Remember me
▼ Content

Hottest day on record (going back to 1880s) in Paris



Page 2 of 2<12
27-07-2019 17:12
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
GasGuzzler wrote: dude, wake up.

tmiddles wrote: oh the GRAND CONSPIRACY! Such a tired old cop out
Oh, please send money or we're all gonna die. Such a tired old scam.

tmiddles wrote:Make an argument.

OK, I will. You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. Heat doesn't flow backwards. This is an argument you have not addressed.(to my knowledge)

tmiddles wrote:This is a debate.

Apparently it is not a debate and it's more of a discussion. If it were a debate, you would not ignore people that are making arguments against your position. Full disclosure...I was not on the high school debate team, but I would venture a guess that if you simply ignored the other side, you would lose. Again, it's just a guess.

tmiddles wrote:If there IS a grand conspiracy then you can expose it.
It HAS been exposed. It is on display every day when we are told things that contradict the laws of thermodynamics. These laws have NEVER been falsified, but you dismiss them and ask for my money to pay for your religion.

Suggestion box:

* Learn what science is and isn't were. If science is what you think it is, then we are ALL scientists.
* Learn what heat is and isn't.
Hint, it is NOT the value of being hot. The word heat is grossly misused
every day, even by me. I'm still learning.
* Learn the 1st and second laws of thermodynamics. Learn how heat actually flows. Learn what it can and can't do.
Edited on 27-07-2019 17:17
27-07-2019 18:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: Make an argument. This is a debate.

You have already established that you are here specifically to avoid debate, to avoid differing viewpoints and to evade, at all costs, the science that renders absurd your preaching of undefined terms.

How about you stop being a hypocrite and make an argument. This is a debate.

tmiddles wrote: If there IS a grand conspiracy then you can expose it.

Science has already exposed your Marxist conspiracy. There is nothing left for him to do.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-07-2019 19:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
L8112 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't slow or trap heat.
* You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You can't decrease entropy in any system.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

You can't do it with CO2, methane, water or water vapor, nitrous oxides, or fluorine or any of its compounds.

You can't just discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


* You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.


Combustion engines get pretty hot when oil is burned in them.

Because you are using energy to do that. You are using a hotter gas to heat a surface colder than it.
L8112 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You can't decrease entropy in any system.


Taking energy (stored sunlight) in the form of coal oil etc. and burning it, is going from a low entropy state, to high entropy. Thanks for confirming what I'm saying.

You are saying the opposite in your other posts. You are in paradox now.
L8112 wrote:
Pay attention, before you go off parroting your talking points Mr. Parrot Killer. Global energy consumption in Joules, in 2013 was around 6x10^21 Joules.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers. No one can measure this.
L8112 wrote:
That number has increased by about 3% every year since then, so now around 6.9e20 J, per year. 90% of that takes the form of burning goal, gas, and oil, only 6% is renewables or nuclear.

Argument from randU fallacy.
L8112 wrote:
The efficiency of those methods is around 25%, with most of the other 75% energy being transferred to the surrounding air via heat.

Did you know the purpose for burning fuel in many cases is to release the energy to heat the surrounding air? How the hell do you define 'efficiency'?
L8112 wrote:
Heres a quick estimate of how much energy is being released into the environment via burning coal, oil, gas per year: (7.0x10^20)(0.9)(0.75)=1.03x10^21 Joules. Even if this is of by a factor of 10 +-, number is still immense.

Argument from randU fallacy.
L8112 wrote:
Mount Saint Helens had an estimated thermal energy release of 1.0E17 Joules.

No one knows how much Mount St Helens released.
L8112 wrote:
1.03E21/1.0E17=10,218. Meaning the energy equivalent of 10,000 Mount Saint Helens eruptions is being released into the environment each year.

So?
L8112 wrote:
If you disagree then you disagree with 1st law of thermodynamics.

Does not apply here. All the 1st law states is that you can't create or destroy energy.
L8112 wrote:
This supports the measured data taken via satellites.

What data? What magick satellites?
L8112 wrote:
40% reduction in ice extent in the arctic.

