"There were ice ages when CO2 was thousands ppm" yes when the Sun was dimmer and the ocean currents, continents and mountains were in different places. You have to look at all the circumstances.

The classic case is Snowball Earth. The Earth was in deep freeze, ice from pole to pole. It stayed that way for millions of years. What ended it? A build up of CO2 in the atmosphere from volcanoes. As there was no rain the CO2 just kept building up until it global temperatures rose enough to melt most of the ice.

According to this plot (http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_150001.png) the eemian was not 3-4C hotter and CO2 during the early stages of the Holocene were significantly lower than the eemian
27-01-2016 00:18
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
DRKTS wrote:"CO2 has no effect on temperature." You keep coming up with stuff but provide no quantitative evidence to support it. The statements that follow do not support that conclusion.

What you seem to forget is that atmospheric composition is not the only cause of climate change. Other factors can overwhelm it just as it can overwhelm them depending on the circumstances. It is like saying a child was run over by truck yesterday, therefore if we take all trucks off the road then there would be no more children killed in traffic accidents.

"There were ice ages when CO2 was thousands ppm" yes when the Sun was dimmer and the ocean currents, continents and mountains were in different places. You have to look at all the circumstances.

The classic case is Snowball Earth. The Earth was in deep freeze, ice from pole to pole. It stayed that way for millions of years. What ended it? A build up of CO2 in the atmosphere from volcanoes. As there was no rain the CO2 just kept building up until it global temperatures rose enough to melt most of the ice.

According to this plot (http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_150001.png) the eemian was not 3-4C hotter and CO2 during the early stages of the Holocene were significantly lower than the eemian


There has never been CO2 induced warming.

Check out the weather at this year's Australian Open. On the low side despite high CO2. This is experimental proof CO2 has no effect on temperature.

If Earth has no CO2, Earth would be 130 C like on the Moon instead of only 15 C.
Edited on 27-01-2016 00:26
27-01-2016 04:46
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:

There has never been CO2 induced warming.

Check out the weather at this year's Australian Open. On the low side despite high CO2. This is experimental proof CO2 has no effect on temperature.

If Earth has no CO2, Earth would be 130 C like on the Moon instead of only 15 C.


I note no answer to any of my individual points.

According to local reports from Melbourne the high today is 84F and the low 66F.

The normal highs and lows for these dates (from that same source) is 80 and 60F respectively.

Last time I looked in a math textbook 84 > 80 and 66 > 60. Or has this new math changed all that?

So by your own argument this proves CO2 affects temperature. So that is settled.

The real issue here is that local weather conditions on a specific day are not necessarily and indicator of global climate trends over decades.
27-01-2016 15:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
DRKTS wrote: The real issue here is that local weather conditions on a specific day are not necessarily and indicator of global climate trends over decades.

Weather is a pretty random thing. You have to show that there are, in fact, cause-effect trends to be had.

If I roll a six-sided die millions of times (each time is completely random) and record each result, I can claim "trends" in any interval of rolls. They wouldn't actually be trends, however, because each result is independent (random) and not based on previous occurrences.

The same goes for the randomness of weather. Just because you can perceive a pattern in a particular time interval, that does not make it a "trend."

Remember, bogus assumptions lead to bogus conclusions. "Climate trends" is one big bogus assumption.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
27-01-2016 18:49
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

Weather is a pretty random thing. You have to show that there are, in fact, cause-effect trends to be had.

If I roll a six-sided die millions of times (each time is completely random) and record each result, I can claim "trends" in any interval of rolls. They wouldn't actually be trends, however, because each result is independent (random) and not based on previous occurrences.

The same goes for the randomness of weather. Just because you can perceive a pattern in a particular time interval, that does not make it a "trend."

Remember, bogus assumptions lead to bogus conclusions. "Climate trends" is one big bogus assumption.


Drawing a line on a plot is not a determination of a tend in and of itself. The eye can be deceived.

However if you fit a set of data with a trend algorithm (constant, linear, polynomial, exponential, powerlaw, etc.) the mathematics not only gives you the value of each term in the equation that depends on "x" but also an uncertainty on that quantity.

You can use that to determine how significant that trend is. Two sigma (look up "standard deviation" if you don't know what that means) corresponds to a 95% certainty that the result is significant and is the criterion used in most climate trend determinations.

