Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming > Page 4

Page 4 of 5

24-05-2020 02:54
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	It's no surprise that you won't come right out and answer the question in the affirmative as you know frauds are required because that would expose you as a fraud in this forum. You are a fraud. You are a loser who is desperate to be perceived as important and relevant. You believe that the way to doing this, without learning anything about science is to write stuff and to use terms that would fool laymen. Of course that only has a chance of working with laymen. Fooled me
24-05-2020 03:31
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Lindsay Little July 5, 2017 at 9:26 am \| # I certainly do not claim to be Australia's leading climatologist, but I am able to do my own research, something many of these esteemed scientific societies fail to do. They preferably blindly to follow the likes of conniving con men the like of Michael Mann. Once again early this year we were lambasted with the incredible statement that globally 2016 was the hottest year on record. Now no one would dispute Australia is a very large continent, and yet records collected by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology show that for past four years,2013 to 2016 inclusive annual average temperatures throughout Australia, have declined. To say that 2016 globally was the "hottest on record" is disingenuous. Why do I believe this person??
24-05-2020 05:32
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: Got a link to Pat Franks comment - I cannot find it anywhere It was linked above: Pat Franks: Earth surface temperature measurements Tmiddles posts something that puts the whole AGW/CC Theory away and you clowns have a pissing contest well done.Good show for us laymen trying to get a handle on the subject Pat Franks does not disprove or dismiss the AGW/CC Theory he simple shows two things: 1- That by his own well qualified analysis the thermometer data we have cannot be used to claim the fractional degree increases that are asserted so confidently. (the 1880 on readings) 2- That his direct experience in attempting to get this work published shows that there is a real problem with bias and ignorance among academia on this topic (essentially that those choosing not to publish his paper both didn't understand the science and had a bias against anything critical of AGW). duncan61 wrote: Temperature can be measured locally its just not realistic to measure the temperature of the whole planet ... Why not? Having temperature change very little regardless of the location, dark side, light side, or the time in orbit, for an entire planet certainly makes being confident about a relatively narrow temperature range for the mean easier. This is the case with VENUS. Earth has more variety than VENUS but that simply means you have a wider range and you need a lot more measurments to narrow your margin. It does NOT mean you know nothing at all. That applies to determining the mean temperature for any subject. HarveyH55 wrote: I have eyes, both function well. When I step outside, what do you figure I can observe, that supports global warming? But you don't also think the world is flat. Because it sure seems flat to your 5 senses. One think our scientific advancement has shown us is that we can figure things out beyond our 5 senses that are often counter-intuitive. You do accept that the Earth has a mean temperature and that it changes right? Do you believe we have had global ice ages in the past? The theory is that the mean temp of Earth was only about 7C cooler when we had the last ice age 12,000 years ago. There is a difference between not believing something can be detected, or measured easily, and not believing it happens at all. IBdaMann wrote: Do you have any science supporting Greenhouse Effect? Hmmm. You define "science" as Science is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature. So your question reads as: Do you have any falsifiable models that predict nature supporting Greenhouse Effect? Sure do. Here are TWELVE REFERENCES for the key model which supports the Greenhouse Effect and that is NET THERMAL RADIATION which is most certainly falsifiable which means to be capable of being proven false. P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4) You and ITN have both denied it without making an argument. What happens to the radiance from the room you are in when it reaches your skin? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
24-05-2020 06:03
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	My thread on CO2 did not get any traction so I will ask you Tmiddles.Where is the CO2,everywhere, in the stratosphere I really do not know???