Lie. The 2018 winter ice extent in the Arctic is larger than in 2017.
L8112 wrote:
In terms of mass, 3,000 billion tonnes of melt in Antarctica,

Lie. The 2019 winter ice extent in the Antarctic is larger than the 2018 one.
L8112 wrote:
nearly all land glaciers receding.

Lie. Many glaciers are advancing...even on Mount St Helens.
L8112 wrote:
1.5 celcius avg global air temp increase.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.
L8112 wrote:
Remember, the majority of that heat has been absorbed by the oceans, not the air.

Denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again? You can't decrease entropy in any system.
L8112 wrote:
The air temps lag the changes in the ocean by decades,

WRONG. Air temperatures move much faster than ocean temperatures do.
L8112 wrote:
as that is how long it takes for the global thermohaline system to cycle through.

Oceans areas warm and cool with each season. The 'global thermohaline system' has no cycle. It is not a single current.
L8112 wrote:
The effects are now being observed in the air temps-109 degrees in Paris,

No, It's just a nice hot summer in Paris. It's a cool one here in Seattle this year. We had a hot summer last year.
L8112 wrote:
breaking the previous record going back at least 140 years by 4 degrees F.

Only 140 years?
L8112 wrote:
Weakened jet streams,

The jet stream has not weakened.
L8112 wrote:
the temperature gradient in the arctic is no longer high enough,

Buzzword fallacy. You don't seem to know what a temperature gradient is.
L8112 wrote:
causing the jet streams to weaken

The jet stream is not weakened. It's still just as strong as always.
L8112 wrote:
and dip much farther south than usual.

Nope. It's in the same place as always. Did you know that airlines navigate through the thing every day? They know exactly where it is and how strong it is.
L8112 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You can't just discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


Neither can you.

I'm not. YOU are.

* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its energy at the same time.

Have the guts to respond here in the thread instead of PM'ing me with it.
Edited on 27-07-2019 19:16
27-07-2019 19:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm not overly religious, reading 'signs'


What I mean by that isn't religious.

Lie. It is completely religious. I call it the Church of Global Warming.
tmiddles wrote:
More like if I was a sailor in the past I'd hopefully be competent enough to "Read signs" of a storm a' brewin. We can read signs that a volcano is likely to erupt soon.

Sailors (and pilots) do that today, every day. So do meteorologists. Predicting weather is pretty accurate out to 24 hours out because it's like watching approaching waves on the sea.
tmiddles wrote:
Science can predict things very reliably in some cases, and more vaguely though still usefully in others.

WRONG. Science predicts things accurately, reliably, all the time. Every theory of science is completely accurate in its predictions, using the equations it has been formalized into.

Predicting weather isn't science. It is observation. Predicting a volcanic eruption isn't science. It is observation.
tmiddles wrote:
(for example we're still waiting for earthquake predictions to work, but it's a good thing we now know once one does a Tsunami may hit).

Neither is science. They are observations and estimates using probability math.
tmiddles wrote:
But I think I like "clue" better, meaning "evidence to base a prediction on" instead of ~Signs~ since that does sound like a crop circle.

Semantics. You are trying to use supporting evidence as part of science. Science does not use supporting evidence at all.
tmiddles wrote:
So am I right in assuming you'd agree we had a pretty good clue about the impact of DDT on human and animal health? From Condor eggs to liver cancer.

This old tripe? Do you realize you are quoting propaganda from an old book called "Silent Spring"? DDT is still used, and doesn't affect Condor or any other bird egg. There is no verified case of liver cancer caused by DDT. The book "Silent Spring" was written by a devout member of the Church of Green.

Banning it caused mosquito populations to increase though. Those little bastards killed thousands.
tmiddles wrote:
Can't we ask the question, and critique the analysis, that there are clues about human caused global warming?
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:one record high, barely broken, was set in 1856...