In you example any tend fit over a reasonable number of samples (say 25 or more) would likely lead to no significant trend - at least it would be about 65,000 to one against it producing a significant trend.

you can test this out using any spreadsheet program. Use the random number generator that most of them have built in to generate a string of 25 or more numbers, then use the linear (say) trend analysis application to give you a slope and uncertainty. You will find that very few of them with a significant trend (i.e., 2 sigma above or below zero slope - the spread sheet should have a standard deviation or R^2 calculator too)
27-01-2016 20:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
DRKTS wrote: However if you fit a set of data with a trend algorithm (constant, linear, polynomial, exponential, powerlaw, etc.) the mathematics not only gives you the value of each term in the equation that depends on "x" but also an uncertainty on that quantity.


...not if the data is randomly generated, e.g. die rolls, coin flips, weather, etc.

The application of a trend-seeking algorithm assumes that the data is not random. This becomes the false assumption that leads to the false conclusion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
27-01-2016 20:58
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

...not if the data is randomly generated, e.g. die rolls, coin flips, weather, etc.

The application of a trend-seeking algorithm assumes that the data is not random. This becomes the false assumption that leads to the false conclusion.


You seemingly do not understand how statistics work. They test for correlations and trends. If there is none there they will not find one (i.e., the uncertainty on each parameter will be greater than the value of that parameter.

As I said you can test this out on a spread sheet for yourself. Do it and you'll prove to yourself that you are wrong.
27-01-2016 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: The real issue here is that local weather conditions on a specific day are not necessarily and indicator of global climate trends over decades.

Weather is a pretty random thing. You have to show that there are, in fact, cause-effect trends to be had.

If I roll a six-sided die millions of times (each time is completely random) and record each result, I can claim "trends" in any interval of rolls. They wouldn't actually be trends, however, because each result is independent (random) and not based on previous occurrences.

The same goes for the randomness of weather. Just because you can perceive a pattern in a particular time interval, that does not make it a "trend."

Remember, bogus assumptions lead to bogus conclusions. "Climate trends" is one big bogus assumption.


.

If you roll a six-sided die millions of times, the chance of the poor thing wearing out and become a shape instead of a die becomes greater and greater, which affects it's probability.
This is why any casino will take the dice out of service after a week or so.

Otherwise you are quite correct.


The Parrot Killer
27-01-2016 21:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
DRKTS wrote:
You seemingly do not understand how statistics work.

Yes, I understand statistics.

You do not understand trends.

DRKTS wrote: They test for correlations and trends.

Yes, under the assumption the data are not random.

As I have said before, if you are telling me that you have discovered a trend in randomly-generated data, then I will tell you that your conclusion is false, as will be all assertions that stem from that false conclusion.

You should start right now getting used to seeing the word "False."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2016 02:27
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

Yes, under the assumption the data are not random.

As I have said before, if you are telling me that you have discovered a trend in randomly-generated data, then I will tell you that your conclusion is false, as will be all assertions that stem from that false conclusion.

You should start right now getting used to seeing the word "False."


No such assumption. Go look it up in any basic stats book. Such an analysis tells you whether or not there is a trend. That is one way to test for randomness.

If there is a trend in the data, it tells you what the trend is, how big it is, and what the uncertainties are on each parameter characterizing the trend.

You keep making definitive assertions but are clearly lacking even the basic knowledge of the subject to be able to make any judgement on the issue at all.

I tell you what. Generate 3 sets of 50 random numbers using a random number generator. Leave one set as it is (i.e., random). Add a positive and significant trend to another. Add a negative and significant trend to the next.

Then post those the sets on numbers on this thread in any order you want, and I will tell you which is which, and what trend you added.
28-01-2016 02:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
DRKTS wrote: No such assumption. Go look it up in any basic stats book.

Go learn math and then we'll talk. I can't get any more basic and you don't grasp even that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2016 03:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Yes, under the assumption the data are not random.

As I have said before, if you are telling me that you have discovered a trend in randomly-generated data, then I will tell you that your conclusion is false, as will be all assertions that stem from that false conclusion.

You should start right now getting used to seeing the word "False."


No such assumption. Go look it up in any basic stats book. Such an analysis tells you whether or not there is a trend. That is one way to test for randomness.

If there is a trend in the data, it tells you what the trend is, how big it is, and what the uncertainties are on each parameter characterizing the trend.

You keep making definitive assertions but are clearly lacking even the basic knowledge of the subject to be able to make any judgement on the issue at all.

I tell you what. Generate 3 sets of 50 random numbers using a random number generator. Leave one set as it is (i.e., random). Add a positive and significant trend to another. Add a negative and significant trend to the next.

Then post those the sets on numbers on this thread in any order you want, and I will tell you which is which, and what trend you added.