24-05-2020 09:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: My thread on CO2 did not get any traction so I will ask you Tmiddles.Where is the CO2,everywhere, in the stratosphere I really do not know??? I just google that stuff. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2016/12/05/reader-question-does-co2-disperse-evenly-around-the-earth/ But that shows the difference exaggerated. 3ppm being red and 0ppm (above average) clear. So I guess it's pretty even from a "most of it" stand point. As for how high/low in the atmosphere: That takes us just into the statosphere: Seems pretty even to me Edited on 24-05-2020 09:10

24-05-2020 16:38
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: Got a link to Pat Franks comment - I cannot find it anywhere It was linked above: Pat Franks: Earth surface temperature measurements Tmiddles posts something that puts the whole AGW/CC Theory away and you clowns have a pissing contest well done.Good show for us laymen trying to get a handle on the subject Pat Franks does not disprove or dismiss the AGW/CC Theory he simple shows two things: 1- That by his own well qualified analysis the thermometer data we have cannot be used to claim the fractional degree increases that are asserted so confidently. (the 1880 on readings) 2- That his direct experience in attempting to get this work published shows that there is a real problem with bias and ignorance among academia on this topic (essentially that those choosing not to publish his paper both didn't understand the science and had a bias against anything critical of AGW). duncan61 wrote: Temperature can be measured locally its just not realistic to measure the temperature of the whole planet ... Why not? Having temperature change very little regardless of the location, dark side, light side, or the time in orbit, for an entire planet certainly makes being confident about a relatively narrow temperature range for the mean easier. This is the case with VENUS. Earth has more variety than VENUS but that simply means you have a wider range and you need a lot more measurments to narrow your margin. It does NOT mean you know nothing at all. That applies to determining the mean temperature for any subject. HarveyH55 wrote: I have eyes, both function well. When I step outside, what do you figure I can observe, that supports global warming? But you don't also think the world is flat. Because it sure seems flat to your 5 senses. One think our scientific advancement has shown us is that we can figure things out beyond our 5 senses that are often counter-intuitive. You do accept that the Earth has a mean temperature and that it changes right? Do you believe we have had global ice ages in the past? The theory is that the mean temp of Earth was only about 7C cooler when we had the last ice age 12,000 years ago. There is a difference between not believing something can be detected, or measured easily, and not believing it happens at all. IBdaMann wrote: Do you have any science supporting Greenhouse Effect? Hmmm. You define "science" as Science is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature. So your question reads as: Do you have any falsifiable models that predict nature supporting Greenhouse Effect? Sure do. Here are TWELVE REFERENCES for the key model which supports the Greenhouse Effect and that is NET THERMAL RADIATION which is most certainly falsifiable which means to be capable of being proven false. P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4) You and ITN have both denied it without making an argument. What happens to the radiance from the room you are in when it reaches your skin? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Everything declared scientific fact, that we can't verify through our 5 senses, can be debated, and there are likely other theories, that are just as plausible. It becomes more of a religious question, who you believe most strongly, which institution you have the greatest faith in. Until we build the tools, that enable use to directly observe, I withhold my faith. A lot of things have change in climatology, an institution(church), but there are two fundamental conclusions that never did. The planet is warming, at an alarming rate. And that man made CO2, from burning fossil fuels, is the only possible explanation. The proposed temperature increase for any year, is a small fraction of 1 degree celsius, and CO2 is still on a trace gas, about 0.04% of the atmosphere. The logarithmic warming, should be producing record high temperatures all the time. Temperatures recorded a hundred years ago, should have been broken years ago. Many of those records still stand. We also see record cold temperatures, which get broken, about as often, which should be happening, if we are warming at an alarming rate, right? The truth is simple, it doesn't need to change or evolve. It stands just the way it was, and always will. Lies, or scams, constantly change, the grow, evolve, to better convince the gullible. Scams always add pressure to the lies, to add urgency, to get the mark to give up the cash, lots of it, quickly. Global warming is more consistent with a scam. It's entirely faith-based, since there can be no direct observation, and you have to believe those that are selling the idea. The truth is really very easy to accept and understand. A con-artist, needs to work at it, to sell a lie. A whole lot of work has been put into selling global warming, for decades, and not a lot of people buying into it. They keep searching for just the right approach to convince enough people to have faith in the lie. Blind faith isn't one of my strong points. You don't need to know all the fine details, to know a bad deal.
24-05-2020 22:37
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: Oops, The Many Faces of the Sun is not a model, I never accused you of knowing what a model is. Yes, your "Many Faces of the Sun" is exactly that, a model. The fact that it is based on certain information makes your model consistent with that information. Here's another school science fair model based on the exact same information as your "Many Faces of the Sun" ... and admittedly better than my grammar school model: DRKTS wrote: its a review of the scientific results from NASA's Solar Maximum Mission. Under the heading of "In how many ways can I advertise that I am a fraud", no actual scientist would refer to mere data as "scientific results." The Solar Maximum Mission was not an experiment attempting to falsify any falsifiable model. All that mission produced was data from tests it had performed. Yes, there were results from those tests, but there is nothing about them that is "scientific" without a falsifiable model around which the mission itself was designed in order to prove it false. Are you claiming some particular science was intended to be, and successfully proven false by the Solar Maximum Mission? If not, you have at most more supporting data which is just data ... excellent for making science fair models and informative websites. Read the book (clearly you have not done so) and tell what part of it is a model.