So yeah, exactly. Would you agree that it's fair to ask "Is that really evidence?" and then you can come to a rational conclusion that it's not.
But it's POSSIBLE there could be evidence? We can say "that ain't it" because there is some standard where it could be it.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do.
tmiddles wrote:
Since we've had 12,000 years of warming since the ice age I don't see breaking records to be very compelling by itself. Breaking them every year? By a lot? maybe.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You weren't around 12000 years ago, and neither was any thermometer.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 19:52
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:...there was never any way to accurately measure global anything, to make the correlation,...focus on eliminating CO2 production,
...
There have always been algae blooms,


Do you have anything to base your assertion that we can't accurately measure global anything? "Accurately" is based on the purpse and the need. We can be very confident of the temerature in a particular location and we have a wealth of location we are measuring for the past 100 years. We can be even more confident of CO2 concentrations than temperature actually because ice cores have been tested in the past decades to show that what's measured in the ice matches what is measured in the air. Science can do a lot more than measure temp and CO2! Come on that's easy. The "We can't measure" is just a way to dodge the debate.
how it's done
And no there is no controversy, just urban legend:
Is it in doubt? no
How far back can we go? obviously not that far as the modern thermometer was only invented in the 1700s and location data was limited. BUT we can compare our very accurate measurements from the last 50 years at least, along with the accurate measurements for the 75 years before that, with other data to get an idea of the temperature even millions of years ago.

If you're saying we don't know the global temperature today you don't have any well qualified company in that camp. Mine as well say the earth is flat (there is a group for that!).

The focus on elimination CO2 is a pity. Fossil fuel power plants do far more harm in reducing air quailty. The bad air kills several million people a year where nuclear energy kills almost no one.

I mentioned phosphorus algae blooms because that's a man made disaster of releasing something beneficial to life into an eco system. See here:
Algae blooms
I realize you know what they are : )
"can remove oxygen from the water, occasionally killing fish."


Thermometers are used, mostly on land, which is only about 20% of the planet surface. 20% doesn't very accurately represent the global temperature. Watch your local TV weather, and you'll notice some pretty large variations in temperature, just in your state, or even just neighboring cities. Unless it's a modern, lab-grade thermometer, it only gives readings in whole degrees, and a tolerance of +/- 1 degree. It took 300 years, for the claimed 1 degree global temperature increase.

Ice cores aren't reliable, since there is no way of know how or when the ice was formed. Ice isn't a perfectly sealed container, gasses can move around. You do believe gasses are lighter than solids and liquids, and move toward the surface? That makes the concentrations closer to the surface, most recent accumulation, always higher, than the deeper ice. Ice has weight, the upper layers press down, creating pressure, forcing gasses to migrate or escape... Ice melts every, and rebuilds as well. We have no way of knowing how many layers of ice melted during any period of time. Ice cores don't stand up as an accurate record of CO2 levels.

Algae release oxygen, it's a plant. I does interfere with a fishes ability to breath it though, some algae is toxic, specifically the pollen they release...
27-07-2019 20:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:...there was never any way to accurately measure global anything, to make the correlation,...focus on eliminating CO2 production,
...
There have always been algae blooms,


Do you have anything to base your assertion that we can't accurately measure global anything?

Mathematics. Statistical mathematics.
tmiddles wrote:
"Accurately" is based on the purpse and the need. We can be very confident of the temerature in a particular location

A temperature at a thermometer is not a global temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
and we have a wealth of location we are measuring for the past 100 years.

Not enough. They are not read at the same time. Time is significant. They are not uniformly distributed. Location grouping is significant. The raw data is biased and there isn't enough of it.
tmiddles wrote:
We can be even more confident of CO2 concentrations than temperature actually because ice cores have been tested in the past decades to show that what's measured in the ice matches
what is measured in the air.

Irrelevant. Ice is permeable to CO2. It doesn't match what Mauna Loa reports either.
tmiddles wrote:
Science can do a lot more than measure temp and CO2!

Science isn't a measurement. A measurement is an observation and has nothing to do with science.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric CO2 content of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
Come on that's easy. The "We can't measure" is just a way to dodge the debate.

No, it is the math. You are simply denying the math.
tmiddles wrote:
how it's done

URL doesn't work. The corrected URL is here.

Math error: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to eliminate bias from raw data. Time is significant. It's effects MUST be eliminated (thermometers must be read at the same time by the same authority). Location grouping is significant. It MUST be eliminated (thermometers must be uniformly placed). Use of manufactured data (satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature). Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.

tmiddles wrote:
And no there is no controversy, just urban legend:
Is it in doubt? no

Mathematics is not urban legend.
tmiddles wrote:
How far back can we go? obviously not that far as the modern thermometer was only invented in the 1700s and location data was limited. BUT we can compare our very accurate measurements from the last 50 years at least, along with the accurate measurements for the 75 years before that, with other data to get an idea of the temperature even millions of years ago.