You can't define the randomness of a number by using trends. It's not possible to define a random number that way. All you are saying is a number is random because it 'looks' random.

Using statistical mathematics in this way is incorrect, despite what any book might teach about it. People have tried to do this to develop psuedo-random generators in computers (which can't generate actual random numbers since they are locked in the N of the computer itself). The technique is fundamentally flawed.

A far better technique for describing random numbers is by resolution reduction, where the difference in N between the two systems is as wide as possible. This is the technique used by Unix to set it's seed for /dev/random, and is much better describing the randomness of dice or card shuffling.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-01-2016 04:02
28-01-2016 12:29
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:

You can't define the randomness of a number by using trends. It's not possible to define a random number that way. All you are saying is a number is random because it 'looks' random.

Using statistical mathematics in this way is incorrect, despite what any book might teach about it. People have tried to do this to develop psuedo-random generators in computers (which can't generate actual random numbers since they are locked in the N of the computer itself). The technique is fundamentally flawed.

A far better technique for describing random numbers is by resolution reduction, where the difference in N between the two systems is as wide as possible. This is the technique used by Unix to set it's seed for /dev/random, and is much better describing the randomness of dice or card shuffling.


That is mathematical drivel. First a single number cannot be random. Randomness can only be applied against a set of numbers.

Resolution reduction incorporates the very statistical methods I discussed.

The numbers generated by a classical computer algorithm is only not random if you generate so many that the series repeats. However within a limited sample the numbers are consistent with a normal distribution so are random. Choose a different seed and you get a different number series. Most random number generators use a noise bit as the seed so are random.

You test the distribution of a set of measurements against their mean and characterize them with the half width or standard deviation. If they are consistent with a normal, Gaussian or Poissonian distribution then they are considered random.

If you have a time series or a correlation analysis then you test them using a trend analysis. If the trend slope of the series is consistent with zero (ie with a specified range of standard deviation - usually 2 sigma for climatology) then there is no trend.

So you seem to be claiming that 400 years of statistical analysis is wrong because it does not give you the result you seek? Wow! That is what I call arrogant but it certainly is not scientific.
28-01-2016 13:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
DRKTS wrote: That is mathematical drivel. First a single number cannot be random.

You have no business saying what is drivel and you have no business in a conversation involving math.

Yes, I can have a single random number.

Go learn math first then engage in a discussion on math.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2016 14:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
So your not just an expert on chemistry then?
28-01-2016 14:55
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
So your not just an expert on chemistry then?

IB's signature should be: "Everyone keeps telling me that I know f-uck nothing, but that's FALSE! I know f-uck ALL!"




Edited on 28-01-2016 14:59
28-01-2016 15:23
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Gosh, who might need to "go learn math" and who might be talking drivel?

Looking up Dr KT Strong in Google Scholar

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=KT+strong+&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Looking up IBdaMann in Google Scholar

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=IBdaMann&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
There is only one 'almost match' with an article on Distal Proctocolitis - an inflammation in the rectum and colon. Considering the place where IBdaMann usually pulls his 'knowledge' from..... it's a hilarious coincidence.



Edited on 28-01-2016 15:28
28-01-2016 17:22
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

You have no business saying what is drivel and you have no business in a conversation involving math.

Yes, I can have a single random number.

Go learn math first then engage in a discussion on math.


I have 4 qualifications in math, and several of my undergraduate courses and post graduate courses involved advanced math and statistical techniques

My thesis involved deriving new theoretical models of resonance scattering in low density plasmas, pure mathematical modelling, which made me classified as one of the leadng experts in the world on that subject. Which is why one of the largest aerospace companies in the world hired me.

40 years of research there involved mathematical and/or statistical analysis nearly every day.

You can look me up on Linked in or Research gate. Keith Strong

Remind us all what your math qualifications are? Ooops, none? I think you led with your chin on that one!
28-01-2016 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You can't define the randomness of a number by using trends. It's not possible to define a random number that way. All you are saying is a number is random because it 'looks' random.

Using statistical mathematics in this way is incorrect, despite what any book might teach about it. People have tried to do this to develop psuedo-random generators in computers (which can't generate actual random numbers since they are locked in the N of the computer itself). The technique is fundamentally flawed.

A far better technique for describing random numbers is by resolution reduction, where the difference in N between the two systems is as wide as possible. This is the technique used by Unix to set it's seed for /dev/random, and is much better describing the randomness of dice or card shuffling.


That is mathematical drivel. First a single number cannot be random. Randomness can only be applied against a set of numbers.

