Remember me
▼ Content

hurricanes during the ice age?



Page 4 of 4<<<234
13-10-2016 21:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:Not every segment has a local maximum!

Yes, it absolutely will. I think we're done on this one.


jwoodward48 wrote:The implication is the consequent.
IBdaMann wrote: Incorrect. The implication is the entire "A -> B" It's the whole statement.

No, it's not.

Yes it absolutely is. I think we're done here as well.


jwoodward48 wrote: No, that's not what "implication" means. The implication is the same as the consequent. The conditional statement is what you are calling the "implication".

In computer programming, and in English grammar, the "If A then B" is a conditional statement.

In logic it is an implication. If the antecedent is false then the implication is true, regardless of the truth value of the consequent.

I'm not going to tell you again.

.


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
13-10-2016 23:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.


What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.
You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.

No, you misunderstand. Kirchhoff's Law states that the absorptivity at a particular wavelength is equal to the emissivity at a particular wavelength. It doesn't say that absorptivity and emissivity can't vary with wavelength. It is therefore perfectly possible for a substance to be a good absorber (and emitter) at one wavelength and a poor absorber (and emitter) at another wavelength.


Gawd it must suck to have an education as crappy as yours.

If an atom absorbs a certain frequency, it will always emit on that same frequency (if it emits at all), or on a lower frequency (if it emits at all).


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 23:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.


What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.
You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.

No, you misunderstand. Kirchhoff's Law states that the absorptivity at a particular wavelength is equal to the emissivity at a particular wavelength. It doesn't say that absorptivity and emissivity can't vary with wavelength. It is therefore perfectly possible for a substance to be a good absorber (and emitter) at one wavelength and a poor absorber (and emitter) at another wavelength.


Gawd it must suck to have an education as crappy as yours.

If an atom absorbs a certain frequency, it will always emit on that same frequency (if it emits at all), or on a lower frequency (if it emits at all).

At least they taught me to read.

What you just wrote doesn't actually conflict with what I wrote.
13-10-2016 23:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.


Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.


Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.


IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.


They are circular arguments.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.


Quite right. Instead you have constructed a conclusion based on a circular argument.


Wait, what? We aren't discussing my argument.

We ARE discussing your argument. Since you want to drop it now, consider it done.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm talking about how IB's statement of "If no gas exists that doesn't violate Planck's, then you are wrong" is technically true, but since the antecedent is false, the consequent is not supported.

The stated antecedent is negative, the unstated antecedent is affirmative (that you are making an argument), and the conclusion is negative. No problem with logic here. This is a perfectly valid form.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 23:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1) Define 'surface'.

"the outside part or uppermost layer of something (often used when describing its texture, form, or extent)"

Solids have surfaces, since there is a clear boundary between a solid and not-the-solid. Liquids have surfaces, as there is a clear boundary between a liquid and not-the-liquid. Gases can sometimes have surfaces, if they are confined within something.

Opaque solids radiate solely from their surface. Ditto for opaque liquids. Gases and transparent solids/liquids both have a problem - the surface does not contribute all of the radiating

When we are discussing the atmosphere, it does not have a surface that it radiates from. It radiates from a whole volume of space.

This seems insufficient and vague. After all, a solid is mostly empty space. So is my hand. Why can't I put my hand, which is mostly empty space, through a metal bar, which is mostly empty space? Why can I put my hand into a liquid or a gas without resistance? After all, liquids have a surface that is obvious, just like a solid.


That's irrelevant.

Don't think so.
jwoodward48 wrote:
A solid has a clear boundary between itself and everything else,
Does it? What is the surface of a hairy dog? The skin? The top of the hair? Somewhere in the middle? The interior of a deep wound (hey...it's Halloween)?

I can put my hand on the dog but it won't go through the dog. My hand and the dog are mostly empty space. Why won't my hand go through?
jwoodward48 wrote:
as does a liquid
Does it? If the liquid is agitated, what is the surface? The drops coming up from the liquid? The craters they fall into? The average of the surface? Over how much of an area?

If a container of liquid is spilled, it is no longer constrained by that container.