24-05-2020 23:04
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	HarveyH55 wrote: tmiddles wrote: [quote]duncan61 wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: [quote]DRKTS wrote: Got a link to Pat Franks comment - I cannot find it anywhere It was linked above: Pat Franks: Earth surface temperature measurements That refers back to an article by two blokes who are part of the Hoover Institute (an ultra conservative think tank) and neither of them even has a single scientific qualification of any sort. - One is an economist and the other is a business consultant in a firm I have never heard of. They quote only one scientist - Willie Soon!!!! Yes, the Willie Soon who was laughed out of the climate, solar, and astrophysics communities for taking money ($Ms) under the table from the fossil fuel industry to write propaganda articles against AGW and failed to declare it - as we are all required to reveal our funding sources when we write scientific paper. He can now only publish in open access journals (you pay and they publish anything with little of no refereeing). He has only published one first author in the last 5 years (pdf position paper). Apparently he spends his time writing talking points for republican politicians to argue against doing anything about global warming. Sad, but he was not a very good scientist even before he got into hot water (I met him at a conference and was completely underwhelmed). Using Soon as you reference is like saying in your murder trial "... But I am a friend and admirer of Charles Manson"
24-05-2020 23:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote: DRKTS wrote: Got a link to Pat Franks comment - I cannot find it anywhere It was linked above: Pat Franks: Earth surface temperature measurements Tmiddles posts something that puts the whole AGW/CC Theory away and you clowns have a pissing contest well done.Good show for us laymen trying to get a handle on the subject Pat Franks does not disprove or dismiss the AGW/CC Theory he simple shows two things: 1- That by his own well qualified analysis the thermometer data we have cannot be used to claim the fractional degree increases that are asserted so confidently. (the 1880 on readings) It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth. Mantra 25c. tmiddles wrote: 2- That his direct experience in attempting to get this work published shows that there is a real problem with bias and ignorance among academia on this topic (essentially that those choosing not to publish his paper both didn't understand the science and had a bias against anything critical of AGW). Science is not data. Science is not a paper. Science is not academia. Science is not an elite body. Science is not bad math. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: Temperature can be measured locally its just not realistic to measure the temperature of the whole planet ... Why not? 'Locally' was never define. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. RQAA. Mantras 29...25c. tmiddles wrote: Having temperature change very little regardless of the location, dark side, light side, or the time in orbit, for an entire planet certainly makes being confident about a relatively narrow temperature range for the mean easier. This is the case with VENUS. A scalar is not a set. You cannot measure the temperature of a planet with a single thermometer. Mantra 25j...25c...25g... tmiddles wrote: Earth has more variety than VENUS but that simply means you have a wider range and you need a lot more measurments to narrow your margin. Failure to declare and justify variance. Mantra 25c. tmiddles wrote: It does NOT mean you know nothing at all. I means you know nothing at all. Mantras 25c...25d...25e...25j... tmiddles wrote: That applies to determining the mean temperature for any subject. There is no such thing as 'mean temperature'. Mantra 25l. tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I have eyes, both function well. When I step outside, what do you figure I can observe, that supports global warming? But you don't also think the world is flat. Because it sure seems flat to your 5 senses. Mantra 35b1... tmiddles wrote: One think our scientific advancement has shown us is that we can figure things out beyond our 5 senses that are often counter-intuitive. Denial of phenomenology. Instrumentation makes NO difference. Data is not science. Mantra 20j...25g... tmiddles wrote: You do accept that the Earth has a mean temperature and that it changes right? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. RQAA. Mantras 25c...29. tmiddles wrote: Do you believe we have had global ice ages in the past? Irrelevant. Bringing up another religion has nothing to do with the Church of Global Warming. tmiddles wrote: The theory is that the mean temp of Earth was only about 7C cooler when we had the last ice age 12,000 years ago. Not a theory of science. A religion. tmiddles wrote: There is a difference between not believing something can be detected, or measured easily, and not believing it happens at all. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantras 25c. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Do you have any science supporting Greenhouse Effect? Hmmm. You define "science" as Science is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature. So your question reads as: Do you have any falsifiable models that predict nature supporting Greenhouse Effect? He has also asked this question. You answered the same way, by making shit up and pointing at invalid references. tmiddles wrote: Sure do. Here are TWELVE REFERENCES for the key model which supports the Greenhouse Effect and that is NET THERMAL RADIATION which is most certainly falsifiable which means to be capable of being proven false. P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4) There is no such thing as 'net heat'. You are misquoting again. No book is the authoritative reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The ONLY authoritative referenced of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which you deny), is the law itself. Mantras 22e...4c...4b...20a2...20q1...20q2...20q3...20q5...26...33b...39f. tmiddles wrote: You and ITN have both denied it without making an argument. Lie. RQAA. Mantra 29. tmiddles wrote: What happens to the radiance from the room you are in when it reaches your skin? RQAA. Mantra 29....39d...39f... No argument presented. RQAA. Math error. Denial of science. Buzzword fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2020 23:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: My thread on CO2 did not get any traction so I will ask you Tmiddles.Where is the CO2,everywhere, in the stratosphere I really do not know??? I just google that stuff. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2016/12/05/reader-question-does-co2-disperse-evenly-around-the-earth/ But that shows the difference exaggerated. 3ppm being red and 0ppm (above average) clear. So I guess it's pretty even from a "most of it" stand point. As for how high/low in the atmosphere: That takes us just into the statosphere: Seems pretty even to me You probably should look up the instrumentation on the satellite used to fabricate these numbers. You cannot measure atmospheric CO2 using light emanating or reflecting from Earth. CO2 has absolutely no capability to decrease entropy or create energy. It cannot warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has this magick capability. You cannot trap heat, light, or thermal energy. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b... The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2020 23:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	DRKTS wrote: IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: Oops, The Many Faces of the Sun is not a model, I never accused you of knowing what a model is. Yes, your "Many Faces of the Sun" is exactly that, a model. The fact that it is based on certain information makes your model consistent with that information. Here's another school science fair model based on the exact same information as your "Many Faces of the Sun" ... and admittedly better than my grammar school model: DRKTS wrote: its a review of the scientific results from NASA's Solar Maximum Mission. Under the heading of "In how many ways can I advertise that I am a fraud", no actual scientist would refer to mere data as "scientific results." The Solar Maximum Mission was not an experiment attempting to falsify any falsifiable model. All that mission produced was data from tests it had performed. Yes, there were results from those tests, but there is nothing about them that is "scientific" without a falsifiable model around which the mission itself was designed in order to prove it false. Are you claiming some particular science was intended to be, and successfully proven false by the Solar Maximum Mission? If not, you have at most more supporting data which is just data ... excellent for making science fair models and informative websites. Read the book (clearly you have not done so) and tell what part of it is a model. Your problem. YOU are the one trying to claim it is a model. You are wrong. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2020 02:06
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	DRKTS wrote: tmiddles wrote:It was linked above: Pat Franks: Earth surface temperature measurements That refers back to an article ...only one scientist - Willie Soon!!!! No it refers to Pat Franks as well. "Frank stated, in a 2011 article in Energy & Environment, "...the 1856–2004 global surface air temperature anomaly with its 95% confidence interval is 0.8˚C ± 0.98˚C." The error bars are wider than the measured increase. " I simply included that article to show how is work was showing up online. He is certainly credible don't you think? HarveyH55 wrote: tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I have eyes, both function well. When I step outside, what do you figure I can observe, that supports global warming? One think our scientific advancement has shown us is that we can figure things out beyond our 5 senses that are often counter-intuitive. Everything declared scientific fact, that we can't verify through our 5 senses, can be debated, Well I don't think our 5 senses "verify" things. The Earth is not in fact flat for example. HarveyH55 wrote:...It becomes more of a religious question, who you believe most strongly, which institution you have the greatest faith in. So you consider the scientific method totally helpless to find the real truth? It's all based on emotion and politics? That's how it sounds. We have and do really figure things out. Things well beyond our 5 senses. Covid-19 right now deals heavily with the microscopic world of "invisible" pathogens. We have been able to discover how this hidden reality operates all around us. It's one of the greatest achievements of humanity. HarveyH55 wrote:Until we build the tools, that enable use to directly observe, I withhold my faith. Venera probe landing on Venus direct enough for you? HarveyH55 wrote:Temperatures recorded a hundred years ago, should have been broken years ago. Many of those records still stand. Really? HarveyH55 wrote:The truth is simple, it doesn't need to change or evolve. I don't agree. The truth can be very complex. Covid-19 is a nice parallel. It's a very complicated the way a virus works and how measures we take may impact its effect on us. Into the Night wrote: You probably should look up the instrumentation on the satellite used to fabricate these numbers.... What's that? Nothing can be known? Hmmm. Consistent ITN. Edited on 25-05-2020 02:11