Wrong. Absolutely. I need only roll a die once to generate one.
DRKTS wrote:
Resolution reduction incorporates the very statistical methods I discussed.

Wrong. Absolutely. Resolution reduction has nothing whatsoever to do with statistical mathematics techniques.
DRKTS wrote:
The numbers generated by a classical computer algorithm is only not random if you generate so many that the series repeats. However within a limited sample the numbers are consistent with a normal distribution so are random. Choose a different seed and you get a different number series. Most random number generators use a noise bit as the seed so are random.

Wrong. Absolutely. You do not know how psuedo-random generators work at all, particularly the Unix /dev/random generator.
DRKTS wrote:
You test the distribution of a set of measurements against their mean and characterize them with the half width or standard deviation. If they are consistent with a normal, Gaussian or Poissonian distribution then they are considered random.

This is not a valid definition of a random number. This method is unable to detect the beginning of a new cycle in a pseudo-random generator until well into the cycle. Depending on your technique, the cycle might have to repeat several times before you see anything in such summaries.
DRKTS wrote:
If you have a time series or a correlation analysis then you test them using a trend analysis. If the trend slope of the series is consistent with zero (ie with a specified range of standard deviation - usually 2 sigma for climatology) then there is no trend.

Applying this technique to detect random numbers is useless.
DRKTS wrote:
So you seem to be claiming that 400 years of statistical analysis is wrong because it does not give you the result you seek? Wow! That is what I call arrogant but it certainly is not scientific.

I am not claiming that all. I am claiming you can't use statistical mathematics to detect whether a number is random or not.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2016 21:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

You have no business saying what is drivel and you have no business in a conversation involving math.

Yes, I can have a single random number.

Go learn math first then engage in a discussion on math.


I have 4 qualifications in math, and several of my undergraduate courses and post graduate courses involved advanced math and statistical techniques

You certainly didn't show it here.
DRKTS wrote:
My thesis involved deriving new theoretical models of resonance scattering in low density plasmas, pure mathematical modelling, which made me classified as one of the leadng experts in the world on that subject. Which is why one of the largest aerospace companies in the world hired me.

Considering you don't even understand the mathematical concepts being described to you, I would wonder how much of this statement is true.
DRKTS wrote:
40 years of research there involved mathematical and/or statistical analysis nearly every day.

Stuck in a rut I'd say.
DRKTS wrote:
You can look me up on Linked in or Research gate. Keith Strong

Remind us all what your math qualifications are? Ooops, none? I think you led with your chin on that one!

Couldn't figure out which one you are, if you are any of them. No matter. You seem totally unaware of mathematics outside your spreadsheet software and statistical mathematics techniques, even though you mis-applied it.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2016 22:07
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
I note you ducked the questions about your qualifications

Can't figure out which one I am. Gee, that is sloppy thinking.

I just talked about being in an aerospace company and doing research in low density plasmas: Let me see which of the following fits the best:

Solar Physicist ... Life Coach ... Electrician ... Quality assurance engineer ... salesman ... ceo of a telecom company ... owner of a sports shop ... mobile phone rep?

(Hint: The Sun's corona is made of low density plasma)
28-01-2016 22:19
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
It's like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of an elephant then ran to his mummy yelling "Look mummy! I solved the puzzle! It's an ephelant! I'm really smart!"



Edited on 28-01-2016 22:30
28-01-2016 22:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
DRKTS wrote: I note you ducked the questions about your qualifications

1. Qualifications are meaningless in math and science. They are paramount for religious clergy

2. I don't believe your claims of credentials. Fortunately for you, it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether you are correct or incorrect.

-2a. You are incorrect.

The question that remains is whether you have any intention of learning how you are mistaken and what the correct understanding is. I am more than happy to help but you seem to double-down on the incorrect.

So I think we're done, unless I have missed something.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2016 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
DRKTS wrote:
I note you ducked the questions about your qualifications

Can't figure out which one I am. Gee, that is sloppy thinking.

I just talked about being in an aerospace company and doing research in low density plasmas: Let me see which of the following fits the best:

Solar Physicist ... Life Coach ... Electrician ... Quality assurance engineer ... salesman ... ceo of a telecom company ... owner of a sports shop ... mobile phone rep?

(Hint: The Sun's corona is made of low density plasma)


Thank you. Electricians, QA engineers and salesman also work for major aerospace companies and also use statistical mathematics.

If you have watched the forum for any length of time, you would know that credentials don't impress me. There are tons of people wandering around with credentials that can't balance their own checkbook.

I do not rest on my credentials and licenses to make my point. My point does not require that kind of weakness to stand. I don't bring them up because it always turns into a pissing contest that doesn't accomplish anything.

However, I will say my experience seems to be far broader than yours has been. I've been outside the Plastic Curtain that is the United States media for one thing.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 01:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
certainly one does not need qualifications and credentials to make a point however the inability to do a high school chemistry experiment does not fill me with confidence.
29-01-2016 01:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
spot wrote:
certainly one does not need qualifications and credentials to make a point however the inability to do a high school chemistry experiment does not fill me with confidence.


Anyone can do the experiment. Interpreting the results, however, is quite a bit different. This is your problem.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2016 01:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
Naa..... I don't think it's a matter of interpretation, otherwise you wouldn't have made the silly suggestion that the temperature difference was due to pressure.
29-01-2016 19:00
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
spot wrote:
Naa..... I don't think it's a matter of interpretation, otherwise you wouldn't have made the silly suggestion that the temperature difference was due to pressure.


Why wouldn't it be? There is a clear relationship between pressure and temperature. That's why the more pressure, the more temperature.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html
29-01-2016 19:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
Im not sure if your just trolling us Tai, but assuming your not I work with compressed gas cylinders air is compressed to much greater pressures in them then the soda pop bottles could withstand. However to the touch a full one is the same temperature as an empty one.
29-01-2016 20:20
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
I agree with Tai Hai Chen. There's ZERO relation between CO2 and global warming. Anyone who claims otherwise should start to do some research instead of brainless repeating what you just believe or are being told.
Edited on 29-01-2016 20:21
29-01-2016 21:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
spot wrote: Im not sure if your just trolling us Tai,

What is it with Global Warming preachers and the need to jump to labeling anyone who disagrees with their WACKY religion as a "troll"?

Are all Global Warming believers just inherently petty name-callers?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-01-2016 21:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
Buildreps wrote:
I agree with Tai Hai Chen. There's ZERO relation between CO2 and global warming. Anyone who claims otherwise should start to do some research instead of brainless repeating what you just believe or are being told.


I did some research I proved the relationship between CO2 and tempture on my kitchen table you can too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY I would wind your neck in before just assuming anyone who disagrees with you is just repeating themselves.
29-01-2016 21:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
spot wrote: I did some research I proved the relationship between CO2 and tempture on my kitchen table you can too.

When are you anticipating your Nobel prize?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-01-2016 22:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
IBdaMann wrote:
When are you anticipating your Nobel prize?


Gosh well its not exactly original thinking so I don't think I will be shortlisted this year, But thanks anyway. You should give it a go If you proved experimentally your assertion that the Greenhouse effect violated the laws of physics you would clean up.
29-01-2016 23:35
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
The only reason why earth warms up is when it's getting closer to the sun due to its orbit.

There's even no long term relation between dust in the atmosphere and cooling down. Global warming and cooling is real simple science. There no need to look for overly complicated other causes. CO2 is an effect, not the cause. It wouldn't be the first time that scientists are mixing cause and effect.
Edited on 29-01-2016 23:36
30-01-2016 00:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
spot wrote:
certainly one does not need qualifications and credentials to make a point however the inability to do a high school chemistry experiment does not fill me with confidence.

Obviously it does someone like you little good to watch a magic act or a parlor trick if you don't understand that the whole thing is rigged for maximum entertainment value (or maximum manipulation value) and you gullibly believe the performer who assures you "it's really magic....and you are stupid if you doubt or question."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-01-2016 00:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
spot wrote:
Gosh well its not exactly original thinking so I don't think I will be shortlisted this year,

You would be instantly awarded the Nobel in physics if you were correct. Unfortunately your rather popular (unoriginal) religious thinking isn't correct which is why it has not garnered anyone the Nobel Prize in physics.

Hint: religious assertions just don't garner the Nobel Prize in physics. They normally garner the Nobel Peace prize, e.g. Gandhi, Al Gore, etc...


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-01-2016 01:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
What for proving different substances have different properties?
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate But the Climate is Always Changing!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Changing Climate of Public Opinion325-07-2019 01:59
The Changing Climate of Social Media012-07-2019 00:49
The Senate Will Reject the Green New Deal. But It's Already Changing the Debate on Climate Change027-03-2019 17:27
This is how our changing climate could increase the risk we face from hurricanes027-03-2019 15:54
Climate Change Is Driving Marine Species North, Changing California's Coast514-03-2019 03:47
▲ 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