We don't have any measurements of the temperature of the Earth. Not today, not 75 year ago, not millions of year ago.
tmiddles wrote:
If you're saying we don't know the global temperature today you don't have any well qualified company in that camp.

Mathematics does not need to be 'qualified'. False authority fallacy. YALIF.
tmiddles wrote:
Mine as well say the earth is flat (there is a group for that!).

Irrelevance fallacy. The shape of the Earth has nothing to do with your denial of mathematics.
tmiddles wrote:
The focus on elimination CO2 is a pity.

It is also quite pointless. NO gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
Fossil fuel power plants do far more harm in reducing air quailty.

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Burning carbon based fuels produces nothing but CO2 and water when properly burned.
tmiddles wrote:
The bad air kills several million people a year

Where? When? Evidence?
tmiddles wrote:
where nuclear energy kills almost no one.

Have you forgotten the numbers killed in Hiroshima? or Nagasaki? or how many idiot operators were killed by their own reactor in Russia? Have you already forgotten the wasteland that Chernobyl has become?
tmiddles wrote:
I mentioned phosphorus algae blooms because that's a man made disaster of releasing something beneficial to life into an eco system.

Not man made.
tmiddles wrote:
See here:
Algae blooms
I realize you know what they are : )

Not man made.
tmiddles wrote:
"can remove oxygen from the water, occasionally killing fish."

Depends on the algae.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 20:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
GasGuzzler wrote:
L8112 wrote:
Yet oddly no one seems to realize that methane has 60 x the effect co2 does


Not odd. No way to tax farts, so doomsday is only CO2 related. Dude, wake up.


Methane can't warm the Earth anyway.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 20:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Dude, wake up.


Oh the GRAND CONSPIRACY! Such a tired old cop out.

Make an argument.

This is a debate.

If there IS a grand conspiracy then you can expose it.


He did make an argument. You just discarded it. Argument of the stone fallacy.
The conspiracy is the Church of Global Warming. It's already exposed.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 20:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote: dude, wake up.

tmiddles wrote: oh the GRAND CONSPIRACY! Such a tired old cop out
Oh, please send money or we're all gonna die. Such a tired old scam.

tmiddles wrote:Make an argument.

OK, I will. You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. Heat doesn't flow backwards. This is an argument you have not addressed.(to my knowledge)

Excellent observation! You are exactly right. He simply ignores discussing it. He can't afford to lose an argument trying to explain that you can make heat flow backwards that he has retreated into his 'safe zone'.
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:This is a debate.

Apparently it is not a debate and it's more of a discussion. If it were a debate, you would not ignore people that are making arguments against your position.

An excellent bit of reasoning! This is not a debate. For him, it is not a discussion either. It is just searching out fellow believers to chant their own scripture to each other in some kind of support group.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Full disclosure...I was not on the high school debate team, but I would venture a guess that if you simply ignored the other side, you would lose. Again, it's just a guess.

Exactly right. Walking out of a running debate means you lost.
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:If there IS a grand conspiracy then you can expose it.
It HAS been exposed. It is on display every day when we are told things that contradict the laws of thermodynamics. These laws have NEVER been falsified, but you dismiss them and ask for my money to pay for your religion.

Excellent. You lay it it out very clearly here.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Suggestion box:

* Learn what science is and isn't were. If science is what you think it is, then we are ALL scientists.
* Learn what heat is and isn't.
Hint, it is NOT the value of being hot. The word heat is grossly misused
every day, even by me. I'm still learning.

Quite right! Heat has no temperature. Thermal energy is measured by temperature.
GasGuzzler wrote:
* Learn the 1st and second laws of thermodynamics. Learn how heat actually flows. Learn what it can and can't do.

He must openly deny them both to continue to believe in the 'greenhouse gas' scripture.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 20:21
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
L8112 wrote:
Yet oddly no one seems to realize that methane has 60 x the effect co2 does


Not odd. No way to tax farts, so doomsday is only CO2 related. Dude, wake up.