25-05-2020 04:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 26...35b1... So you consider the scientific method totally helpless to find the real truth? Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is not a 'truth' or a 'proof'. tmiddles wrote: It's all based on emotion and politics? Science is not religion. tmiddles wrote: That's how it sounds. We have and do really figure things out. You never have. You are still preaching the same fundamentalism. tmiddles wrote: Things well beyond our 5 senses. Denial of phenomenology. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Covid-19 right now deals heavily with the microscopic world of "invisible" pathogens. It's visible. It's identified. A virus does not 'deal with itself'. tmiddles wrote: We have been able to discover how this hidden reality operates all around us. It's one of the greatest achievements of humanity. ...deleted Mantras 25c...25j...21...29...11...25g...justification of tyranny...9a...30...29... Socialism and tyranny is not a great achievement of humanity. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2020 11:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:Covid-19 right now deals heavily with the microscopic world of "invisible" pathogens. We have been able to discover how this hidden reality operates all around us. It's one of the greatest achievements of humanity. Socialism and tyranny is not a great achievement of humanity. The eradication of Small Pox is socialism and tyranny? Whaaa? Do you believe vaccines ever work ITN?
25-05-2020 23:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:Covid-19 right now deals heavily with the microscopic world of "invisible" pathogens. We have been able to discover how this hidden reality operates all around us. It's one of the greatest achievements of humanity. Socialism and tyranny is not a great achievement of humanity. The eradication of Small Pox is socialism and tyranny? Whaaa? Do you believe vaccines ever work ITN? RQAA. Stay on topic, stupid. Mantra 16b..16c...9a... The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 25-05-2020 23:14

26-05-2020 02:22
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...We have been able to discover how this hidden reality operates all around us. It's one of the greatest achievements of humanity. Socialism and tyranny is not a great achievement of humanity. The eradication of Small Pox is socialism and tyranny? Whaaa?Do you believe vaccines ever work ITN? Stay on topic, ... I said that our discovery of the hidden reality of viruses operates around us. You wish to exclude Small Pox from that history for some reason? You avoided the question as usual. Do you think vaccines are pointless ITN? You have dismissed them as socialism and tyranny?
27-05-2020 02:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted 9a...16b...lie...29... Stay on topic. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-05-2020 10:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...deleted 9a...16b...lie...29... Stay on topic. RQAA. the topic is applied virology
27-05-2020 21:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...deleted 9a...16b...lie...29... Stay on topic. RQAA. the topic is applied virology You question is not about virology at all. Mantra 16b...29... RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-05-2020 22:49
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:... not about virology at all. ... is what you're saying about this point: tmiddles wrote:We have and do really figure things out. Things well beyond our 5 senses. Covid-19 right now deals heavily with the microscopic world of "invisible" pathogens. We have been able to discover how this hidden reality operates all around us. It's one of the greatest achievements of humanity. The topic is on empirical evidence for AGW and it's not off topic to explore evidence based on known success. Edited on 27-05-2020 22:51
28-05-2020 00:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 16b...20j...20c...7...25g...22a.. Define 'global warming'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-05-2020 04:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote:The topic is on empirical evidence for AGW and it's not off topic to explore evidence based on known success. Attached image:
28-05-2020 14:44
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Define 'global warming'. An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level.
28-05-2020 15:53
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level.I like it.
28-05-2020 18:05
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'global warming'. An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level. Circular definition. Try again.
28-05-2020 20:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'global warming'. An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level. What altitude is the ground "level"? Anyway, it does not matter. This attempt of yours to define Global Warming is going to smack right into the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... then you will scramble to correct it by steering it into the path of the first law of thermodynamics and then you will ultimately have to violate Stefan-Boltzmann which will lead to your denial of science. So ... let's get that ball rolling. Does Global Warming involve an increase in the planet's entire average global temperature or does the earth's lower atmosphere increase in temperature and the upper atmosphere cool exactly enough to offset the increase below so as to maintain the earth's average global temperature? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-05-2020 21:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'global warming'. An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level. Despite your circular derfinition, let's assume that we are only talking about the surface. That is the closed system. That means you cannot consider any energy source, such as the Sun, outside that system. That means you cannot consider any energy sink, such as space, outside that system. That means you cannot even consider the atmosphere, as it is outside that system. You can't consider anything underground or underwater either. The system is the surface only. Now...how exactly is the surface warming? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-05-2020 21:27
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Duncan61, How is Australia doing regarding covid19? Also, how does the cost of living in Australia compare to the cost of living in the us?