I can put my hand into a liquid, but the liquid does not pass through my hand (with few exceptions). Why?

jwoodward48 wrote:
- but a gas does not, unless it is constrained.

Must a gas be constrained? What about the very thin gas of hydrogen in open space? What constrains it?

That atmosphere is not in a container of any kind. What constrains the atmosphere other than gravity?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Solids and liquids don't need to be constrained in order to keep their volume. Gases do.

All have mass. Just what exactly is a 'surface' anyway?


Nothing to do with mass.

It has everything to do with mass. If the mass isn't there, you have no boundary at all.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Just the boundary between a given something and everything that isn't that something. Solids have surfaces, liquids have surfaces, since they don't naturally expand.

Both solids and liquids DO naturally expand. They contract too. So do gases. (BTW, check your tires in fall. The drop in temperatures will leave your tires low.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
Gases naturally expand, so unless they are constrained, they won't have a surface

Why does a container produce a surface in gases?
jwoodward48 wrote:
- the atmosphere blends with the vacuum.

If you blow up a balloon, putting gas in it, where is the vacuum?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Where does the atmosphere end and space begin?

Our government, physicists, and engineers have a definition for that. Go look it up. Admittedly it is an arbitrarily set altitude, but...it's there.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

2) CO2 radiation follows Planck's law.

Even if it did follow a domain-modified Planckian distribution, it could still be transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. My points still stand.


What is emitted is the same as what is absorbed. That's quantum mechanics for you.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. Go look it up.
jwoodward48 wrote:
First of all, I am stating that a given substance can be opaque to one wavelength and transparent to another, which is definitely true. But to counter your point, that's not true - even in a gas, molecules have so many collisions every second that it's more likely that the absorbed radiation will go toward heating up the gas; the gas will then radiate its emission spectrum in all directions, including down. The radiation that goes down will mostly be absorbed by the Earth (barring re-absorption and re-emission, which just complicates things but doesn't change this fact). When a photon strikes the Earth, the ground doesn't know what temperature the radiating body was that produced the photon. It only knows what wavelength the radiation has - and we know that the Earth is a good absorber of longwave radiation. It won't all be reflected. Much will be absorbed. This increases the temperature, since the Earth is also getting solar radiation.

An atom will NOT absorb a photon of the same color once it has already absorbed a photon of that color. That atom is excited, and will simply refuse to accept another photon of that color. ONLY when the energy in that atom is lost can the atom accept another photon of that color.

Longwave is a specific value, set by government, engineers, and physicists. It is 30kHz to 300kHz, nowhere near the infrared band.

jwoodward48 wrote:
You are basing your point on a violation of the very quantum mechanics you are attempting to use to say Planck's law does not apply.


Planck's is not applicable. The Planckian distribution does not match up with the Earthly radiation seen from space - this has a continuous domain, by the way.


Planck's is applicable all the time...everywhere.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 23:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Not every segment has a local maximum!

Yes, it absolutely will. I think we're done on this one.

IB, I think you're confusing "local maximum" with "global maximum".

jwoodward48 wrote:The implication is the consequent.
IBdaMann wrote: Incorrect. The implication is the entire "A -> B" It's the whole statement.

No, it's not.

Yes it absolutely is. I think we're done here as well.

If you want to stop, sure. Let it never be said that I forced anybody to continue typing.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, that's not what "implication" means. The implication is the same as the consequent. The conditional statement is what you are calling the "implication".

In computer programming, and in English grammar, the "If A then B" is a conditional statement.

In logic it is an implication. If the antecedent is false then the implication is true, regardless of the truth value of the consequent.

I'm not going to tell you again.

.


Ah, it seems that the logical definition of "implication" is quite distinct from the layman's definition. You're right.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 23:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.


Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.


Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.


IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.


They are circular arguments.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.


Quite right. Instead you have constructed a conclusion based on a circular argument.


Wait, what? We aren't discussing my argument.

We ARE discussing your argument. Since you want to drop it now, consider it done.

If you want to discuss my argument, by all means, but we are currently talking about IB's statement that is a response to my argument.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm talking about how IB's statement of "If no gas exists that doesn't violate Planck's, then you are wrong" is technically true, but since the antecedent is false, the consequent is not supported.

The stated antecedent is negative, the unstated antecedent is affirmative (that you are making an argument), and the conclusion is negative. No problem with logic here. This is a perfectly valid form.

Do you mean "negative" as in ~A?

I am talking about how if the antecedent is false, A=>B is always true. This says nothing about the truth value of B.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
14-10-2016 00:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
[b]IBdaMann wrote:[/b}
You don't lose a point here. You just need to brush up on your terminology.

"A -> B" is an implication
"A" is the antecedent
"B" is the consequent

If the antecedent is false, the implication is true, regardless of the truth value of the consequent.


.


No, that's not what "implication" means. The implication is the same as the consequent. The conditional statement is what you are calling the "implication".


Sorry, IBdaMann has it right here. The implication is specifically the directed operator between the two sides of the statement. In computer typewriteoon form, it is the '->' operator itself.

This is by definition.

The consequent, or conclusion, is the 'B' in the statement.
The antecedent, or premise, is the 'A' in the statement.

The statement reads: the antecedent A cedes (implies) consequent B.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 00:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Not every segment has a local maximum!

Yes, it absolutely will. I think we're done on this one.

IB, I think you're confusing "local maximum" with "global maximum".

jwoodward48 wrote:The implication is the consequent.
IBdaMann wrote: Incorrect. The implication is the entire "A -> B" It's the whole statement.

No, it's not.

Yes it absolutely is. I think we're done here as well.

If you want to stop, sure. Let it never be said that I forced anybody to continue typing.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, that's not what "implication" means. The implication is the same as the consequent. The conditional statement is what you are calling the "implication".

In computer programming, and in English grammar, the "If A then B" is a conditional statement.

In logic it is an implication. If the antecedent is false then the implication is true, regardless of the truth value of the consequent.

I'm not going to tell you again.

.


Ah, it seems that the logical definition of "implication" is quite distinct from the layman's definition. You're right.

The layman's definition is the same as the logical one.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 00:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If it were true, it would, but if the Moon were made of cheese, I could fly with fleas. Neither of those statements means anything, because the antecedent is false.


Again you demonstrate your illiteracy in logic.

Both statements mean something, otherwise you would be speaking pure gibberish.


Ah, I didn't mean "neither statement has a meaning," but rather "this is pointless, has no application." Neither means anything important.

Neither statement is a valid conclusion, not because the antecedent is false, but rather it is because the have no antecedent at all.


IF the moon is made of cheese THEN I can fly with fleas

See? Right there. Between the "if" and the "then". A real, living antecedent, right before your eyes.


They are circular arguments.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Circular arguments have antecendents - it is simply the case that the antecedent is equivalent to the consequent.


Quite right. Instead you have constructed a conclusion based on a circular argument.


Wait, what? We aren't discussing my argument.

We ARE discussing your argument. Since you want to drop it now, consider it done.

If you want to discuss my argument, by all means, but we are currently talking about IB's statement that is a response to my argument.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm talking about how IB's statement of "If no gas exists that doesn't violate Planck's, then you are wrong" is technically true, but since the antecedent is false, the consequent is not supported.

The stated antecedent is negative, the unstated antecedent is affirmative (that you are making an argument), and the conclusion is negative. No problem with logic here. This is a perfectly valid form.

Do you mean "negative" as in ~A?

I am talking about how if the antecedent is false, A=>B is always true. This says nothing about the truth value of B.


On computer notation the notation of a negative is typically ! as in !A. The actual symbol used is not in ASCII. It does exist in Unicode, but that typically does not display well.

The actual form of the statement is !A&B->!B. This is valid logic.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 01:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not
"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?
14-10-2016 03:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not
"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?


No.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 03:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not
"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?


No.

Could you explain?
I'm no expert on formal logic, but I'd have thought that

!A & B -> !B

is the same as writing

(not A) and B implies (not B )

which is obviously not true.
14-10-2016 03:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not
"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?


No.

Could you explain?
I'm no expert on formal logic, but I'd have thought that

!A & B -> !B

is the same as writing

(not A) and B implies (not B )

which is obviously not true.


Example:

a) a fish is found with no scales.
b) fish have scales.
Therefore, not all fish have scales.

This particular fish might be missing its skin, and is staring at you from your plate with one eye, ready to eat.

!A&B->!B


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-10-2016 03:36
14-10-2016 04:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not
"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?


No.

Could you explain?
I'm no expert on formal logic, but I'd have thought that

!A & B -> !B

is the same as writing

(not A) and B implies (not B )

which is obviously not true.


Example:

a) a fish is found with no scales.
b) fish have scales.
Therefore, not all fish have scales.

This particular fish might be missing its skin, and is staring at you from your plate with one eye, ready to eat.

!A&B->!B

I can't say that makes a whole load of sense to me. What is A? A fish is found? What is B? The fish (or any fish?) has scales?
14-10-2016 15:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"Fish have scales" is a bit unclear. Which of the following is it?

1. All fish have scales.
2. Some fish have scales.
14-10-2016 16:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Fish have scales" is a bit unclear. Which of the following is it?

1. All fish have scales.
2. Some fish have scales.

Justice is always a blind fish with scales.


.


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
14-10-2016 17:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
???
14-10-2016 17:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
!!!
15-10-2016 01:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Is that the same as saying "(not A) and B therefore (not
"? I'm a bit confused. Isn't that self-contradictory?


No.

Could you explain?
I'm no expert on formal logic, but I'd have thought that

!A & B -> !B

is the same as writing

(not A) and B implies (not B )

which is obviously not true.


Example:

a) a fish is found with no scales.
b) fish have scales.
Therefore, not all fish have scales.

This particular fish might be missing its skin, and is staring at you from your plate with one eye, ready to eat.

!A&B->!B

I can't say that makes a whole load of sense to me. What is A? A fish is found? What is B? The fish (or any fish?) has scales?


What's unclear??? A is a) B is b).


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 03:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Fish have scales" is a bit unclear. Which of the following is it?

1. All fish have scales.
2. Some fish have scales.



"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
15-10-2016 03:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Fish have scales" is a bit unclear. Which of the following is it?

1. All fish have scales.
2. Some fish have scales.


Unspecified.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 05:14
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's very important to distinguish between the two. If it's the former, than the antecendents contradict each other. If the latter, then "not all fish have scales" is not the negative of B, which is now "some fish have scales" - these obviously don't contradict each other. So the consequent cannot be written as !B, but rather as C.
15-10-2016 06:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's very important to distinguish between the two. If it's the former, than the antecendents contradict each other. If the latter, then "not all fish have scales" is not the negative of B, which is now "some fish have scales" - these obviously don't contradict each other. So the consequent cannot be written as !B, but rather as C.


Nope. Not important.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 07:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
1. I found a fish without scales (this is equiv. to "not all fish have scales").
2. All fish have scales.
3. Therefore, not all fish have scales.

The problem with this should be evident, but I'll spell it out - you cannot deduce !B from B. That breaks logic. Don't do that.

1. I found a fish with scales (equiv. to "not all fish have scales").
2. Some fish have scales.
3. Therefore, not all fish have scales.

The issue is that 2 and 3 are not the negative of each other. If 1 is A and 2 is B, 3 is not !B. So this can't be what your statement shows.
Edited on 15-10-2016 07:09
19-10-2016 17:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:
1. I found a fish without scales (this is equiv. to "not all fish have scales").
2. All fish have scales.
3. Therefore, not all fish have scales.

The problem with this should be evident, but I'll spell it out - you cannot deduce !B from B. That breaks logic. Don't do that.


The problem is that it is not a valid argument (that's a term, btw).

.


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
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate hurricanes during the ice age?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Siberian ice melting!012-06-2019 21:32
Ice3409-06-2019 20:26
Mike Pompeo: Melting Arctic Ice Presents New Trade Opportunities028-05-2019 15:33
▲ 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