Remember me
▼ Content

Etymology of Science



Page 1 of 212>
Etymology of Science03-02-2020 01:37
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
There's been a lot of discussion lately about rules and definitions. The following is a cut and paste from a variety of sources that I compiled and arranged for my own use. The more I compiled the more I thought it might be useful to post here as a sort of guideline. I welcome the opportunity to refine it and, hopefully turn it in to a durable resource for this board at large.

First some simple definitions of science taken from dictionary.com:
- a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
- - the mathematical sciences.
- - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
- any of the branches of natural or physical science.
- systematized knowledge in general.
- knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
- a particular branch of knowledge.

Science is a discipline that collects and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The earliest efforts of science were purposeful attempts made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on known causes. Science is based on research. This is an iterative process which led to the development of the scientific method. It is required for knowledge creation and seeks to objectively explain the events of nature in a reproducible way.

Scientific research is used in support the scientific method and can be labeled as either basic or applied research. Basic research is the search for knowledge and applied research is the search for solutions to practical problems using knowledge. An explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis is put forward as explanation using principles and are expected to seek consilience – fitting well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena.

Modern science is divided into three major branches that consist of the natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), and formal sciences (logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study abstract concepts. Formal sciences do not rely on empirical evidence and are therefore not considered to be science in some circles.

Disciplines that use existing scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine, are described as applied sciences. Climate would also be an applied science.

What we are looking for in the science of weather or global temperatures is physical in nature. The primary source, empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation, in the form of recorded data, which may be the subject of analysis. Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when based on empirical evidence.

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. This validation is achieved by the scientific method of forming a hypothesis, experimental design, peer review, reproduction of results, conference presentation, and journal publication. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.

Early in the 19th century, John Dalton suggested the modern atomic theory, based on Democritus's original idea of indivisible particles called atoms. The laws of conservation of energy, conservation of momentum and conservation of mass suggested a highly stable universe where there could be little loss of resources.

The understanding that all forms of energy as defined in physics were not equally useful as they did not have the same energy quality led to the development of the laws of thermodynamics, in which the free energy of the universe is seen as constantly declining: the entropy of a closed universe increases over time.

Beginning in 1900, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and others developed quantum theories to explain various anomalous experimental results, by introducing discrete energy levels. Quantum mechanics shows that the laws of motion did not hold on small scales.

Einstein's theory of relativity and the development of quantum mechanics led to the replacement of classical mechanics with a new physics which contains two parts that describe different types of events in nature.

Classical physics, the description of physics existing before the formulation of the theory of relativity and of quantum mechanics, describes nature at ordinary (macroscopic) scale. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large scale. Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization), objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave-particle duality), and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle).

Quantum mechanics gradually arose from theories to explain observations which could not be reconciled with classical physics, such as Max Planck's solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem, and from the correspondence between energy and frequency in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper which explained the photoelectric effect. Early quantum theory was profoundly re-conceived in the mid-1920s by Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and others. The modern theory is formulated in various specially developed mathematical formalisms. In one of them, a mathematical function, the wave function, provides information about the probability amplitude of energy, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle.

Planck's hypothesis that energy is radiated and absorbed in discrete "quanta" (or energy packets) precisely matched the observed patterns of black-body radiation.

Planck corrected Wien's law model using Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of thermodynamics and proposed what is now called Planck's law, which led to the development of quantum mechanics.
Einstein further developed this idea to show that an electromagnetic wave such as light could also be described as a particle, or quanta (later called the photon), with a discrete quantum of energy that was dependent on its frequency. Quantum mechanics describes the behaviors of atoms during chemical bonding and the flow of electrons. Quantum mechanics is essential to understanding the behavior of systems at atomic length scales and smaller.

Quantum mechanics was initially developed to provide a better explanation and description of the atom, especially the differences in the spectra of light emitted by different isotopes of the same chemical element, as well as subatomic particles. In short, the quantum-mechanical atomic model has succeeded spectacularly in the realm where classical mechanics and electromagnetism falter.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
RE: My takeaways..03-02-2020 01:44
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
1. A great deal of what I have posted above I had read here before. I just didn't have the proper background to work within.
2. Climate science should be an applied science. I can forgive them if they are trading on old science.
3. Climate science only exists in the rationalists' view which only requires reason or reflection.
4. Climate science is failing because the underlying natural science does not support it.
5. There is no empirical evidence that supports climate change.
6. It's time to put green house gas and effect to bed as it is used today. I would call upon physicists to update the theoretical foundation of the heat effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
7. There is no testable prediction in climate science. The phenomena they are relying upon is not reproducible.
8. Classical mechanics is subordinate to new physics of quantum mechanics.
9. References to Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of thermodynamics is superior to classical mechanics and must be observed.
10. Classical mechanics and electromagnetism fail to explain light and chemical bonding.
11. I need to know quantum mechanics relied upon for the atomic behavior of chemical bonding and the flow of electrons.

Chew me up.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
03-02-2020 18:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
Harry C wrote: 2. Climate science should be an applied science. I can forgive them if they are trading on old science.

Let's apply this rationale to Chritianity and see how it sounds:

"The science of the human soul should be an applied science. I can forgive Christians if they are trading on old science."

That sounds just as silly.

Harry C wrote: 3. Climate science only exists in the rationalists' view which only requires reason or reflection.

There is no reason or rational basis for a religious belief.

Harry C wrote: 4. Climate science is failing because the underlying natural science does not support it.

No religion has ever had science supporting it. It would cease to be a religion if there were. Climate Science is still a religion and as such, is not "failing" per se.

Harry C wrote: 5. There is no empirical evidence that supports climate change.

Nor can there ever be. No one has ever unambiguously defined the "global climate." No one has been able to figure out how to gather data on the completely undefined.

Harry C wrote: 6. It's time to put green house gas and effect to bed as it is used today. I would call upon physicists to update the theoretical foundation of the heat effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

There is no update required. Chemistry already gives us an accurate understanding of the physical properties of CO2 and thermodynamics tells us that it cannot create additional energy.

Harry C wrote: 7. There is no testable prediction in climate science. The phenomena they are relying upon is not reproducible.

There are plenty of Doom&Gloom predictions, of earth-bake and of rising sea levels, that the ocean will turn into caustic chemicals, that humans will be baked into zombie-like refugees, etc ...

What you must specify is that there are no predictions that are specifically derived from a falsifiable Climate Change model. There are none of those.

Harry C wrote: 8. Classical mechanics is subordinate to new physics of quantum mechanics.

STOP! You are egregiously in error.

Quantum mechanics is not physics. Quantum mechanics is a branch of mathematics ... specifically statistical math word problems concerning nature. Quantum mechanics is not science because it makes no predictions; it renders only probabilities and distributions.

If you throw two dice at the craps table, physics will tell you how the dice will bounce around given a felt surface, the initial height of the throw, the mass and material of the dice themselves, etc... Quantum mechanics will tell you the probability the roll will result in a two, the probability of a three, of a four, etc..., i.e. math, except that all the word problems involve photons or protons or electrons or other elements of the quantum world. Quantum mechanics doesn't predict what will happen because it cannot. Heisenberg made sure of that. The uncertainty principle must be factored into the calculation of probabilities, i.e. the more you know about momentum the less you know about position ... and vice-versa.

Bottom line, quantum mechanics is just math word problems, e.g. "a stream of photons pass through a double-slit front screen in which two five-inch vertical slits are spaced three inches apart. How will the photons be distributed on the back screen. Show your work."

Harry C wrote: 9. References to Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of thermodynamics is superior to classical mechanics and must be observed.

Absolutely false. Boltzmann used classical physics ... to predict nature. Where he could not, because it was too complex a system, he used statistical math to establish probabilities and distributions.

Harry C wrote:10. Classical mechanics and electromagnetism fail to explain light and chemical bonding.

False. If you have ever purchased chemical consumer products like soap, window cleaner, etc... then you can be pretty confident that chemistry has a pretty good grasp on chemical bonding. If you are using a computer with a microprocessor and a motherboard, or have ever seen a traffic signal, you can rest assured that physics has electromagnetism under control.

If it can be engineered then classical physics has it covered.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
04-02-2020 12:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Thanks for posting the source.

Harry C wrote:....
4. Climate science is failing because the underlying natural science does not support it.
5. There is no empirical evidence that supports climate change.
6. It's time to put green house gas and effect to bed as it is used today. I would call upon physicists to update the theoretical foundation of the heat effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
7. There is no testable prediction in climate science. The phenomena they are relying upon is not reproducible.


The heart of the matter. These are of course your beliefs/arguments/conclusions and the primary subject of debate here.

I'd be interested in discussing them.

I think the possibilty/impossibility of the presence of an atmosphere resulting in a higher ground level temp is the first issue to work on as everything else is settled if it's impossible as ITN/IBD have claimed.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
RE: Let's try this...04-02-2020 17:17
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
tmiddles wrote:

The heart of the matter. These are of course your beliefs/arguments/conclusions and the primary subject of debate here.

I'd be interested in discussing them.



Let's try an exercise to contain the variables for the beginning of a discussion. Take the first post as true (even though you may have reservations) and use it as the source of my conclusions and future discussions with me in this thread. Feel free to state your own conclusions and discuss those too. Fair enough?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
04-02-2020 18:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote:I think the possibilty/impossibility of the presence of an atmosphere resulting in a higher ground level temp is the first issue to work on as everything else is settled if it's impossible as ITN/IBD have claimed.

Wow! You wrapped a logical contradiction, a bogus position assignment, an egregious misunderstanding and your denial of reality all together into the same sentence.

About what are you interested in discussing with Harry exactly? ... your denial of the daytime side of the moon? ... your denial of the oceans not having boiled away? ... your inability to grasp that only an atmosphere has a "bottom of the atmosphere"?

What could Harry reasonably expect to "discuss" with you?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
04-02-2020 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Thanks for posting the source.

Harry C wrote:....
4. Climate science is failing because the underlying natural science does not support it.
5. There is no empirical evidence that supports climate change.
6. It's time to put green house gas and effect to bed as it is used today. I would call upon physicists to update the theoretical foundation of the heat effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
7. There is no testable prediction in climate science. The phenomena they are relying upon is not reproducible.


The heart of the matter. These are of course your beliefs/arguments/conclusions and the primary subject of debate here.

I'd be interested in discussing them.

I think the possibilty/impossibility of the presence of an atmosphere resulting in a higher ground level temp is the first issue to work on as everything else is settled if it's impossible as ITN/IBD have claimed.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Word salad. Try English.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2020 21:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Sounds good
Harry C wrote:...
4. Climate science is failing because the underlying natural science does not support it.
The underlying natural sciences would be physics and chemistry. I'm not sure what you mean but often raised arguments are:

- the physics, thermodynamic, laws make a greenhouse effect as theorized impossible (which I'd dispute)

- the empirical evidence, temperature data, is too rough and inexact to show the theorized fractional degree increase.

- or the temperature data is reliable and contradicts the theory, temps falling at times as CO2 increases.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
04-02-2020 23:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...
4. Climate science is failing because the underlying natural science does not support it.
The underlying natural sciences would be physics and chemistry. I'm not sure what you mean but often raised arguments are:

There is no such thing as 'climate science'. Climate has no quantifiable values, and so there is no test of anything to do with climate.

The 'greenhouse gas' theory denies both physics and chemistry. It is not science.
tmiddles wrote:
- the physics, thermodynamic, laws make a greenhouse effect as theorized impossible (which I'd dispute)

No. You deny them.
tmiddles wrote:
- the empirical evidence, temperature data, is too rough and inexact to show the theorized fractional degree increase.

What temperature data? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Even if it was, how can you attach that to 'greenhouse gas'?
tmiddles wrote:
- or the temperature data is reliable and contradicts the theory, temps falling at times as CO2 increases.

False relation fallacy. You are trying to assume a relation where none is demonstrated.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2020 22:06
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
tmiddles wrote:
The underlying natural sciences would be physics and chemistry. I'm not sure what you mean but often raised arguments are:

- the empirical evidence, temperature data, is too rough and inexact to show the theorized fractional degree increase.

- or the temperature data is reliable and contradicts the theory, temps falling at times as CO2 increases.


Let me start with the easier 2 of 3.

As to the empirical evidence on temperature data and reliability I wrote in another thread:
How many data collection points would it take to have a high probability global average temperature? Part of the problem with the current temperature data sets, besides being corrupted by reporting agencies, is that it not only requires the temperature at the surface but at elevation intervals that can track changes in temperatures as it moves around the globe and throughout the atmosphere. I can only venture a guess that the temperature would have to be measured to a point in space where it does not vary based upon what happens on earth.


I received this answer from IBdM which is on the mark:
That depends on the target margin of error. I'm sure you have noticed that no one ever discusses this but it is an absolute requirement at the very beginning of any discussion of this type.

You need to establish the target margin of error. Let's say you need your average global temperature to fall within +/- 4 degrees Clesius. Great. A mathematician can tell you that you'll need roughly a billion and a half synchronized, well-calibrated and evenly-spaced thermometers, with several hundred million at/around sea-level, several hundred million evenly-spaced around one kilometer altitude, another several hundred million evenly-spaced at two kilometers altitude, three kilometers, four kilometers ... you get the picture.

The target margin of error determines the measuring requirement. And that's not all. It affects your conclusions.

Let's say you want to get by with fewer than a billion thermometers, say only 850 million, so you say that you are willing to accept a much bigger margin of error, say +/- 22 degrees Celsius. Great, but the moment you try to claim that the earth's average global temperature is increasing by 1.4 degrees Celsius per decade, you should prepare yourself for calls of "bullshit" because you can't possibly draw conclusions of greater accuracy than your margin of error. Results indicating 1.4 degree temperature increase imply conclusions that include a possible 23.4 degree Clesius increase over each decade down to a 20.6 degree Celsius DECREASE.


I understand your previously stated GW theory as surface and 2 meters above. My own thought was that there is so much temperature variability in the atmosphere, how do you know that the temperature change isn't just moving around in the atmosphere. So, my thought was that you have to have temperature measurements from the surface up to the limit of CO2 range in the atmosphere or the native temperature of space.

I'm not sure what your mane by "contradicts the theory".

temps falling at times as CO2 increases.


I believe the 'alarmists' view is that there is a direct correlation between increased CO2 and temperatures. This has not been proven. I think it's generally acknowledged and can find the charts to demonstrate it if needed.

I've got to do some work to create my answer to number 1.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
05-02-2020 23:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Harry C wrote:
I've got to do some work to create my answer to number 1.
If 1 is:
tmiddles wrote:
- the physics, thermodynamic, laws make a greenhouse effect as theorized impossible
I think it's fair to say that , if true, settles the whole issue. Impossible is impossible.

I am on the same page with you that the easiest box to check here is that we cannot claim to be detecting +/- 0.25 C annual changes. I'd go with Pat Franks on that one:
Earth surface temperature measurements

I would say that as IBD has presented it we wouldn't know summer from winter, which are often just 10C apart (a 30+ degree margin of error is way too high) but this is not work I know how to do myself.

As for 3, In general I think accepting the premise for an argument temporarily is worthwhile. By the data claimed CO2 has spiked and temps have not. This is what I meant by "contradicts the theory".

However the theory is that CO2 levels have a delayed effect CO2 Takes Just 10 Years to Reach Planet's Peak Heat, some estimates were 40 years
It does "sound right" to me that it would take years for a change in atmosphere to be reflected in ground temp.
Edited on 05-02-2020 23:19
06-02-2020 00:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
- the physics, thermodynamic, laws make a greenhouse effect as theorized impossible
I think it's fair to say that , if true, settles the whole issue. Impossible is impossible.
...deleted Mantras 23...4...10...23...3...23...23...20...4...23...23...23...[/quote]
1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.
2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot. You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

The 'greenhouse effect' is impossible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2020 02:17
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
tmiddles wrote:
However the theory is that CO2 levels have a delayed effect CO2 Takes Just 10 Years to Reach Planet's Peak Heat, some estimates were 40 years
It does "sound right" to me that it would take years for a change in atmosphere to be reflected in ground temp.


If you don't mind, I'd like to have a very thorough discussion about limited number of points instead of shotgun blasts.

I understand the argument about a delay. But there is no positive correlation in the change in reported CO2 levels and reported global temperatures. Correlation would account for delay. IPCC has been silent on explaining the anomaly.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
06-02-2020 03:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
However the theory is that CO2 levels have a delayed effect CO2 Takes Just 10 Years to Reach Planet's Peak Heat, some estimates were 40 years
It does "sound right" to me that it would take years for a change in atmosphere to be reflected in ground temp.


If you don't mind, I'd like to have a very thorough discussion about limited number of points instead of shotgun blasts.

I understand the argument about a delay. But there is no positive correlation in the change in reported CO2 levels and reported global temperatures. Correlation would account for delay. IPCC has been silent on explaining the anomaly.


There is never any correlation between any set of randU numbers and any other set of randU numbers. There is no data for either global atmospheric CO2 concentration or global temperatures. Neither of these has ever been recorded.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2020 03:55
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
tmiddles wrote:The underlying natural sciences would be physics and chemistry. I'm not sure what you mean but often raised arguments are:

- the physics, thermodynamic, laws make a greenhouse effect as theorized impossible (which I'd dispute)


This is the whole reason I came to this forum. I don't know the answer but want to believe that CO2 cannot increase temperatures. I understand many of the peripheral arguments that support that position. However, there are enough things I'm not comfortable with that leaves me searching.

The first thing I wanted to do was understand what the alarmists believed was CO2s action in the atmosphere to create heat. I had already deduced that it must have been assumed to amplify heat. I cannot find anywhere that demonstrates the a mass balance equation of the energy that hits a CO2 molecule.

But in the other direction I cannot find anyone else that takes the position that CO2 cannot increase heat in the atmosphere. The non-alarmists or skeptics that I read allow for minor increases in temperature from increased CO2.

It would appear so easy if leading physicists could agree on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. But that's not the case.

That begs two questions of both ITN and IBdM.
1. Which scientists influenced your beliefs about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere?
2. Did you create your position or were you influenced by someone else?

I want to see a nail driven in the coffin of AGW/CC in the worst way. But I suspect there is a missing piece to the argument that there is NO change in temperature based upon CO2 in the atmosphere. I will accept that there is an insignificant change in temperature based upon increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm still working on my own mass balance illustration to synthesize what I think is happening. I felt like I got a curve ball in my thoughts when I started reading about quantum mechanics. I was expecting to find some further illumination in the matter.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
06-02-2020 04:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
I just saw your post above this one and will wait for ITN/IBD to weigh in.

Harry C wrote:...there is no positive correlation in the change in reported CO2 levels and reported global temperatures....


Not correlating to my mind would mean no increase or a decline in temperature.

To reiterate all of this is pretending we can detect minute changes of 0.25C which neither of us buy:

The temperature shown by NASA/GISS does sown temp increasing from 1960 to 2020 by about 1.2C.

CO2 measurements show that CO2 increased in that time frame:

Which makes sense since fossil fuel CO2 emissions blew up around then:


So my thoughts pro and con are:
Pro- The dramatic increase in fossil fuel Co2 emissions, Co2 ppm measurements, and the forecast that those factors will grow even more dramatically going forward, seems reliable to me. I can see how this is scary on it's face. It freaks me out.
Con- Using the same sources temp data we can see that temps have risen and fallen before the last 60 year period. It's not like it was level and smooth and suddenly temps changed. More questionable is looking at US temperature which is arguably more well documented than many other parts of the world:

Without question (even disbelieving the ability to accurately meassure temperature) the US saw a heat wave in the 1930s. This would have had nothing to do with CO2 because it wasn't elevated then. So the question I see is IF CO2 played a roll in pushing the temp up the last 60 years then from what? Was the temp going to rise for other reasons anyway? Was it going to fall and we've really seen a boost? I've yet to see that question addressed.
This was talked about (here)


Basically if someone "knows what's going on" they should be able to state what temperatures would be doing without CO2s influence.

A bit on the PRO side it is fair to say that AGW theory is based pretty exclusively on fossil fuel use and that has only very recently increased dramatically. So the lack of historical data on massive fossil fuel use is just a reality. We can wait and see, jump the gun, be proactive, let the good times roll, panic for no reason, but it's not the fault of anyone analyzing this that this is a "new one".
Edited on 06-02-2020 04:08
06-02-2020 04:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Harry C wrote:
That begs two questions of both ITN and IBdM.
1. Which scientists influenced your beliefs about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Those that created the theories of the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If you want a history of these theories and how they came to be, you can find that out yourself. It's a fascinating bit of history.
Harry C wrote:
2. Did you create your position or were you influenced by someone else?

The theories are not the scientists. The theories stand on their own. The theory itself is the only authoritative reference of that theory of science.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2020 04:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 25...25...25...10 (fossils<->fuel)...25...33...25...25...4...25...15...25...25...4...25...33...33...10...25...10...25...19...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2020 04:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
Harry, I figured out your confusion.

You don't understand the crucial difference between "heat," "temperature" and "thermal energy." You have been throwing those words around as though they are interchangeable. They are not. Look:

Harry C wrote: This is the whole reason I came to this forum. I don't know the answer but want to believe that CO2 cannot increase temperatures.

... then you pivot ...

Harry C wrote: But in the other direction I cannot find anyone else that takes the position that CO2 cannot increase heat in the atmosphere.

Increasing heat has no bearing on increasing temperature; it's the other way around, i.e. increased temperature increases heat.

Thermal energy is energy. It gives matter temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional (thermal) energy.

Heat, on the other hand, is a FLOW of thermal energy, from higher temperature to lower temperature. A lake and a river both have a lot of water but only the river has a FLOW, from higher elevation to lower elevation, and no water in the river is actually the flow of the river.

You can increase the flow of water by reducing restriction, e.g. change to a wider pipe. You can increase the flow of thermal energy (heat) via conduction by reducing restriction, e.g. by swapping in a material with a greater heat coefficient.

This however will not cause the average temperature of the system to change because no additional thermal energy is added ... and none can be "created."

If you empty a lake into a river by opening the flood gates of the dam, you clearly have increased the flow of the water, but you haven't increased the amount of water.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
06-02-2020 06:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermal energy is energy. It gives matter temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional (thermal) energy.
Heat, on the other hand, is a FLOW of thermal energy, from higher temperature to lower temperature.
This is a well described definition that is not disputed anywhere I'm aware of.

I'd add that the greater the temperature difference between two objects the greater the heat. So there is more heat between two plates that are 10C and 40C then there is between two plates 200C and 205C. Though the second set of plates has a higher temperature the heat between them is only from 5C difference in temp.

"Hot" and "Heat" are not equivalent concepts.

You will "turn the heat on" in your house in most cases to achieve a thermal equilibrium with your environment and in effect reduce the heat or flow of thermal energy out of your body.

Where there is dispute is that ITN/IBD do not believe in Flow being a "Net Flow" as I do, when it comes to radiance. (in my sig)

IBdaMann wrote:
You can increase the flow ...swapping in a material with a greater heat coefficient....This however will not cause the average temperature of the system to change
So using thermal paste and a heat since on your cpu allows for greater heat, more flow, and a more rapid transfer of thermal energy from the cpu. While this cools the CPU the overall temperature of the room (it's entire contents, not the air temp) is unaffected by using the heat sink. Sound right IBD?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
06-02-2020 07:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote:Where there is dispute is that ITN/IBD do not believe in Flow being a "Net Flow" as I do, when it comes to radiance. (in my sig)

Right, just like a river is a net flow. You take all the water that completes the flow downhill and you subtract all the water that completes the flow uphill to get the river's net flow, right?

tmiddles wrote: So using thermal paste and a heat [sink] on your cpu allows for greater heat, more flow, and a more rapid transfer of thermal energy from the cpu.

You're fine up to here.

tmiddles wrote: While this cools the CPU the overall temperature of the room (it's entire contents, not the air temp) is unaffected by using the heat sink. Sound right IBD?

No. Planet earth's temperature remains unaffected. The room might certainly increase in temperature. I don't know if you have ever had to stand next to a highly utilized server rack in a non-air-conditioned room but those babies can get hot. Outside the room the effects might be negligible but as long as planet earth is surrounded by a vacuum, all thermal radiation in excess of equilibrium will emit away.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
06-02-2020 12:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:
.... just like a river is a net flow. ...
Except radiance does not physically get in the way of other radiance the way liquid water could. But again this is the area of dispute.