28-05-2020 21:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	keepit wrote: Duncan61, How is Australia doing regarding covid19? Also, how does the cost of living in Australia compare to the cost of living in the us? Where in the US? Where in Australia? Cost of living varies widely, dude. Are you thinking of ex-patrioting? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-05-2020 22:56
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'global warming'. An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level. Despite your circular derfinition, let's assume that we are only talking about the surface. That is the closed system. That means you cannot consider any energy source, such as the Sun, outside that system. That means you cannot consider any energy sink, such as space, outside that system. That means you cannot even consider the atmosphere, as it is outside that system. You can't consider anything underground or underwater either. The system is the surface only. Now...how exactly is the surface warming? Ummmm, greenhouse gases (such as CO2) in the atmosphere... oh wait, that's outside the specified system... Ummmm, the sun... oh wait, that's outside the specified system... I can't think of anything... Can you, tmiddles?

29-05-2020 01:35
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I am confident we have determined it is not possible at this point in time to accurately know the average temperature so we also do not know if it is higher or lower.If it is higher does it matter.The theory is CO2 can radiate heat/energy/photons what ever you wish to call it back to Earth and increase the insulating effect of the Atmosphere and I have seen Scientist agree its possible.The question is how much and when.To be concerned over something that is not proven makes me have to say this.What the vulcan hell are you worrying about spock
29-05-2020 05:01
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Just because something seems like a good idea, in theory. Might even work our on paper, and seem entirely plausible, possible, doesn't make it work in reality. People have come of up with endless ideas for perpetual motion machines, or free-energy machines, but they all fail. People have came up with a lot of processes, to turn lead, into gold. There are a lot of inventions that got people to invest a lot of time and money, into making them work, and failed. Some were intended as scams from the start. But most were a dream, and the inventor truly believed they could make it happen, and was also able to get a lot of other people to throw in, to make it work as well. Global warming, is like a perpetual motion machine, it looks good on paper, could be possible, but just doesn't work in reality. It's turned into a scam. There is no indication any catastrophic events will happen, directly related, for centuries. There is no reason to be in a rush to save the world, as no one currently living, will ever experience any of the prophesied events. Messing with CO2 and fossil fuels, is going to cause greater problems for those current living.
29-05-2020 06:16
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: Just because something seems like a good idea, in theory. Might even work our on paper, and seem entirely plausible, possible, doesn't make it work in reality. People have come of up with endless ideas for perpetual motion machines, or free-energy machines, but they all fail. People have came up with a lot of processes, to turn lead, into gold. There are a lot of inventions that got people to invest a lot of time and money, into making them work, and failed. Some were intended as scams from the start. But most were a dream, and the inventor truly believed they could make it happen, and was also able to get a lot of other people to throw in, to make it work as well. Global warming, is like a perpetual motion machine, it looks good on paper, could be possible, but just doesn't work in reality. It's turned into a scam. There is no indication any catastrophic events will happen, directly related, for centuries. There is no reason to be in a rush to save the world, as no one currently living, will ever experience any of the prophesied events. Messing with CO2 and fossil fuels, is going to cause greater problems for those current living. Just because something seems like a good idea, in theory. Might even work our on paper, and seem entirely plausible, possible, doesn't make it work in reality. And your parents probably said the same thing. Gosh darn Honey Bunny, it seemed like a good idea when I stuck it in. Guess I didn't pull out in time. Oops. Just too easy. Typical for an American.. Gosh you guys are good.
29-05-2020 06:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	James___ wrote: And your parents probably said the same thing. Gosh darn Honey Bunny, it seemed like a good idea when I stuck it in. Guess I didn't pull out in time. Oops. An all too common story. Everyone who invests in keepit's favorite T-bills takes the risk of either pulling out too soon (and suffering penalties) or pulling out too late and losing out on other higher-paying investment options. I'm guessing Harvey's parents were thereafter hesitant to jump back into bonds. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-05-2020 06:29
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: I am confident we have determined it is not possible at this point in time to accurately know the average temperature so we also do not know if it is higher or lower.If it is higher does it matter.The theory is CO2 can radiate heat/energy/photons what ever you wish to call it back to Earth and increase the insulating effect of the Atmosphere and I have seen Scientist agree its possible.The question is how much and when.To be concerned over something that is not proven makes me have to say this.What the vulcan hell are you worrying about spock To clear up your misconceptions, CO2 does not radiate or remove heat like oxygen, O2 or ozone (O3). In a Joules-Thompson Throttling Process, it stores heat quite well. Italian scientists have proven this. You've obviously haven't read many research papers. My bad. The removal of heat from our atmosphere is more complex than what scientists have said. They're not there yet but it seems that you're still sucking your mother's teet.
29-05-2020 06:31
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: And your parents probably said the same thing. Gosh darn Honey Bunny, it seemed like a good idea when I stuck it in. Guess I didn't pull out in time. Oops. An all too common story. Everyone who invests in keepit's favorite T-bills takes the risk of either pulling out too soon (and suffering penalties) or pulling out too late and losing out on other higher-paying investment options. I'm guessing Harvey's parents were thereafter hesitant to jump back into bonds. . Question is, did they scrape up the interest left lying on the floor and try to find some value in it?
29-05-2020 06:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: An all too common story. Everyone who invests in keepit's favorite T-bills takes the risk of either pulling out too soon (and suffering penalties) or pulling out too late and losing out on other higher-paying investment options. I'm guessing Harvey's parents were thereafter hesitant to jump back into bonds. Question is, did they scrape up the interest left lying on the floor and try to find some value in it? "scrape up the interest" is all anyone can do considering the paltry rates paid by T-bills. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-05-2020 06:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I am confident we have determined it is not possible at this point in time to accurately know the average temperature so we also do not know if it is higher or lower.If it is higher does it matter.The theory is CO2 can radiate heat/energy/photons what ever you wish to call it back to Earth and increase the insulating effect of the Atmosphere and I have seen Scientist agree its possible.The question is how much and when.To be concerned over something that is not proven makes me have to say this.What the vulcan hell are you worrying about spock To clear up your misconceptions, CO2 does not radiate or remove heat like oxygen, O2 or ozone (O3). In a Joules-Thompson Throttling Process, it stores heat quite well. Italian scientists have proven this. You've obviously haven't read many research papers. My bad. The removal of heat from our atmosphere is more complex than what scientists have said. They're not there yet but it seems that you're still sucking your mother's teet. It is not possible to store or trap heat. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2020 14:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'global warming'. An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level. Circular definition. Try again. Give me a definition of a temperature you do not consider circular? Totally unclear what you are objection to. Human core body temperature: the temperature of the internal organs of a human being. I could go on. But how about you stop playing games and say what you mean GFM? IBdaMann wrote:...This attempt of yours to define Global Warming is going to smack right into the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... Great and maybe you'll debate me on it this time. I know ITN won't IBdaMann wrote:Does Global Warming involve an increase in the planet's entire average global temperature or does the earth's lower atmosphere increase in temperature and the upper atmosphere cool exactly enough to offset the increase below so as to maintain the earth's average global temperature? It very well could be that the upper atmosphere get's colder, that there is a temperature trade off. I don't know. But the title "global warming" refers to the spherical zone of Earth that humans are focused on: ground level (or the bottom of the atmosphere). Just as I might talk about a persons "core body temperature" or alternatively, shift my focus to the temperature of their fingers and toes as frost bite is the concern. Does it change the results of global warming, as defined above, in any way if the thermosphere were to cool to offset the increase on the ground? Wouldn't melting ice, mating mosquitoes and all the things we would be effected by still experience the same change either way? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'global warming'. An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level. Despite your circular derfinition, let's assume that we are only talking about the surface. That is the closed system. Why is it a closed system? If I talk about someones core body temperature that isn't a closed system either.
03-06-2020 17:49
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Tmid, The upper atmosphere cools. For one reason, it doesn't receive as much thermal energy from the lower levels because of GHG's.

Page 4 of 5

Join the debate Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming:

Threads	Replies	Last post
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming	47	24-04-2024 10:37
Pro-Palestinian protester arrested in death of Jewish man Paul Kessler. Told you so.	0	16-11-2023 21:56
More evidence that climate change is FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!	117	28-03-2023 18:11
BREAKING NEWS- Woody Harrelson voted in as new Worlds smartest man	0	03-03-2023 15:29
Man freed from jail for committing a crime that never even happened. LOL they tried that with me too	3	16-02-2023 19:01