Methane can't warm the Earth anyway.


May have to argue a bit here. The methane would depart the body at around 98 degrees. So, in most locations it would necessarily heat the atmosphere in close proximity to your ass. But this does not explain the higher rate of Arctic warming. There just aren't enough farting Eskimos.....something to ponder on your Saturday afternoon.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
27-07-2019 22:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
L8112 wrote:
Yet oddly no one seems to realize that methane has 60 x the effect co2 does


Not odd. No way to tax farts, so doomsday is only CO2 related. Dude, wake up.


Methane can't warm the Earth anyway.


May have to argue a bit here. The methane would depart the body at around 98 degrees. So, in most locations it would necessarily heat the atmosphere in close proximity to your ass.

Unless you have one exceptionally fat ass, that air is not the entire atmosphere of Earth. Any local heating by your own body is nothing more than energy that came from the Sun anyway.

Most methane just forms in the atmosphere directly, or comes from natural sources such as rotting anything, swamps, or comes up with oil that we pump.
GasGuzzler wrote:
But this does not explain the higher rate of Arctic warming. There just aren't enough farting Eskimos.....something to ponder on your Saturday afternoon.

How do you know the Arctic is warming?


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 22:42
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
L8112 wrote:
Yet oddly no one seems to realize that methane has 60 x the effect co2 does


Not odd. No way to tax farts, so doomsday is only CO2 related. Dude, wake up.


Methane can't warm the Earth anyway.


May have to argue a bit here. The methane would depart the body at around 98 degrees. So, in most locations it would necessarily heat the atmosphere in close proximity to your ass.

Unless you have one exceptionally fat ass, that air is not the entire atmosphere of Earth. Any local heating by your own body is nothing more than energy that came from the Sun anyway.

Most methane just forms in the atmosphere directly, or comes from natural sources such as rotting anything, swamps, or comes up with oil that we pump.
GasGuzzler wrote:
But this does not explain the higher rate of Arctic warming. There just aren't enough farting Eskimos.....something to ponder on your Saturday afternoon.

How do you know the Arctic is warming?


I was told by the "climate scientists" that it was warming. Time to fall in line, pay up, and do what they say.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
27-07-2019 22:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
GasGuzzler wrote:I was told by the "climate scientists" that it was warming. Time to fall in line, pay up, and do what they say.

Yup. You know it's time.




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 06:28
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
Do you have anything to base your assertion that we can't accurately measure global anything? "


Are being selective with "we can't know well enough to study"?

Do you disbelieve all scientific study?

What's an example of science you trust?

And I didn't mean could you backup your own statements with more of your own statements. Any scientists that can back you up on that? People with real credentials?


28-07-2019 07:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:Are being selective with "we can't know well enough to study"?

Hilarious! YOU accusing someone of being less than fully straightforward!

tmiddles wrote: Do you disbelieve all scientific study?

What a moron! There is no such thing as a "scientific" study. Studies aren't science. There are just studies and that's all. Most studies are invalid. If you weren't such a moron you'd be asking what makes a study valid. As it stands, you just believe whatever you are told to believe as long as you are told that it comes from a study ... no, wait ... a "scientific" study.

How gullible.

tmiddles wrote:What's an example of science you trust?

He probably trusts all science. He's just not completely gullible like you and doesn't believe that something is science just because some Marxist requires him to believe it.

If you weren't such a scientifically illiterate bonehead you would know what science is and is not ... greatly alleviating your confusion on the matter. As it stands, you are greatly confused on the matter.

tmiddles wrote: Any scientists that can back you up on that?

He has been backed up, on this site, by science and mathematics that you refuse to embrace. There is nothing more that he needs to do.

You, on the other hand, guard your scientific illiteracy as a Christian father guards his daughter's virginity; you dare not allow anything to jeopardize it.

tmiddles wrote:People with real credentials?

People with Down Syndrome don't take this long to grasp the concept of an anonymous forum.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 07:23
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
Do you have anything to base your assertion that we can't accurately measure global anything? "


Are being selective with "we can't know well enough to study"?

Do you disbelieve all scientific study?

What's an example of science you trust?

And I didn't mean could you backup your own statements with more of your own statements. Any scientists that can back you up on that? People with real credentials?


The planet is very large, we can only take small samples of it to test and measure. To expand the results mathematically, to represent the entire planet, also expands an errors.

No, I don't disbelieve all scientific studies. I do distrust some of the conclusions, since many are a plea for further funding these days.

Not sure how to answer those other two questions, I don't keep track of which I believe, and which I don't, since that's not the point. A study, doesn't really settle anything, it's an observation, and a description. Like say, Cold Fusion, was an interesting thing, sounded like so very useful potential. Unfortunately, it was flawed, eventually discredited. Fun ride, while it lasted. Most studies don't pan out, but there are many that are interesting to see how they go, hoping everything works out. I didn't get into Climate Change, until there was a huge push to spend a lot of taxpayer dollars on it, raising taxes, mandating I buy energy efficient, and many other costly new things. Basically throwing away things that work fine, and paid for, and replacing with stuff I can't afford, and don't work as well. I was worry about a huge increase in the cost of gas and electricity, to pay for the conversion to alternative energy. I very independent, and having to rely on the mass transit system doesn't appeal to me, nor all the wasted time waiting to catch a ride.

Scientist, with research and credentials, that back up my views and opinions? Sorry, never looked. I write original matter, far as I know. Likely influenced by things I've heard, read, or viewed, that I fully agreed with, but I'm not quoting or regurgitating and content. Everything I write here are my own thoughts and reasoning, based on personal experience. I don't have the self-doubts, that would compel me to seek validation. I could be wrong on many things, don't always have to be right, I learn from my mistakes, and those of others. I believe most scientists, with credentials, have better things to do, actual useful work, than wasting time and money on a non-issue. I don't watch endless videos online, use dial-up internet, don't have time, except for short clips (5 minutes or less). There are drooling fanatics on both sides of the debate, pointless to watch, just for entertainment purposes.
28-07-2019 09:45
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:A study, doesn't really settle anything, it's an observation,


I fear this is become a bit of a circular discussion.

What's an example of something you feel confident about factually that science has figured out, with a study, with data? You can never measure it all.

I'll give you a non-global warming list, Y/N on these if you'd like:
1 The risk of lung cancer development is 20-40 times higher in lifelong smokers
2 Venus is hotter than Mercury though it's further from the sun.
3 Vaccinations are effective in preventing disease
4 Heart Disease is the leading cause of death in the US
5 There are 7.7 Billion people on Earth


28-07-2019 16:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: What's an example of something you feel confident about factually that science has figured out, with a study, with data?

You ask the most boneheaded questions just to show your pride in your scientific illiteracy.

You ask for science but specify "a study" or "data" ... neither of which are science.

Science is strictly a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Why don't you ask HarveyH55 if he trusts Einstein's energy-mass equivalence E=mc^2 ? That is science. Notice that there is no study attached and no data. When Einstein published it, he was not required to provide any data for it to be science nor were any "peer reviewed" papers requested on the matter.

tmiddles wrote:I'll give you a non-global warming list, Y/N on these if you'd like:

Nothing in that list is science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 18:14
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:A study, doesn't really settle anything, it's an observation,


I fear this is become a bit of a circular discussion.

What's an example of something you feel confident about factually that science has figured out, with a study, with data? You can never measure it all.

I'll give you a non-global warming list, Y/N on these if you'd like:
1 The risk of lung cancer development is 20-40 times higher in lifelong smokers
2 Venus is hotter than Mercury though it's further from the sun.
3 Vaccinations are effective in preventing disease
4 Heart Disease is the leading cause of death in the US
5 There are 7.7 Billion people on Earth


I don't gather statistics, mostly useless, unless they are presented with the methods used, margin of error. They are also generally biased, used to sell a product. Insurance companies use them a lot to the premium price you pay.

Lots of people get lung cancer, who never smoked. There is a huge number of smokers that never developed any kind of cancer. Quite a few that never developed any of the other respiratory illnesses commonly connected with smoking. Anybody the over indulges in pretty much anything, is heading for some sort of medical problems. I'm not buying the 20-40 times greater thing, those many people suffering, would have been setting an example for everyone that knew them, that couldn't be ignored for long. Tobacco companies would have gone bust, decades ago. There have been these 'studies', negative advertisement, huge tax increases, lawsuits, for about 50 years, yet people still buy those products.

Never had much interest in the other planets, never going to any of them, plenty of stuff to do on Earth. Each of the planets are unique, plenty of other differences besides CO2.

Could of sworn that automobiles were the number one cause of death in America... Guess it depends on the study and the scope.

Vaccines can help reduce the spread of disease, but they also give people a false sense of security, which can put them at higher risk. They don't always work, for every individual. Some people don't stay protected very long. Vaccines are very specific, mutations aren't covered. Flu shots don't work as well, as simple hygiene practices. You get a shot, which a mix of strains, the WHO believes will be trending that season. You are never protected from all strains. The vaccines can cause deaths as well (read the paper you sign). The trigger an immune response from each individual, some people go into overdrive, and it's as bad or worse, than had they gotten the virus naturally. Many people feel symptoms, usually mild, hardly noticeable. Others get violently ill, all over the toilet, but doesn't last as long as actually getting the disease.

World population, just a rough estimate...
28-07-2019 18:54
Herbert West
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Hi, I'm new here. Just for take a look to your talking about our terminal situation.
28-07-2019 18:57
Herbert West
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Every year we will enjoy a new warm record on sumer temperatures. Until... Wel until no more records, of course.
28-07-2019 19:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Herbert West wrote:Hi, I'm new here. Just for take a look to your talking about our terminal situation.

So either you are another Marxist or you want to discuss the death of our sun?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 21:16
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:

Could of sworn that automobiles were the number one cause of death in America... Guess it depends on the study and the scope.

.


OK so you really doubt that we do know that? Someone dies and it's not recorded, clearly?

We can know stuff Harvey!!!! Look at the achievements of humanity and stop doubting that


28-07-2019 21:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
Do you have anything to base your assertion that we can't accurately measure global anything? "


Are being selective with "we can't know well enough to study"?

Do you disbelieve all scientific study?

What's an example of science you trust?

And I didn't mean could you backup your own statements with more of your own statements. Any scientists that can back you up on that? People with real credentials?


It's math, dude. Not science.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 21:19
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Herbert West wrote:
Every year we will enjoy a new warm record on sumer temperatures. Until... Wel until no more records, of course.


Welcome to the board!

And don't get too freaked out. There actually aren't any proposed scenarios in which we are animated by a rising temperature.


28-07-2019 21:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:A study, doesn't really settle anything, it's an observation,


I fear this is become a bit of a circular discussion.

What's an example of something you feel confident about factually that science has figured out, with a study, with data? You can never measure it all.

I'll give you a non-global warming list, Y/N on these if you'd like:
1 The risk of lung cancer development is 20-40 times higher in lifelong smokers

Unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
2 Venus is hotter than Mercury though it's further from the sun.

Unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
3 Vaccinations are effective in preventing disease

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
4 Heart Disease is the leading cause of death in the US

No. The leading cause of death in the United States is old age.

Such things as heart disease (not a proper noun, it is not capitalized), Alzheimer's disease, strokes, many cancers, etc. are simply elements of old age.

The leading cause of death among younger people is accidents and homicides.

tmiddles wrote:
5 There are 7.7 Billion people on Earth

Unknown. This number is a gross estimate only.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 21:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:

Could of sworn that automobiles were the number one cause of death in America... Guess it depends on the study and the scope.

.


OK so you really doubt that we do know that? Someone dies and it's not recorded, clearly?

Happens all the time.
tmiddles wrote:
We can know stuff Harvey!!!! Look at the achievements of humanity and stop doubting that

Making up numbers is not an achievement, tmiddles.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2019 00:02
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
tmiddles wrote:animated by a rising temperature.


oops I meant annihilated.


Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Hottest day on record (going back to 1880s) in Paris:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Alaska, July, hottest month every recorded...119-08-2019 07:13
record high temp in france7808-07-2019 06:18
Wind, solar, storage and back-up system designer1605-07-2019 05:18
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Global warming back to medieval warm period will increase Russia population 4 fold128-05-2019 19:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact