Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gas and Warming



Page 1 of 3123>
Greenhouse Gas and Warming04-02-2020 17:55
alanpeg
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
A statistical analysis shows that greenhouse gasses have been the dominant (but not entire) cause of global temperature increase for about a hundred years. Before then too little greenhouse gas was emitted to cause an effect. Full discussion at https://alanpeg.wordpress.com/2020/01/


AL R.
04-02-2020 18:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7045)
alanpeg wrote: A statistical analysis shows that greenhouse gasses have been the dominant (but not entire) cause of global temperature increase for about a hundred years.


A statistical analysis! Great!

Please post the link directly to the valid data that supports this conclusion and please post here on this board the section of the analysis that discusses the methodology used on the valid dataset.


.


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
04-02-2020 18:12
James___
★★★★★
(2831)
alanpeg wrote:
A statistical analysis shows that greenhouse gasses have been the dominant (but not entire) cause of global temperature increase for about a hundred years. Before then too little greenhouse gas was emitted to cause an effect. Full discussion at https://alanpeg.wordpress.com/2020/01/



I happened to be thinking about this last night. There is something that seems curious with warming between 1910 to present. From 1880 to 1910, the global average temperature was lowering.
The US dropped 2 atomic bombs on Aug. 6, 1945. This graph shows warming reversed after this. And until the 1980's, surface testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs continued and no warming.
Sadly no one in here will understand the physics behind this. They discuss "general idea's". If there were satellites during this time frame then we'd better understand whether or not atomic or nuclear weapons could influence the atmosphere in this way.

The last atmospheric test took place on Oct. 16, 1980
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/world/asia/north-korea-atmospheric-nuclear-test-risks.html
Attached image:


Edited on 04-02-2020 18:12
04-02-2020 19:17
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
Made up numbers put onto a pretty looking diagram... meh...

As IB requested, I'd also like to see the valid dataset supporting the OP, as well as the methodology used.
Edited on 04-02-2020 19:19
04-02-2020 20:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12777)
alanpeg wrote:
A statistical analysis shows that greenhouse gasses have been the dominant (but not entire) cause of global temperature increase for about a hundred years. Before then too little greenhouse gas was emitted to cause an effect. Full discussion at https://alanpeg.wordpress.com/2020/01/


What statistical analysis??

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough thermometers.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2020 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12777)
James___ wrote:
alanpeg wrote:
A statistical analysis shows that greenhouse gasses have been the dominant (but not entire) cause of global temperature increase for about a hundred years. Before then too little greenhouse gas was emitted to cause an effect. Full discussion at https://alanpeg.wordpress.com/2020/01/



I happened to be thinking about this last night. There is something that seems curious with warming between 1910 to present. From 1880 to 1910, the global average temperature was lowering.
The US dropped 2 atomic bombs on Aug. 6, 1945. This graph shows warming reversed after this. And until the 1980's, surface testing of atomic and thermonuclear bombs continued and no warming.
Sadly no one in here will understand the physics behind this. They discuss "general idea's". If there were satellites during this time frame then we'd better understand whether or not atomic or nuclear weapons could influence the atmosphere in this way.

The last atmospheric test took place on Oct. 16, 1980
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/world/asia/north-korea-atmospheric-nuclear-test-risks.html

NOAA chart discarded. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2020 22:14
alanpeg
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
gfm7175 wrote:
Made up numbers put onto a pretty looking diagram... meh...

As IB requested, I'd also like to see the valid dataset supporting the OP, as well as the methodology used.



See last line of posting.


AL R.
04-02-2020 23:58
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
alanpeg wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Made up numbers put onto a pretty looking diagram... meh...

As IB requested, I'd also like to see the valid dataset supporting the OP, as well as the methodology used.



See last line of posting.

The website you provided? If so, then this is my response to that:


First, you reference Greenhouse Gases. Define "greenhouse gases" and explain how they work without violating any currently standing theories of science.

Second, you reference Climate Change. Define "climate change" and describe precisely how a climate "changes", detailing what climate "was" and what climate "now is".

Third, you reference "global temperature data". What "global temperature data"?

Fourth, you reference "annual greenhouse emissions". First, answer #1. Then, describe precisely how you have determined how much "greenhouse gases" are being emitted.

Fifth, you reference "137 years". Why 137 years as opposed to any other number of years?

Sixth, you reference "other causes of warming". What other causes of warming? How do you know that the Earth is warming?


... and that's just the questions that I have from your first three sentences, let alone the rest of your post. Tackle those first, then I'll get into the rest of your post...

I also dismiss NASA and your other sources. They are merely making up numbers. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, as we do not have anywhere near enough thermometers to do so.

Also, I saw no statistical analysis, no valid dataset, nor any discussion about the methodology behind that "data" (made up numbers).

You're gonna have to do much better than that with me.
Edited on 05-02-2020 00:00
05-02-2020 04:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
Those questions not being unique to alanpeg I'll help you out:
1
gfm7175 wrote:
Define "greenhouse gases" and explain how they work without violating any currently standing theories of science.
Water vapor, CO2, methane and other green house gases absorb infrared radiance while allowing visible light to pass through (you cannot see CO2 because visible light passes right through it, but when Tyndall first discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas he could not get infra red radiance, from a boiling kettle, to pass through it.). Here's an amateur attempt at an explanation of the whole system:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right

But in short greenhouse gases allow visible light from the sun to pass through while absorbing some of the infrared radiance that comes up off of the ground/water level of Earth. This results in more thermal energy being present in the atmosphere above ground and a higher temperature at ground level. If you believe that violates a law of physics you'll have to make that case.

Do you believe Venus is hotter than Mercury?

2
gfm7175 wrote:
Define "climate change" and describe precisely how a climate "changes", detailing what climate "was" and what climate "now is".
Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water)

3
gfm7175 wrote:
What "global temperature data"?
Thermometers.

4
gfm7175 wrote:
how you have determined how much "greenhouse gases" are being emitted.
CO2 ppm in the air is measured regularly. It's assumed the increase in CO2 is from human activity.

5
gfm7175 wrote:
Why 137 years as opposed to any other number of years?
Thermometers (invented in 1714)

6
gfm7175 wrote:
What other causes of warming? How do you know that the Earth is warming?
The history of the planet is indicated in proxy data. The cycle of ice ages and intergacials is thought to be due primarly to changes in Earth's orbit.

Do you believe in dinosaurs gfm? Serious question.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 05-02-2020 05:15
05-02-2020 05:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7045)
alanpeg wrote:See last line of posting.

Wow, you never learned about links? They don't magically go wherever you wish they would go. Any given link can only go to one fixed location.

The link you provided does NOT go to any valid datasets used in any valid statistical studies. The link goes to an article.

Are you telling me that you don't know what data is, and that you cannot distinguish between data and an article?

So apparently there is no valid dataset and therefore there is no valid statistical study supporting any conclusion that "greenhouse gasses have been the dominant (but not entire) cause of global temperature increase for about a hundred years."

Well THAT was certainly disappointing.


.


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
05-02-2020 05:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12777)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantra 4...
1
gfm7175 wrote:
Define "greenhouse gases" and explain how they work without violating any currently standing theories of science.
Water vapor, CO2, methane and other green house gases absorb infrared radiance while allowing visible light to pass through (you cannot see CO2 because visible light passes right through it, but when Tyndall first discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas he could not get infra red radiance, from a boiling kettle, to pass through it.). Here's an amateur attempt at an explanation of the whole system:
...deleted Mantra 4...
But in short greenhouse gases allow visible light from the sun to pass through while absorbing some of the infrared radiance that comes up off of the ground/water level of Earth. This results in more thermal energy being present in the atmosphere above ground and a higher temperature at ground level. If you believe that violates a law of physics you'll have to make that case. ...deleted Mantra 27...

Violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law dude. You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. Also violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* Emitting ANY light cools the surface. That requires energy.
* CO2 also emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
2
gfm7175 wrote:
Define "climate change" and describe precisely how a climate "changes", detailing what climate "was" and what climate "now is".
Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water)

Circular definition. You cannot define 'global warming' as 'global warming'. Try again. You can't define 'climate change' as 'global warming', since 'global warming' is undefined.
tmiddles wrote:
3
gfm7175 wrote:
What "global temperature data"?
Thermometers.

A thermometer is not global temperature data.
tmiddles wrote:
4
gfm7175 wrote:
how you have determined how much "greenhouse gases" are being emitted.
CO2 ppm in the air is measured regularly. It's assumed the increase in CO2 is from human activity.

It is not possible to measure global atmospheric CO2 concentration. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. It is not possible to determine how much CO2 is emitted by human activity.
tmiddles wrote:
5
gfm7175 wrote:
Why 137 years as opposed to any other number of years?
Thermometers (invented in 1714)

Galileo invented a 'thermoscope', a type of thermometer, in 1553. A thermometer is not a global temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
6
gfm7175 wrote:
What other causes of warming? How do you know that the Earth is warming?
The history of the planet is indicated in proxy data.

Proxies are not used in science. They are meaningless. Mantra 4, 27.
tmiddles wrote:
The cycle of ice ages and intergacials is thought to be due primarly to changes in Earth's orbit.

It is also thought that there is a cycle of ice ages and interglacials.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe in dinosaurs gfm? Serious question.

Sure. I see 'em all the time in Florida. Such critters range all along the southern coasts of the United States, throughout many areas of Asia, and along the Nile in Egypt.
'Dinosaur' means 'great lizard', as defined by Richard Owen in 1842. The root portion 'dino' comes from the Greek word 'deinos', which means 'great', while 'saur' comes from the Greek word 'sauros', meaning 'lizard'.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2020 06:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
Into the Night wrote:
Violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law dude.
Does Venus violate it too?
05-02-2020 07:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7045)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law dude.
Does Venus violate it too?

Venus demonstrates Stefan-Boltzmann every day. We just aren't able to fully appreciate it due to our human privilege.


.


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
05-02-2020 08:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law dude.
Does Venus violate it too?

Venus demonstrates Stefan-Boltzmann every day. We just aren't able to fully appreciate it due to our human privilege.


But appreciate it we have from afar. So why is it so hot on the ground on Venus? I would agree you can't creat energy out of nothing. I would not agree that thermal energy is not stored.
05-02-2020 16:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7045)
tmiddles wrote: So why is it so hot on the [bottom of insanely thick atmosphere] on Venus?

Atmospheric pressure. How familiar are you with the ideal gas law? Are you aware that Pressure and Temperature move in the same direction?


tmiddles wrote: I would not agree that thermal energy is not stored.

... but you won't unambiguously define what you mean by "stored" lest you be forced to admit either that you really mean "not stored" or that your religious dogma runs counter to physics. You are hijacking the term "stored" to dishonestly mean "freely released" per Stefan-Boltzmann ... the exact opposite of "stored" as you might find in a dictionary.



.


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
05-02-2020 16:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So why is it so hot on the [bottom of insanely thick atmosphere] on Venus?

Atmospheric pressure. How familiar are you with the ideal gas law? Are you aware that Pressure and Temperature move in the same direction?
Yes indeed I agree! Simply having thermal energy present in such a thick atmosphere explains the high temp at ground level.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I would not agree that thermal energy is not stored.

... but you won't unambiguously define what you mean by "stored" lest you be forced to admit either that you really mean "not stored" or that your religious dogma runs counter to physics. You are hijacking the term "stored" to dishonestly mean "freely released" per Stefan-Boltzmann ... the exact opposite of "stored" as you might find in a dictionary.

Very true I don't mean "stored". I think to say it is present works. It's constantly coming and going.

Its stored the way a cup with a hole in it held under the faucet stores water
05-02-2020 16:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7045)
tmiddles wrote:
Very true I don't mean "stored". I think to say it is present works. It's constantly coming and going.

Its stored the way a cup with a hole in it held under the faucet stores water

Like my spaghetti strainer example?

For your cup and for the collander to realistically simulate the quantum world the water has to be entering where it is exiting at the same time.

So in your cup example, water entering the cup has to enter through the hole. I realize this makes it more difficult to imagine but that's the problem with the quantum world, i.e. it does not behave as the macro world and cannot be accurately described with macro world objects.


.


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
05-02-2020 16:58
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
Those questions not being unique to alanpeg I'll help you out:
1
gfm7175 wrote:
Define "greenhouse gases" and explain how they work without violating any currently standing theories of science.
Water vapor, CO2, methane and other green house gases absorb infrared radiance while allowing visible light to pass through (you cannot see CO2 because visible light passes right through it, but when Tyndall first discovered CO2 was a greenhouse gas he could not get infra red radiance, from a boiling kettle, to pass through it.). Here's an amateur attempt at an explanation of the whole system:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right

But in short greenhouse gases allow visible light from the sun to pass through while absorbing some of the infrared radiance that comes up off of the ground/water level of Earth. This results in more thermal energy being present in the atmosphere above ground and a higher temperature at ground level. If you believe that violates a law of physics you'll have to make that case.

Do you believe Venus is hotter than Mercury?

Violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law. You cannot increase temperature while decreasing radiation. Violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You cannot decrease entropy. Thus, I dismiss your response to #1.

tmiddles wrote:
2
gfm7175 wrote:
Define "climate change" and describe precisely how a climate "changes", detailing what climate "was" and what climate "now is".
Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water)

Circular Definition. You cannot define a word with itself, nor can you define it with another undefined word. Thus, your response to #2 is dismissed.

tmiddles wrote:
3
gfm7175 wrote:
What "global temperature data"?
Thermometers.

Thermometers are not global temperature data. Summarily dismissed.

tmiddles wrote:
4
gfm7175 wrote:
how you have determined how much "greenhouse gases" are being emitted.
CO2 ppm in the air is measured regularly. It's assumed the increase in CO2 is from human activity.

The few CO2 stations that there are are not equivalent to the whole atmosphere. Mauna Loa is known to cook their data, so I already dismiss Mauna Loa on sight. Thus, I dismiss your response to #4. Also, I am not looking for assumptions. I am not Adam Schiff.

tmiddles wrote:
5
gfm7175 wrote:
Why 137 years as opposed to any other number of years?
Thermometers (invented in 1714)

Doesn't answer the question.

tmiddles wrote:
6
gfm7175 wrote:
What other causes of warming? How do you know that the Earth is warming?
The history of the planet is indicated in proxy data. The cycle of ice ages and intergacials is thought to be due primarly to changes in Earth's orbit.

Do you believe in dinosaurs gfm? Serious question.

Science does not make use of proxy data. Response to #6 dismissed.

Yes, I believe in dinosaurs. Why?
05-02-2020 17:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7045)
gfm7175 wrote:Yes, I believe in dinosaurs.


Ah, yes, but do you believe in The Great Dinosaur (tbuh)?


.


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
05-02-2020 17:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
IBdaMann wrote:
...., water entering the cup has to enter through the hole..
ok, is that important?

gfm7175 wrote:
You cannot increase temperature while decreasing radia[nce]. Violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You cannot decrease entropy.
How is radiance reduced and how does entropy decrease?

gfm7175 wrote:
Circular Definition. You cannot define a word with itself, nor can you define it with another undefined word.
The temperture at 2M above ground is undefined for you? How so?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Why 137 years as opposed to any other number of years?
Thermometers (invented in 1714)
Doesn't answer the question.
well Mr. Ferenheit didn't do a Kickstarter. It took a while for thermometers to make it around the world. Eventually, by 137 years ago, they were in the major spots so we have some data.

All of our knowledge about dinasaurs is similar to our knowledge about past tempertures. Wouldn't you agree?
05-02-2020 18:23
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Yes, I believe in dinosaurs.


Ah, yes, but do you believe in The Great Dinosaur (tbuh)?

.

I can't say that I'm familiar with what The Great Dinosaur is...
05-02-2020 18:54
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
You cannot increase temperature while decreasing radia[nce]. Violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You cannot decrease entropy.
How is radiance reduced and how does entropy decrease?

By your attempts to trap heat and light via Greenhouse Effect, justified by Settled Science, per Climate Science.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Circular Definition. You cannot define a word with itself, nor can you define it with another undefined word.
The temperture at 2M above ground is undefined for you? How so?

You cannot define "global warming" with "global warming". You cannot define "climate change" with "global warming".

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Why 137 years as opposed to any other number of years?
Thermometers (invented in 1714)
Doesn't answer the question.
well Mr. Ferenheit didn't do a Kickstarter. It took a while for thermometers to make it around the world. Eventually, by 137 years ago, they were in the major spots so we have some data.

What are "the major spots"? What makes them "major" as opposed to "minor" or "not worthy of measurement"?

tmiddles wrote:
All of our knowledge about dinasaurs is similar to our knowledge about past tempertures. Wouldn't you agree?

Nah.
Edited on 05-02-2020 18:55
05-02-2020 19:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7045)
gfm7175 wrote:I can't say that I'm familiar with what The Great Dinosaur is...

I knew it ... you are an adinosaurist. You didn't fool me.

.


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
05-02-2020 19:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I can't say that I'm familiar with what The Great Dinosaur is...

I knew it ... you are an adinosaurist. You didn't fool me.

.

05-02-2020 21:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12777)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 16...25...

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2020 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12777)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 16...27...lie...denial of 2nd LOT...denial of SB law...27...


No argument presented. No new questions.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2020 21:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12777)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantra 27...denial of 2nd LOT...denial of SB law...27...16...10 (warming<->volume)...16...23...20...23...


No argument presented. No new questions.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2020 23:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
gfm7175 wrote:
By your attempts to trap heat and light via Greenhouse Effect,
why would you claim that air absorbing radiance as thermal energy "traps" anything? It is temporary and will be emitted as radiance just as it is from solid ground. Do you think the the dirt traps energy? We Warmazombies don't begin to claim CO2 is as effective as the dirt in absorbing radiance. So no one is claiming anything is permanently "trapped". If it were not for the constant supply from the Sun we would lose the energy and freeze. I defy you to find a theory out there claiming otherwise.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The temperture at 2M above ground is undefined for you? How so?

You cannot define "global warming" with "global warming". You cannot define "climate change" with "global warming".
And I used the term temperature. Do you not believe there is a temperature for Earth at 2M above the ground/water? What's the issue?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
It took a while for thermometers to make it around the world.
What are "the major spots"?
cities. No one was thinking about climate change. It is data we have from 137 years ago though.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
All of our knowledge about dinasaurs is similar to our knowledge about past tempertures. Wouldn't you agree?

Nah.
So do you think we know anything? Do you believe there was ever an ice age?
06-02-2020 00:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12777)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
By your attempts to trap heat and light via Greenhouse Effect,
why would you claim that air absorbing radiance as thermal energy "traps" anything?

He isn't. YOU are.
tmiddles wrote:
It is temporary

No. There is no sequence. You cannot trap thermal energy, not even for a moment. Not even 'temporarily'.
tmiddles wrote:
and will be emitted as radiance just as it is from solid ground.

There is no sequence. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you think the the dirt traps energy?

No. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
We Warmazombies don't begin to claim CO2 is as effective as the dirt in absorbing radiance.
tmiddles wrote:
So no one is claiming anything is permanently "trapped".

YOU are.
tmiddles wrote:
If it were not for the constant supply from the Sun we would lose the energy and freeze. I defy you to find a theory out there claiming otherwise.

It is YOU making the claim of such a theory. You are being irrational now. Which is it, dude?
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
The temperture at 2M above ground is undefined for you? How so?

You cannot define "global warming" with "global warming". You cannot define "climate change" with "global warming".
And I used the term temperature. Do you not believe there is a temperature for Earth at 2M above the ground/water? What's the issue?

The issue is that YOU think the Earth is warming due to CO2. YOU think that you can measure the temperature of the Earth. YOU keep ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and YOU keep ignoring statistical mathematics. All in favor of your religion.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
It took a while for thermometers to make it around the world.
What are "the major spots"?
cities. No one was thinking about climate change.

Define 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
It is data we have from 137 years ago though.

Mantra 23. There is no data. Mantra 10 (thermometer<->data).
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
All of our knowledge about dinasaurs is similar to our knowledge about past tempertures. Wouldn't you agree?

Nah.
So do you think we know anything?

You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. Mantra 16, 28, 27. RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe there was ever an ice age?

Mantra 27. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2020 01:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
It is temporary

No. There is no sequence. You cannot trap thermal energy, not even for a moment. Not even 'temporarily'.
Thermal energy travels, sometimes at the speed of light, sometime much slower in conduction and convection. Because it takes time it's around. There is "traffic" for thermal energy. Now if it's technically potential energy at some point, then point that out.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
and will be emitted as radiance just as it is from solid ground.

There is no sequence. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
Which gives the RATE at which thermal energy will radiate out. It does not all leave instantaneously. THAT would deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law which clearly tells you there is a limit to the rate of radiance.

Into the Night wrote:
YOU keep ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics
Neither of which are violated. If they are show it using only the 1st and 2nd LTD and not any of your own add ons.
06-02-2020 03:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12777)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 20 (S
10 (thermal energy<->electromagnetic energy)...29...15...20 (S
...10 (thermal energy<->electromagnetic energy)...20 (1st LOT)...20 (2nd LOT)...4...24...29...


No arguments presented. No new questions. Using new numbering


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-02-2020 03:23
06-02-2020 04:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7045)
tmiddles wrote: Do you not believe there is a temperature for Earth at 2M above the ground/water? What's the issue?

I bet you would meet with more agreement if you would use clearer wording, i.e. "Do you believe there are temperatures at 2M above the ground water?"

tmiddles wrote: So do you think we know anything?

Of course we know everything that the empirical evidence tells us. It's just the conclusions that people draw with such certainty that are equally dubious.

tmiddles wrote: Do you believe there was ever an ice age?

I don't, not as we've been taught. Ice ages are dubious conclusions from empirical evidence.


.


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
06-02-2020 04:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
Into the Night wrote: Using new numbering
Perfect! Adding examples/definitions in the list would be a good follow up.

IBdaMann wrote:...use clearer wording, i.e. "Do you believe there are temperatures at 2M above the ground water?"
Ah right you are! I meant to say "mean temperature" of course.

IBdaMann wrote:...the conclusions that people draw with such certainty that are equally dubious.
yes and in this imperfect world we get little certainty. We need to do the best we can and not fool ourselves about how confident we are in our conclusions. But to conclude that there was an ice age (not as we have been taught but at all) seems beyond reasonable doubt to me.
https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/ice-age1.htm
06-02-2020 04:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12777)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Using new numbering
Perfect! Adding examples/definitions in the list would be a good follow up.

The list is where it is and contains what it is. Mantra 4, 8.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...use clearer wording, i.e. "Do you believe there are temperatures at 2M above the ground water?"
Ah right you are! I meant to say "mean temperature" of course.

Redundant term. There is no such thing as 'mean' temperature. Temperature is already an average.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...the conclusions that people draw with such certainty that are equally dubious.
yes and in this imperfect world we get little certainty. We need to do the best we can and not fool ourselves about how confident we are in our conclusions. But to conclude that there was an ice age (not as we have been taught but at all) seems beyond reasonable doubt to me. ...deleted Mantra 4...

You are making a circular argument, or an argument of faith. You simply accept that an ice age occurred as a belief.

But you don't know. You can't prove it. Neither can you prove it never existed.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-02-2020 04:53
06-02-2020 05:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7045)
tmiddles wrote: yes and in this imperfect world we get little certainty. We need to do the best we can and not fool ourselves about how confident we are in our conclusions.

There is wisdom in this. I hope you don't suddenly contradict yourself in your next statement.

tmiddles wrote: But to conclude that there was an ice age (not as we have been taught but at all) seems beyond reasonable doubt to me.

You say this with all the certainty of someone who has some rational basis for his conclusion, i.e. some theory of how majority portions of opposing hemispheres probably became buried under ice at the same time.

Pray tell! What statistically probable occurrence might cause such a phenomenon?

Please remember that the earth is very slowly drifting away from the sun; it is not getting any closer. The earth always had more solar radiation than it does today. More, not less. So, I'm interested in your theory that makes at least one ice age "beyond reasonable doubt" ... because I can doubt with the best of them.


.


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
06-02-2020 05:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
Into the Night wrote:You can't prove it.
Not 100% no, rarely happens. Can't prove you're not dreaming this Neo.

NOTE THESE ARE TMIDDLES UNDERSTANDINGS! NOT ITNs. HE MAY CLARIFY IF HE SO CHOOSES. CLARITY IS LACKING IN BOLD:
1 Ad Hominem
definition: Personal attack on poster
2 Feigning Ignorance or False Pretense of Nonunderstanding
definition: feigning ignorance in order to get one's opponent to admit to, explain or overexplain something s/he would rather not discuss.
3 Proselytizing Condescension or Missionary Insolence
definition: ?
4 False Source
definition: ? (False Authority or a Fraudulent website)
5 Bulverism
definition: assuming your opponent is wrong and making the argument about how they got there, and not about the real issue: if they are right or wrong
6 Feigning Partnership or Offer to Work Together or Insincere Desire to Work Through the Math
definition: Pretending not to be adversarial and offering to work to gether with the intention of using this to attack an opponents postion later
7 Claiming Victory Fallacy or Pretending Someone has Conceded Defeat
definition: Similar to Bulverism in that being right is assumed and the topic of discussion is that victory
8 Logic Redefinition Fallacy
definition: ? Redefining the terms to distort the conclusion/outcome?
9 Bigotry
definition: Intolerance of those who don't agree with you
10 Semantic Hijacking Fallacy or Word Redefinition Fallacy
definition: Redefining a word used by an opponent to a definition they did not intend
11 Complexity Cop-out
definition: ? Refusing to acknowledge an opponents point because it is complex ? Or making something complex to avoid having a real discussion ?
12 Accusation of Deficient Education or Pretense Someone is Unable to Understand
definition: Dismissing an opponents ability to participate in the debate because they lack the education or are too stupid
13 Accusation of Mental Defect Fallacy or Labelling as Insane or Delusional
definition: Dismissing an opponent because they are "crazy"
14 Argument of the Stick or Argument by Threat
definition: Threatening an opponent with some consequence
15 Pivot Fallacy or Non-sequitur Statement
definition: Leaving the discussion to introduce a new/random new topic
16 Contextomy Fallacy
definition: Distorting information by not including the context.
17 Inversion Fallacy
definition: equivocating something with it's inverse: 10% got a false negative for the disease but the chance that someone testing negative got a false result is 1%, not 10%
18 No True Scotsman Fallacy
definition: Changing the standard to your own when wrong: "No schotsman eats oatmeal", "he does", "no TRUE scotsman does"
19 Pascal's Wager Fallacy
definition: The advice that one should live as though God exsists since they have a lot to gain if it true
20 Attempt to deny or change a theory of science.
definition: Claiming a theory which has not been disproven does not exist or modifying it
21 Historical Revisionism
definition: Changing historical information without evidence
22 Void Argument or Emtpy Buzzwords Fallacy
definition: Saying nothing, with a buzzword saying something with a popular word or phrase
23 Argument of the Stone
definition: dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity
24 Claim of Ulterior Motive
definition: using the claim an opponent has a motive to avoid or manipulate a debate
25 Math Error or Argument by RandU
definition: Bad math or RandU is a randome number generator (so made up numbers)
26 Fixation or Irrelevant Obsession
definition: Using or allowing a personal focus to avoid or bog down a debate
27 Mockery
definition: Derisively imitating an opponent, their absurdity being assumed but not proven
28 Argument of Ignorance
definition: Saying something is true because it has not yet been proved false.
29 Question Already Answered (QAA) or "Asked and Answered" or the tmiddles Question of the Broken Record
definition: The claim made that an opponents question was already answered
30 Assigning a Bogus Position to Someone and then Attacking on that Basis or "Pulling a tmiddles"
definition: Also known as the "Straw Man". Making up a weak/rediculous postion for your opponent and debating that
31 Claims Knowledge via Omniscience or Fabrication Fallacy or the tmiddles declaration of "What We Know"
definition: Claiming you know something without evidence
32 Misusing the word "Scientific" to mean "Holy" or "Sacred"
definition: A buzzword fallacy of slapping "Scientific" on an argument to dress it up
33 Erroneously Declaring a Theory to be Science
definition: Declaring something to be a theory of science when it's not currently well-substantiated and testable hypothesis
34 Pretending to Speak for Others
definition: Introducing testimony from others when it's just you talking.
06-02-2020 06:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
IBdaMann wrote:
You say this with all the certainty of someone who has some rational basis for his conclusion,
There are two sides to this: Evidence it happened, A theory/explanation as to why it would happen

Before either of those, for myself and most people, we trust (have faith) that the scientific community is being honest with us. That admission goes without saying I think.

As for evidence it happened is in the scraping bull dozer markings left by glaciers, sediments: http://isgs.illinois.edu/outreach/geology-resources/evidence-glaciation

Now it's an explanation for evidence. We know woolly mammoth were woolly.

Another indicator of temperature is that plants will grow succesfully.

As for why this would happen I believe that going theory is only due to changes in the Earth's orbit / Milankovitch cycles.

I hadn't heard before that we were drifting away from the sun. Why is that?
06-02-2020 07:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7045)
Some clarification:

tmiddles wrote:1 Ad Hominem, definition: Personal attack on poster

Only when the personal attack is the argument, if you will. It is not an ad hominem if I merely embellish a valid argument with say, allusions to your simian ancestry. For example, if I were to call you stupid ... for believing that greenhouse gases can increase earth's temperature while decreasing its radiance in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann ... I am making a valid argument, irrespective of any additional color commentary. The term ad hominem means "to the man" and means that the argument itself is ad hominem.

This typically means that if you strip away the ad hominem that you have a void argument (#22).

tmiddles wrote: 2 Feigning Ignorance or False Pretense of Nonunderstanding
definition: feigning ignorance in order to get one's opponent to admit to, explain or overexplain something s/he would rather not discuss.

If I were making the list, I would have as #2 "Attempt to Lay a Trap" or "Constructing a Gotcha! Fallacy" ... and it would have two sub-categories: 2a. Feigning Ignorance and 2b. (what is currently #6) Feigning Partnership or Offer to Work Together or Insincere Desire to Work Through the Math.

One of my distinguishing characteristics is that I normally recognize these right away but I love 'em ... I love the challenge ... bring it on, baby, bring it on. My thoughts are typically that if someone wants to go toe-to-toe with me then I'm good with it. However most other people, normal people, sane people, find these tactics to be incredibly insulting wastes of time.

tmiddles wrote:3 Proselytizing Condescension or Missionary Insolence. definition: ?

This tactic is fueled by the presumption, mistaken or otherwise, that one's position is morally or ethically superior and peppers the argument with attempts to shame someone else out of his current position.

On another site I actually end up using this one quite heavily myself ... because the topic is abortion and I typically go for the jugular in explainnig how people who support the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die ... are utterly immoral by any society's definition (you should ask Harvey; he waded into that discussion pretty heavily himself). My arguments can't help but carry proselytizing condescension since my argument is one of people being immoral.

My favorite example, however, of Global Warming proselytizing condescension is this classic:



tmiddles wrote: 4 False Source definition: ? (False Authority or a Fraudulent website)

You did ask about this previously but I'm going to let Into the Night clarify ... because there are actually three that I think he might mean.

tmiddles wrote:7 Claiming Victory Fallacy or Pretending Someone has Conceded Defeat
definition: Similar to Bulverism in that being right is assumed and the topic of discussion is that victory

Nope. This is an admission of defeat that refuses to admit defeat. On the other site I mentioned, twice this past week people who had backed themselves into a corner (one regarding impeachment witnesses) just abruptly announced that I had conceded his point and tried to wiggle out of the conversation.

When Into the Night and I were posting on Topix, there was a dishonest bonehead Subduction Zone who, after having yet another one of his egregious violations of physics clearly explained to him, would promptly mention in his next post that both of us had conceded his point ... even if only one of us was discussing the matter with him. I suppose that he was trying to preemptively declare both our concessions ... and he would keep bringing up the matter of our supposed concessions that we never made. That is why that point is on the list. Subduction Zone. Point #6 as well. These items being on the list indicate to me that they were getting on Into the Night's nerves a bit (it got on mine too).

tmiddles wrote:
8 Logic Redefinition Fallacy definition: ? Redefining the terms to distort the conclusion/outcome?

Yes, but a little more general. Redefining the rules of logic so that your conclusion is necessarily the "logical outcome." Unfortunately I don't remember specific examples but I do remember saying "No, it means the exact opposite" a lot. Basically if your conclusion doesn't follow, just claim that it does and that it "follows basic logic." Into the Night will be right there to respond "Deleted 8."


tmiddles wrote:11 Complexity Cop-out
definition: ? Refusing to acknowledge an opponents point because it is complex ? Or making something complex to avoid having a real discussion ?

Nope. It's the claim that certain support for the argument is too complex to be provided/covered on a message board ... so obviously it is therefore not required.

Imagine a Christian who claims that God does something that you find to be contradictory ... so you ask how that can be. The Christian says that it cannot be explained to humans because God is beyond our comprehension.

Imagine IBDaMann asks a warmizombie for the Climate model. The warmizombie responds "It's way too big to fit on the Climate-Debate servers, sorry!" ... or ... "That kind of thing needs to reside on a supercomputer mainframe and those don't grant public access, sorry!"

Imagine a warmizombie explaining how the secret to Global Warming creating additional energy can only be understood by tracking every single photon ... and he doesn't have the time right now to show you.



.


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
06-02-2020 07:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3257)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: 4 False Source definition: ? (False Authority or a Fraudulent website)

You did ask about this previously but I'm going to let Into the Night clarify ... because there are actually three that I think he might mean.
All of that made sense. Yeah maybe splitting False Source up would cover the bases.
06-02-2020 18:48
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
Tmid,
I think you might be trying to create order out of chaos with these lists and definitions. Kind of like trying to manage the middle eastern countries and various factions with military might.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Greenhouse Gas and Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist12812-03-2020 02:10
Will Warm Winters Balance Out The Effects Of Greenhouse Gases?1410-02-2020 18:23
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
▲ 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