IBdaMann wrote:
No. Planet earth's temperature remains unaffected. The room might certainly increase in temperature.
what I meant was not the air temperture in the room but the temperature of the entire contents of the room: air + computer + furniture ....
Would be unchanged.
You'd moving some thermal energy from the computer to the air without changing the total amount.
06-02-2020 16:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote: what I meant was not the air temperture in the room but the temperature of the entire contents of the room: air + computer + furniture ....
Would be unchanged.
You'd moving some thermal energy from the computer to the air without changing the total amount.

This is moderately complicated. Thermal energy cannot be contained or "stored" so everything in the room will increase in temperature, perhaps negligibly, as the thermal energy from the CPU "dissipates" into the room and then out of the room.

So yes, the earth's molten core does ultimately radiate out into space, it's just that the earth's crust greatly restricts that flow of thermal energy to the surface (the substances of the earth's crust have very low radiativities and very low conduction coefficients) ... and there are miles of crust. This results in a negligible flow and we treat it as zero. It is not actually zero but we treat it as such. When there is a volcanic eruption, the amount of thermal energy reaching the surface is so small (relatively) that the rest of the planet remains completely unaffected (temperature wise) as that thermal energy quickly radiates off into space.

Back to the CPU, its thermal energy will act like soot and find its way into everything ... just not necessarily in quantities of substance. However, the reason I mentioned the server racks previously is that when the central heating shuts down in a building in the dead of winter, the server rack room becomes really popular. In there the walls, the air, the people ... everything has a warmer temperature.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
06-02-2020 18:45
keepit
★★★★☆
(1070)
Energy from a nuclear reactor gets pretty well contained for a while. Some of them use H2O for the containment. Some nuclear energy waste gets contained for a long time. That's a lot of energy.
06-02-2020 20:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermal energy is energy. It gives matter temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional (thermal) energy.
Heat, on the other hand, is a FLOW of thermal energy, from higher temperature to lower temperature.
This is a well described definition that is not disputed anywhere I'm aware of.

I'd add that the greater the temperature difference between two objects the greater the heat.
Assuming the same coupling, yes.
tmiddles wrote:
So there is more heat between two plates that are 10C and 40C then there is between two plates 200C and 205C. Though the second set of plates has a higher temperature the heat between them is only from 5C difference in temp.

Heat is not a temperature. Heat has no temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
"Hot" and "Heat" are not equivalent concepts.

No. 'Hot' is simply something that has more thermal then something that is 'cold'. Heat does not even need to flow between them. 'Heat' is the flow of thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
You will "turn the heat on" in your house in most cases to achieve a thermal equilibrium with your environment and in effect reduce the heat or flow of thermal energy out of your body.
...deleted Mantras 30...33...22...4...

Fine, but you cannot make heat flow both ways.
IBdaMann wrote:
You can increase the flow ...swapping in a material with a greater heat coefficient....This however will not cause the average temperature of the system to change
So using thermal paste and a heat since on your cpu allows for greater heat, more flow, and a more rapid transfer of thermal energy from the cpu. While this cools the CPU the overall temperature of the room (it's entire contents, not the air temp) is unaffected by using the heat sink. Sound right IBD?
...deleted Mantras 31...4...
[/quote]
Thermal paste increases the coupling between the CPU and the heatsink, allowing more heat into the heatsink. The heatsink is better coupled with the surrounding air than the CPU is. The room is affected. It is slightly warmer, though not noticeably so. It's also noisier. Most CPU heatsinks have small fans on them turning at high speed.


I water cool mine.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2020 20:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
.... just like a river is a net flow. ...
Except radiance does not physically get in the way of other radiance the way liquid water could. But again this is the area of dispute.
Mantras 33...31...29...
IBdaMann wrote:
No. Planet earth's temperature remains unaffected. The room might certainly increase in temperature.
what I meant was not the air temperture in the room but the temperature of the entire contents of the room: air + computer + furniture ....
Would be unchanged.
You'd moving some thermal energy from the computer to the air without changing the total amount.


You are putting energy into the computer. It is heating the room.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2020 20:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: what I meant was not the air temperture in the room but the temperature of the entire contents of the room: air + computer + furniture ....
Would be unchanged.
You'd moving some thermal energy from the computer to the air without changing the total amount.

This is moderately complicated. Thermal energy cannot be contained or "stored" so everything in the room will increase in temperature, perhaps negligibly, as the thermal energy from the CPU "dissipates" into the room and then out of the room.

So yes, the earth's molten core does ultimately radiate out into space, it's just that the earth's crust greatly restricts that flow of thermal energy to the surface (the substances of the earth's crust have very low radiativities and very low conduction coefficients) ... and there are miles of crust. This results in a negligible flow and we treat it as zero. It is not actually zero but we treat it as such. When there is a volcanic eruption, the amount of thermal energy reaching the surface is so small (relatively) that the rest of the planet remains completely unaffected (temperature wise) as that thermal energy quickly radiates off into space.

Back to the CPU, its thermal energy will act like soot and find its way into everything ... just not necessarily in quantities of substance. However, the reason I mentioned the server racks previously is that when the central heating shuts down in a building in the dead of winter, the server rack room becomes really popular. In there the walls, the air, the people ... everything has a warmer temperature.


.

So long as you stay on the exhaust side of the rack!


In hot summer days, when the A/C fails, the front side of the rack is popular if A/C is running in the server room.

If A/C fails in the server room, those systems must shut down.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2020 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
keepit wrote:
Energy from a nuclear reactor gets pretty well contained for a while. Some of them use H2O for the containment. Some nuclear energy waste gets contained for a long time. That's a lot of energy.


You should learn the difference between 'shielding' and 'containment'.
You should also learn how a nuclear reactor works. Water is not used to contain anything in a reactor. It is a coolant. It can be used as a shielding when storing spent nuclear fuel rods though.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2020 21:02
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry, I figured out your confusion.

You don't understand the crucial difference between "heat," "temperature" and "thermal energy." You have been throwing those words around as though they are interchangeable. They are not. Look:

Harry C wrote: This is the whole reason I came to this forum. I don't know the answer but want to believe that CO2 cannot increase temperatures.

... then you pivot ...

Harry C wrote: But in the other direction I cannot find anyone else that takes the position that CO2 cannot increase heat in the atmosphere.


I would have been OK if I had written that CO2 cannot increase temperature in the atmosphere? I'll be more mindful of my terms. Thanks.

IBdaMann wrote:
Increasing heat has no bearing on increasing temperature; it's the other way around, i.e. increased temperature increases heat.

Thermal energy is energy. It gives matter temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional (thermal) energy.

Heat, on the other hand, is a FLOW of thermal energy, from higher temperature to lower temperature. A lake and a river both have a lot of water but only the river has a FLOW, from higher elevation to lower elevation, and no water in the river is actually the flow of the river.

You can increase the flow of water by reducing restriction, e.g. change to a wider pipe. You can increase the flow of thermal energy (heat) via conduction by reducing restriction, e.g. by swapping in a material with a greater heat coefficient.

This however will not cause the average temperature of the system to change because no additional thermal energy is added ... and none can be "created."

If you empty a lake into a river by opening the flood gates of the dam, you clearly have increased the flow of the water, but you haven't increased the amount of water.


.

Thank you for the additional clarification.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
06-02-2020 21:34
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
tmiddles wrote:
Not correlating to my mind would mean no increase or a decline in temperature.


This graphic was in another thread. I trust the chart as far its use of the publicly available data. I'm using it as an example of the non-correlation that is already out there. I'm not suggesting it is accurate.




tmiddles wrote:
To reiterate all of this is pretending we can detect minute changes of 0.25C which neither of us buy:
[snip]
So my thoughts pro and con are:
Pro- The dramatic increase in fossil fuel Co2 emissions, Co2 ppm measurements, and the forecast that those factors will grow even more dramatically going forward, seems reliable to me. I can see how this is scary on it's face. It freaks me out.
Con- Using the same sources temp data we can see that temps have risen and fallen before the last 60 year period. It's not like it was level and smooth and suddenly temps changed. More questionable is looking at US temperature which is arguably more well documented than many other parts of the world:

Without question (even disbelieving the ability to accurately meassure temperature) the US saw a heat wave in the 1930s. This would have had nothing to do with CO2 because it wasn't elevated then. So the question I see is IF CO2 played a roll in pushing the temp up the last 60 years then from what? Was the temp going to rise for other reasons anyway? Was it going to fall and we've really seen a boost? I've yet to see that question addressed.
This was talked about (here)


Basically if someone "knows what's going on" they should be able to state what temperatures would be doing without CO2s influence.

A bit on the PRO side it is fair to say that AGW theory is based pretty exclusively on fossil fuel use and that has only very recently increased dramatically. So the lack of historical data on massive fossil fuel use is just a reality. We can wait and see, jump the gun, be proactive, let the good times roll, panic for no reason, but it's not the fault of anyone analyzing this that this is a "new one".


The issue I'm pursuing in response is that 'Alarmists' claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is directly attributable to an increase in global temperatures. For that to be true there must be correlation. CO2 increases would indicate a commensurate increase in temperature at some point lagging the CO2 increase.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
06-02-2020 21:46
keepit
★★★★☆
(1070)
ITN, Not that i'm an expert on nuclear reactors but i can see that you aren't. In some reactors water is used to shield from radiation and from thermal energy transfer.
I gave it as an example of "insulation" that works really well, sort of like greenhouse gasses.

The difference between containment and shielding is not difficult to understand. Your fixation on semantics isn't so easy to understand. It seems to me that it is just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Edited on 06-02-2020 21:50
06-02-2020 22:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Not correlating to my mind would mean no increase or a decline in temperature.


This graphic was in another thread. I trust the chart as far its use of the publicly available data. I'm using it as an example of the non-correlation that is already out there. I'm not suggesting it is accurate.




tmiddles wrote:
To reiterate all of this is pretending we can detect minute changes of 0.25C which neither of us buy:
[snip]
So my thoughts pro and con are:
Pro- The dramatic increase in fossil fuel Co2 emissions, Co2 ppm measurements, and the forecast that those factors will grow even more dramatically going forward, seems reliable to me. I can see how this is scary on it's face. It freaks me out.
Con- Using the same sources temp data we can see that temps have risen and fallen before the last 60 year period. It's not like it was level and smooth and suddenly temps changed. More questionable is looking at US temperature which is arguably more well documented than many other parts of the world:

Without question (even disbelieving the ability to accurately meassure temperature) the US saw a heat wave in the 1930s. This would have had nothing to do with CO2 because it wasn't elevated then. So the question I see is IF CO2 played a roll in pushing the temp up the last 60 years then from what? Was the temp going to rise for other reasons anyway? Was it going to fall and we've really seen a boost? I've yet to see that question addressed.
This was talked about (here)


Basically if someone "knows what's going on" they should be able to state what temperatures would be doing without CO2s influence.

A bit on the PRO side it is fair to say that AGW theory is based pretty exclusively on fossil fuel use and that has only very recently increased dramatically. So the lack of historical data on massive fossil fuel use is just a reality. We can wait and see, jump the gun, be proactive, let the good times roll, panic for no reason, but it's not the fault of anyone analyzing this that this is a "new one".


The issue I'm pursuing in response is that 'Alarmists' claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is directly attributable to an increase in global temperatures. For that to be true there must be correlation. CO2 increases would indicate a commensurate increase in temperature at some point lagging the CO2 increase.


Again, you are trying to show a non-correlation between random numbers and random numbers.

Really a pointless exercise.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2020 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
keepit wrote:
...deleted Mantras 12...In some reactors water is used to shield from radiation and from thermal energy transfer.

Not used for either in any reactor. Water is coolant in reactors. The nuclear reaction generates thermal energy, which heats the water, which conveys that thermal energy a heat exchanger to a secondary loop, which carries that thermal energy to turbines, which convert it to mechanical energy, then to electrical energy. All reactors on board navy ships operate this way and all nuclear power plants operate this way. Water is not used for shielding in any part of the reactor or it's primary loop.
...deleted Mantras 33...22...10...(containment<->shielding)...17...

Shielding blocks neutrons by absorbing them. Containments block nuclear material from getting out into the environment. They are built to withstand steam should a reactor leak it's primary coolant into the containment area. The primary loop never leaves the containment building.

Water is used in storage ponds for spent nuclear fuel. It keeps the rods cool and absorbs the stray neutrons from them (it's a heated pool!
). Only in this instance is water used as a shielding.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-02-2020 22:25
06-02-2020 23:58
keepit
★★★★☆
(1070)
ITN,
I got my info on reactors from Wiki.
And you're missing the main point as usual and that is that energy is and can be contained, at least temporarily. You continue to misapply the the 2nd law. The "insulation" in reactors is an analogy to greenhouse gasses.
07-02-2020 00:34
gfm7175Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(313)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I got my info on reactors from Wiki.
And you're missing the main point as usual and that is that energy is and can be contained, at least temporarily. You continue to misapply the the 2nd law. The "insulation" in reactors is an analogy to greenhouse gasses.

We can tell...
07-02-2020 01:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...heat between them is only from 5C difference in temp.

Heat is not a temperature. Heat has no temperature.
Indeed, I said "from", as in due to, not that it is IS the temp.
Into the Night wrote:
...you cannot make heat flow both ways..
Heat is by definition the gain to one body and the loss from another of thermal energy. You can't have a hand of poker where everyone wins the jackpot either.
07-02-2020 01:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Harry C wrote:
... an example of the non-correlation that is already out there....
Ah right.

So I think we can set aside the birth of the planet as being a unique situation : ), so looking at the mesozoic on what explanation is there for changing CO2 levels not correlating with temp? AGE OF THE DINOSAURS


I believe where the two meet in the mesozoic is when they think an steroid hit us.

Now that chart was posted here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/ Who concludes "Increase of Carbon Dioxide is thus wholly beneficial to "the environment" There is no evidence that it causes harm."
And here: http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

So I found this counter argument (not my own work):

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm
It's rebutting:
""The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate...Jurassic-Cretaceous periods...4000 ppmv...should have been runaway greenhouse..."

And no I'm not done I plan to post a real argument once I've gone through that article but wanted to share the links in advance.
Edited on 07-02-2020 01:56
07-02-2020 02:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
keepit wrote:
...deleted Mantras 4...31...33...20...22...22...

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2020 02:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 16...20... You can't have a hand of poker where everyone wins the jackpot either.


Yes you can.


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2020 02:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 25...25...25...31...31...22...

No arguments presented.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Etymology of Science:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is still no Global Warming science.26030-01-2020 20:16
Western Science - is it declining?1124-12-2019 12:43
About the damage that Obama did to science.18417-12-2019 05:36
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact