Remember me
▼ Content

In general...



Page 1 of 4123>>>
In general...03-10-2019 15:30
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
As an interested and objective observer, I came here looking for the truth and it doesn't look like this forum can get there.

There are people here who are relying upon scientific principles to shut down the debate. If it were that simple there would be no debate. But instead of reconciling the 'alarmists' assertions, which I find to be mostly anecdotal and speculative, to the 'realists' science and trying to educate those of us that are in the 'uneducated center', they refuse to add any clarity.

I've been reading everything and watching everyone I can to find something indisputable that I, as a representative of the average man, can believe in.

In a few weeks time I've been here, I've seen all I need to see. Anyone one to point me to someplace where I can find objective truth?

To be more specific, I'm looking to identify the lever that separates climatologists from scientists. Please don't tell me Climatologists are scientists.

climatologist. Noun. (plural climatologists) A person who studies, professes or practices climatology - the study of climate.
"the role of clouds is one of the big conundrums of climatology".



You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
03-10-2019 17:33
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(194)
Harry C wrote:
As an interested and objective observer, I came here looking for the truth and it doesn't look like this forum can get there.

I'm unsure as to what specific "truth" you are looking for...

To be general, Science is a set of falsifiable theories. This definition comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper. When discussing AGW Theory, for example, it doesn't matter what Scientific American says, what NOAA says, what NASA says, what some person with various letters behind their name says, what a chart full of random numbers says, etc... All that matters is the theories of science themselves. AGW Theory is in violation of multiple theories of science, as has been described on this board.

Harry C wrote:
There are people here who are relying upon scientific principles to shut down the debate.

If a theory of science stands in the way of what a poster is positing, then that poster needs to either posit their theory in a way which adheres to those currently standing theories of science, or else they need to falsify the theories of science standing in their way. All the faith in the world in Climate Science does not make those theories of science suddenly go away.

Harry C wrote:
If it were that simple there would be no debate.

There would still be debate regardless of how "simple" it is or isn't.

Harry C wrote:
But instead of reconciling the 'alarmists' assertions, which I find to be mostly anecdotal and speculative, to the 'realists' science and trying to educate those of us that are in the 'uneducated center', they refuse to add any clarity.

The theories of science that are standing in the way of AGW Theory are quite clear.

Harry C wrote:
I've been reading everything and watching everyone I can to find something indisputable that I, as a representative of the average man, can believe in.

How about the currently standing theories of science?? The Laws of Thermodynamics? The Stefan Boltzmann Law? Planck's Law? ... I used to know little to nothing about those either. I have since learned a bit about them, and now have more understanding of how AGW Theory conflicts with them than I did before. You can learn too!!


Harry C wrote:
In a few weeks time I've been here, I've seen all I need to see. Anyone one to point me to someplace where I can find objective truth?

About what?

Harry C wrote:
To be more specific, I'm looking to identify the lever that separates climatologists from scientists. Please don't tell me Climatologists are scientists.

climatologist. Noun. (plural climatologists) A person who studies, professes or practices climatology - the study of climate.
"the role of clouds is one of the big conundrums of climatology".

I'd say to just learn about the theories of science themselves.
03-10-2019 17:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Harry C wrote: As an interested and objective observer, I came here looking for the truth and it doesn't look like this forum can get there.

Is that all you were looking for? The truth? Couldn't you find it at the book store? If all you are looking for is just the truth, shouldn't you be able to just Google it?

I'm pretty sure somebody posted the entire truth last year in this forum if I'm not mistaken; you might want to look it up. It shouldn't be hard to find.

Harry C wrote: There are people here who are relying upon scientific principles to shut down the debate.

Oh yeah, you are clearly the epitome of objective. You obviously didn't have any beliefs that you were looking to validate when you came here. At one point I thought that you might have your own agenda but that was just foolishness on my part. I can see now that you merely want the truth.

By the way, how do you expect to recognize the truth when you see it? Might you have already seen it and not realized it? Please share.

Harry C wrote: to the 'realists' science and trying to educate those of us that are in the 'uneducated center', they refuse to add any clarity.

I know what you mean. They spout all that truth ... all unclear and all. I hate when they do that.

Harry C wrote: I've been reading everything and watching everyone I can to find something indisputable that I, as a representative of the average man, can believe in.

You just answered your own question. You aren't looking for science which, as you emphasize, just makes things unclear. No, you are looking for something you "can believe in." You are looking for a faith.

Have you tried just going to a Christian church? They tend to be rather popular and they will certainly give you the truth. Really, just ask them.

Harry C wrote: In a few weeks time I've been here, I've seen all I need to see. Anyone one to point me to someplace where I can find objective truth?

Of course. Where do you live?

Harry C wrote: To be more specific, I'm looking to identify the lever that separates climatologists from scientists. Please don't tell me Climatologists are scientists.

You should have asked this up front. Read The Manual.

From The Manual:

Climate Science: proper noun
The canonical name of the religious dogma of the Global Warming mythology.

The Science: proper noun
The colloquial name of the religious dogma of the Global Warming mythology.

Climate Scientist or Climatologist: noun
Any Global Warming believer who has entered the clergy by having professed his/her faith in an officially recognized peer reviewed document. Upon being anointed, Climate scientists get to participate in democratic votes on Climate Science and become part of the The Science consensus.



Scientific Community: proper noun
Within the Global Warming Congregation, the brotherhood of Climate Scientists. This brotherhood of Global Warming clergy currently maintains a 97% belief in Global Warming. There is uncertainty as to how 3% of them do not.



(Scientific) Consensus: noun
The majority opinion, on any topic whatsoever, of the brotherhood of Climate Scientists or Climatologists (i.e. Scientific Community).



Settled Science: noun
Any element of Climate Science that runs counter to physics or is an apparent logical fallacy, e.g. "Climate Change."




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
03-10-2019 18:12
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: As an interested and objective observer, I came here looking for the truth and it doesn't look like this forum can get there.

Is that all you were looking for? The truth? Couldn't you find it at the book store? If all you are looking for is just the truth, shouldn't you be able to just Google it?

I'm pretty sure somebody posted the entire truth last year in this forum if I'm not mistaken; you might want to look it up. It shouldn't be hard to find.

Harry C wrote: There are people here who are relying upon scientific principles to shut down the debate.

Oh yeah, you are clearly the epitome of objective. You obviously didn't have any beliefs that you were looking to validate when you came here. At one point I thought that you might have your own agenda but that was just foolishness on my part. I can see now that you merely want the truth.

By the way, how do you expect to recognize the truth when you see it? Might you have already seen it and not realized it? Please share.

Harry C wrote: to the 'realists' science and trying to educate those of us that are in the 'uneducated center', they refuse to add any clarity.

I know what you mean. They spout all that truth ... all unclear and all. I hate when they do that.

Harry C wrote: I've been reading everything and watching everyone I can to find something indisputable that I, as a representative of the average man, can believe in.

You just answered your own question. You aren't looking for science which, as you emphasize, just makes things unclear. No, you are looking for something you "can believe in." You are looking for a faith.

Have you tried just going to a Christian church? They tend to be rather popular and they will certainly give you the truth. Really, just ask them.

Harry C wrote: In a few weeks time I've been here, I've seen all I need to see. Anyone one to point me to someplace where I can find objective truth?

Of course. Where do you live?

Harry C wrote: To be more specific, I'm looking to identify the lever that separates climatologists from scientists. Please don't tell me Climatologists are scientists.

You should have asked this up front. Read The Manual.

From The Manual:

Climate Science: proper noun
The canonical name of the religious dogma of the Global Warming mythology.

The Science: proper noun
The colloquial name of the religious dogma of the Global Warming mythology.

Climate Scientist or Climatologist: noun
Any Global Warming believer who has entered the clergy by having professed his/her faith in an officially recognized peer reviewed document. Upon being anointed, Climate scientists get to participate in democratic votes on Climate Science and become part of the The Science consensus.



Scientific Community: proper noun
Within the Global Warming Congregation, the brotherhood of Climate Scientists. This brotherhood of Global Warming clergy currently maintains a 97% belief in Global Warming. There is uncertainty as to how 3% of them do not.



(Scientific) Consensus: noun
The majority opinion, on any topic whatsoever, of the brotherhood of Climate Scientists or Climatologists (i.e. Scientific Community).



Settled Science: noun
Any element of Climate Science that runs counter to physics or is an apparent logical fallacy, e.g. "Climate Change."




.


True to form, you've added nothing to my thread here. Yes I want the truth. I think I was pretty clear about who I am and what I was doing.

I have no compunction to search anything you've written because 100% of what I've seen already wouldn't allow me to waste anymore time on repetitive answers.

If anything I am leaning as a "denier". I had really hoped I could get a lay answer that I could understand. If you want to make a difference, try to help people like me understand.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
Edited on 03-10-2019 18:15
03-10-2019 18:54
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1347)
Best I can figure it, is that fossil fuels have always been a demon. There has always been some groups or another, trying to find a way to get us to stop using them. At first, they like the smell, and the loud noise the machines made, even though steam engines did about the same. Then we had air quality and emissions. Al those problem got fix, to a reasonable degree. CO2, was the only thing left to pick at. The global warming numbers don't really work for me, over all, they are really kind of small, and doesn't seem to be an cumulative effects, as we are told. We keep producing vast quantities of CO2, and not just from burning fossil fuels either, yet other source aren't important, since the come from natural, renewable source. There is only one kind of CO2. Plants need CO2, and starve and die around 150 ppm. Around 170 ppm, most plants go into a survival mode, they don't grow much, or mature, it's just enough to keep them alive. The ideal level seems to be in the 700-1220 ppm range. Plants raised in a greenhouse, augmented with CO2, grow a lot faster, healthier, resistant to disease. Been a common practice for decades in commercial nurseries. Popular with the homegrower marijuana folks as well. Something you can easily find all over the internet. Seems really odd the climate guys, would know that plants do better with more CO2, than are current 400 ppm provide, yet they want to capture, an sequester CO2, their target is 280 ppm. Doesn't leave plants much of a margin of safety. Also, plants are the food of every living thing on the planet. Everything living, is based on carbon. Plants are the only thing taking carbon out of the environment, and putting it into the food chain.

Plants also like a warm, humid environment, so a little warming wouldn't hurt. We are being threatened by a whole 2 C increase, stretch over centuries, yet we don't have data, of that precision to support such a claim. 2 C, is barely the difference between the daytime high, and night time low, on a daily basis, Depending on the season, there are a lot of folks wish the difference was only 2 C.
03-10-2019 21:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Harry C wrote:True to form, you've added nothing to my thread here.

You created a vacuous thread. You came here looking for information about a dying religion. I directed you to The Manual for the clearest, most concise answer you can get. If you think it is a waste of time then you are clearly not looking for any truth, you are looking to validate some predetermined conclusions.

With that being the case, don't pretend to admonish me for not feeding your particular faith.

Harry C wrote: Yes I want the truth.

Oh yeah, I so totally believe you.

Harry C wrote: I think I was pretty clear about who I am and what I was doing.

You were, and I just laid it out for you.

Harry C wrote: If anything I am leaning as a "denier". I had really hoped I could get a lay answer that I could understand.

Actually, you already know what answer you want ... to your question laden with false assumptions. You are just waiting for someone to write it so you can thank him for validating your predetermined conclusion as if you were just "looking for the truth" .

Why don't you try asking a clear, concise and specific question? Does validation of your pet theories require you to be utterly vague in your questions?

That's religion, by the way. Your clue should have been how abrasive you find the concept of science to be. Don't be griping at me for shortcomings on your end.

If you have any specific, concrete questions then I'll be glad to answer them. If you need to be a vague moron who is "looking for truth" like a Tibetan Monk well then you have your answer now don't you?

If you want to learn something then cut the preemptive blaming of everyone else. Write the words of your question instead. If you don't know what to ask then think about it for a little while until the right words come to you.

Oh, and how much do you want to bet that the correct answer will ultimately be found in The Manual?

[Hey, while we're on it Bozo, what do you think a Climate Scientist is? hint: you were looking directly at the correct answer]


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
03-10-2019 23:21
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1347)
I think the truth is that we should trust in god. No, not the carbon god, the other one. This planet has been supporting life for quite a few years, and has been through some extremes. We aren't doing anything significantly close, to some of the past events. Climate Change only focuses on warming. There is also cooling. Both are a lot of speculation, on what causes what, but we have never even close to controlling the climate, outside of our homes. There is no global thermostat. We haven't survived this long by controlling the environment. We take what ever is thrown at us, and figured out how to adapt. Playing with CO2, to see if reducing it, will change anything is reckless, and a little stupid. There isn't that much, and it's essential to all life.
03-10-2019 23:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
As an interested and objective observer, I came here looking for the truth and it doesn't look like this forum can get there.

Searching for the Truth is part of most any religion. Many claim to have found it.
Harry C wrote:
There are people here who are relying upon scientific principles to shut down the debate.

Yes there are. I am one of them. However, the debate continues, because many here deny science and mathematics.
Harry C wrote:
If it were that simple there would be no debate.

It is that simple. There should be no debate. However, establishing the Church of Global Warming as a state religion is a serious threat, for this religion stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
Harry C wrote:
But instead of reconciling the 'alarmists' assertions, which I find to be mostly anecdotal and speculative, to the 'realists' science and trying to educate those of us that are in the 'uneducated center', they refuse to add any clarity.

You have not been here long. This stuff has been explained, but the noise from the Church of Global Warming is intense.

The basic problem is the 'greenhouse effect' when it comes to science. This is usually explained as some kind of magick blanket that allows sunlight in, but does not allow absorbed thermal to escape due to a magick gas (usually CO2). The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created out of nothing, not even a magick gas. It takes energy to warm the Earth. As long as the Sun is putting out the same energy and the distance from the Earth to the Sun is the same, the temperature of the Earth cannot change.

Another type of argument made for the 'greenhouse effect' is based on infrared light emitted from Earth's surface according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This argument states that this light does not all escape into space, but instead is trapped between a magick gas and the surface, and so continues to heat the surface by absorption.

This 2nd argument, which I call the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, necessitates heating the warmer surface using a colder gas. Like putting ice in your coffee to make hot coffee, this obviously denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that heat only flows from hot to cold.

Heat itself is not thermal energy. It does not have a temperature. It is instead the flow of thermal energy. Like a current in a river, it is the current, not the water itself. You can't slow or trap a current, you can only reduce it or increase it. Heat is the same way. Things like blankets, coats, house insulation, etc. are there to reduce heat. They are there to reduce it's flow so things like furnaces, your own metabolism, or other sources of thermal energy can catch up, so to speak. Each of these sources are converting chemical energy into thermal energy.

Anything that is above absolute zero radiates light. This is conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (light). This occurs according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states:
r = C * e * t^4
where r is radiance in watts per square meter, C is 5.76*10^-8, e is the emissivity of the radiating surface (it's ability to radiate) expressed as a percentage, and t is temperature in degK.

All matter radiates. The surface of the Earth, the gases in the atmosphere, everything. This radiance is over a broad spectrum of frequencies, and is also known as black body radiation. In the equation above, e is 100% (or simply a 1), for an ideal black body. This is a reference point. All real bodies are 'grey', that is, they have an emissivity less than one and greater than zero (the perfectly reflective body).

This means a few things:

For the purposes of 'greenhouse effect', it means the Magick Bouncing Photon argument can't work. To trap light means to reduce the radiance of Earth. At the same time, according to the 'greenhouse effect', Earth's temperature is increased because of the trapped light. This makes
radiance inversely proportional to temperature. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, that is not possible. Radiance is ALWAYS proportional to temperature. NEVER inversely proportional.

So in order for 'greenhouse effect' to work, as explained, it must deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No explanation for 'greenhouse effect' has ever been given that does not violate one or more of these three laws.

But that does not stop the Church of Global Warming. They are fundamentalists, willing to ignore any and all science or mathematics that gets in the way of their beliefs.

Harry C wrote:
I've been reading everything and watching everyone I can to find something indisputable that I, as a representative of the average man, can believe in.

Hopefullly, my explanation has been clear enough. If not, feel free to ask for clarification. This stuff really is very simple. It is the Church of Global Warming striving for the appeal to complexity arguments, claiming that 'the science is too hard to explain'.
Harry C wrote:
In a few weeks time I've been here, I've seen all I need to see. Anyone one to point me to someplace where I can find objective truth?


Sure. The theories of science themselves.

1st law of thermodynamics: U(t+1) = U(t) - W where U is energy, t is time, and W is work. Where there is no work being performed, the equation simplifies to U(t+1)=U(t). Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only converted from one form to another. No gas or vapor in the atmosphere is adding energy to Earth.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where e is entropy (the randomness of a system), and t is time. In other words, entropy must always increase or stay the same in any given system. The system must be closed (that is have a fixed boundary that doesn't change).

It is this law that also gives a direction for heat. Concentrated thermal energy (a hot area) will always dissipate towards areas lacking thermal energy (a cold area) until both areas are the same temperature (the hot area becomes colder, and the cold area becomes warmer until they both reach the same temperature). That that point, heating stops. Heat becomes zero. It is reduced to zero.

No energy source from outside the system can be considered. No energy sink from outside the system can be considered. Only those sources and sinks within the given system may be considered. This is why the system is closed.

Harry C wrote:
To be more specific, I'm looking to identify the lever that separates climatologists from scientists. Please don't tell me Climatologists are scientists.

The lever is a simple one. There are actually several.

1) Does this individual make arguments that conflict with any existing theory of science?
2) Has this individual clearly defined all terms in their argument? (note that 'climate change' and 'global warming' have never been defined!).
3) Does the individual try to use data to conflict with any theory of science?
4) Does the individual try to use data without showing where that data came from, who collected it and why, how it was collected, and if a summary is given, is the margin of error shown and the variance declared?
5) Does the individual attempt to turn to political groups, government institutions, universities, unnamed scientists, any scientist or group of scientists, licenses, degrees, Nobel prizes, or use consensus in any way as a 'proof'? (no license or 'blessing' or 'peer review' is required for science. Science does not use consensus. No one owns science.)
6) Does the individual use supporting evidence to try to prove or otherwise 'bless' any theory?
(science only uses conflicting evidence. No theory is ever proven.)
7) Does the individual try to use data as a proof? (Data is the result of an observation, and is subject to the problems of phenomenology. It is evidence only.)
Harry C wrote:
climatologist. Noun. (plural climatologists) A person who studies, professes or practices climatology - the study of climate.

Nothing really to study. 'Climate' is a subjective word. It is not quantifiable. There is no unit of measurement for 'climate'. There are desert climates, mountain climates, marine climates, arctic climates, etc. There is no global weather, so there is no global climate. Climate does not change. A desert climate is always a desert climate, even if a desert may disappear.

Weather changes, not climate. People that study weather and it's patterns are called 'meteorologists'.

Harry C wrote:

"the role of clouds is one of the big conundrums of climatology".

Nope. Clouds are simply part of what we call weather. They form in a very simple way.

There is water vapor in the air all around you, even in the driest of deserts. Sometimes there is a lot, sometimes there is a little. Warm air can hold more water vapor than cold air. Water vapor is invisible to the naked eye.

How much is there? This can be measured, using a device called a hydrometer, but the result is dependent on temperature as well. It is expressed as a percentage of how much water is in the air at that temperature before it can't hold any more (0-100%), or as a 'dewpoint' value, which is the temperature that air would have to cool to in order to reach 100% saturation.

At 100% saturation, invisible water vapor condenses out as visible water...clouds. If the cloud is on the ground or just a few feet above the ground, we call it fog.

As air rises, it cools. At some point, it may reach the point where clouds condense out of it. This is why clouds tend to be flat on the bottom. This tends to happen at the same temperature at the same altitude.

A hot parcel of air (warmed by the surface), rises in the cold atmosphere, just like a hot air balloon. If the atmosphere is cooling faster than the air would naturally cool, the air is said to be 'unstable'. Rising air WANTS to rise faster and faster. When the cloud forms, it is spread out vertically since not all the water vapor condenses out at once. This leaves a lumpy appearance of the cloud tops and are known as cumulus clouds (piled up).

If a cloud gets dense enough, it rains. The cloud is called a nimbus cloud (rain cloud). Cumulus clouds that are also rain clouds are called cumulonimbus clouds. If they get big enough, they will develop into thunderstorms, tornados, and even hurricanes and cyclones.

All from a bit of moisture, a bit of sun, and warm air rising into cold air. Simple, but amazing in scope.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2019 23:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: As an interested and objective observer, I came here looking for the truth and it doesn't look like this forum can get there.

Is that all you were looking for? The truth? Couldn't you find it at the book store? If all you are looking for is just the truth, shouldn't you be able to just Google it?

I'm pretty sure somebody posted the entire truth last year in this forum if I'm not mistaken; you might want to look it up. It shouldn't be hard to find.

Harry C wrote: There are people here who are relying upon scientific principles to shut down the debate.

Oh yeah, you are clearly the epitome of objective. You obviously didn't have any beliefs that you were looking to validate when you came here. At one point I thought that you might have your own agenda but that was just foolishness on my part. I can see now that you merely want the truth.

By the way, how do you expect to recognize the truth when you see it? Might you have already seen it and not realized it? Please share.

Harry C wrote: to the 'realists' science and trying to educate those of us that are in the 'uneducated center', they refuse to add any clarity.

I know what you mean. They spout all that truth ... all unclear and all. I hate when they do that.

Harry C wrote: I've been reading everything and watching everyone I can to find something indisputable that I, as a representative of the average man, can believe in.

You just answered your own question. You aren't looking for science which, as you emphasize, just makes things unclear. No, you are looking for something you "can believe in." You are looking for a faith.

Have you tried just going to a Christian church? They tend to be rather popular and they will certainly give you the truth. Really, just ask them.

Harry C wrote: In a few weeks time I've been here, I've seen all I need to see. Anyone one to point me to someplace where I can find objective truth?

Of course. Where do you live?

Harry C wrote: To be more specific, I'm looking to identify the lever that separates climatologists from scientists. Please don't tell me Climatologists are scientists.

You should have asked this up front. Read The Manual.

From The Manual:

Climate Science: proper noun
The canonical name of the religious dogma of the Global Warming mythology.

The Science: proper noun
The colloquial name of the religious dogma of the Global Warming mythology.

Climate Scientist or Climatologist: noun
Any Global Warming believer who has entered the clergy by having professed his/her faith in an officially recognized peer reviewed document. Upon being anointed, Climate scientists get to participate in democratic votes on Climate Science and become part of the The Science consensus.



Scientific Community: proper noun
Within the Global Warming Congregation, the brotherhood of Climate Scientists. This brotherhood of Global Warming clergy currently maintains a 97% belief in Global Warming. There is uncertainty as to how 3% of them do not.



(Scientific) Consensus: noun
The majority opinion, on any topic whatsoever, of the brotherhood of Climate Scientists or Climatologists (i.e. Scientific Community).



Settled Science: noun
Any element of Climate Science that runs counter to physics or is an apparent logical fallacy, e.g. "Climate Change."




.


True to form, you've added nothing to my thread here. Yes I want the truth. I think I was pretty clear about who I am and what I was doing.

I have no compunction to search anything you've written because 100% of what I've seen already wouldn't allow me to waste anymore time on repetitive answers.

If anything I am leaning as a "denier". I had really hoped I could get a lay answer that I could understand. If you want to make a difference, try to help people like me understand.


I will try to help you wherever I can to clarify the science or the mathematics that I bring up here. Feel free to ask about anything that may seem confusing to you.

IBdaMann can oft times get a bit jaded. He is attacked constantly by people claiming to be searching for the 'truth', only to be found to be preaching for the Church of Global Warming. He has NO tolerance for such people. Once you show an open mind, and ask honest questions, he can be a great resource. I will do what I can to answer your questions. Such questions is how we learn.

There are those here that ask the same questions over and over and over, yet ignore any answers given. I have little tolerance for such, as they are here to preach, not to learn. Such will quickly earn IBdaMann's ire. It can show up rather indiscriminately at times. After all, most people here are not searching for any kind of clarification of the science or the mathematics, or even why such a religion as the Church of Global Warming even exists.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2019 16:48
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
I see objection to the term truth. If it's not absolute truth, then how can either side stand on their position. I thought truth was a better word than belief.

However I'm adaptable, so I'm going to stay in the vacuum of my little thread and bring up the differences that I can dig out. I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to act or write or speak like one.

In my search, I tend to value explanations that are complete and void of hyperbole. In general, and perhaps to the 'alarmists' dismay, I find that the 'realists' are more genuine. That's my subjectivity and I laid it bare for all to see.

When I started, I was looking for the answer to why the change in nomenclature from Global Warming to Climate Change. From a lay perspective, that triggered a sense of shenanigans about the reported observations that temperatures weren't warming to the 'climate scientists' expectation.

Then the more I read and watched, the more uneasy I became with all the anecdotal 'evidence'.

I sifted through many videos and articles. The people I was drawn to are Linzen, Happer and Moore. The best grounding (it related to me) I found for my purposes was in this video by Happer.
https://youtu.be/Oog7-KOtpEA

I wouldn't ask anyone to blindly watch the entire video. At the 24 minute mark he goes in to dissecting the 'alarmist' model. From that foundation, I will be posting questions.

The first question is does Happer have the science right? The question is not do you like or what do you think about Happer?

Second question: If he does not have the science right, where is he wrong?

I will appreciate any and all feedback that is balanced. I especially thank Into The Night for his offer of assistance. I will not abuse it purposefully.
04-10-2019 21:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
I see objection to the term truth. If it's not absolute truth, then how can either side stand on their position. I thought truth was a better word than belief.


The odd thing about science is that it is not a Truth. There is nothing true about any science.

A theory is by itself just an explanatory argument. In science a theory must be falsifiable. That means you must be able to test it using tests designed to destroy it, using specific tests that produce specific results (hence the need for quantifiability in any test).

No theory, not even a scientific one, is ever proven True. Therefore, there is nothing in science that is True. Science is merely a set of falsifiable theories. Sooner or later, any one of them can be found to be false, even though the theory is hundreds of years old (age is not a proof).

Even when a theory is formalized into an equation (called a 'law'), that does nothing to prove a theory to be True. It may very well be quite False.

Does this mean that F=mA is false? We don't know. We DO know that it MIGHT be False, and it MIGHT be True. All we can do is show if it is False, for any other approach causes an argument of ignorance fallacy (the falsifying test has not been found...YET).

Science is an open functional system. That means there are an infinite number of tests that could exist for any theory of science. Finding a single test showing a theory is True, means nothing other than bringing a theory past the point of a simple circular argument. Finding a single test showing a theory to be False is everything.

Mountains of supporting evidence do not advance a theory any further than a single test indicating the theory to be True. No matter how many tests result in a possible True, the validity of the theory does not change. It is simply more than just a simple circular argument, and will remain so, until it is destroyed.

One False, however, utterly destroys the theory. It remains a theory no longer. It has been falsified. The is no more of that explanatory argument that makes sense in the face of that single False. It is gone. It is destroyed...utterly. Continuing to make that argument from that point on results in a paradox. This is a fallacy. Fallacies invalidate arguments. They are errors in logic, just like arithmetic errors are errors in mathematics. Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.

Only religions use supporting evidence. They are searching for the 'Truth'. Convincing themselves that such evidence is a proof is how they find the 'Truth'. This only works with circular arguments, which have no test of falsifiability. Such theories remain such forever. They will never be falsified. They will never be proven True.

It is the ignorance of a possible False that convinces the religious of the True.

This is why all religions are based on some initial circular argument, with other arguments stemming from it. It is the argument of ignorance fallacy with a circular argument that makes up the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

As long as you treat a circular argument as 'faith', you're okay, as far as logic is concerned. It's when you try to prove it that you get into trouble.

The Church of Global Warming is constantly trying to prove circular arguments. This makes it a fundamentalist religion by nature.

But there is another layer of this religion, the stem that drives this religion. It is the Church of Karl Marx. The initial circular argument of that religion is that Karl Marx is right: Socialism brings about Utopia. Karl Marx himself is treated as the God of that religion.

But it has a darker source, for socialism can only exist by force. Freedom of choice is taken away, and managed by a government.

In Christianity, there is one character that makes this same argument.

It is Satan.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-10-2019 21:38
04-10-2019 22:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
I see objection to the term truth. If it's not absolute truth, then how can either side stand on their position. I thought truth was a better word than belief.

However I'm adaptable, so I'm going to stay in the vacuum of my little thread and bring up the differences that I can dig out. I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to act or write or speak like one.

In my search, I tend to value explanations that are complete and void of hyperbole. In general, and perhaps to the 'alarmists' dismay, I find that the 'realists' are more genuine. That's my subjectivity and I laid it bare for all to see.

An excellent way to start!
Harry C wrote:
When I started, I was looking for the answer to why the change in nomenclature from Global Warming to Climate Change. From a lay perspective, that triggered a sense of shenanigans about the reported observations that temperatures weren't warming to the 'climate scientists' expectation.

The use of 'climate change' is more universal to 'global warming'. Both phrases have no meaning and have never been defined. They are both buzzwords.

'Climate change' is now used much of the time so that claims of freezing temperatures, snowstorms, and in general any unusual winter weather can be blamed on CO2. I still call it the Church of Global Warming because of the essence of their claim that CO2 is warming the Earth and causing all this 'wacky weather' (which also has not been defined).

So it's a way to allow a change of context without looking like a change of context. You will find this to be a very common tactic by liberals.

The same scam by any other name.

In the past, it was 'global warming', then 'global cooling', then 'global warming', then 'coming ice age', then 'global warming', then 'climate change', then 'global warming', then 'climate change'. I just got tired of call it the Global Warming/Cooling/Warming/Coming_Ice_Age/Warming/ClimateChange/Warming/ClimateChange argument. It's too lengthy, and it's the same bunch making the same religious arguments.

Harry C wrote:
Then the more I read and watched, the more uneasy I became with all the anecdotal 'evidence'.
[quote]Harry C wrote:
I sifted through many videos and articles. The people I was drawn to are Linzen, Happer and Moore. The best grounding (it related to me) I found for my purposes was in this video by Happer.
https://youtu.be/Oog7-KOtpEA

I wouldn't ask anyone to blindly watch the entire video. At the 24 minute mark he goes in to dissecting the 'alarmist' model. From that foundation, I will be posting questions.

The first question is does Happer have the science right? The question is not do you like or what do you think about Happer?

Second question: If he does not have the science right, where is he wrong?
[quote]Harry C wrote:
I will appreciate any and all feedback that is balanced. I especially thank Into The Night for his offer of assistance. I will not abuse it purposefully.



The Parrot Killer
05-10-2019 00:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
I sifted through many videos and articles. The people I was drawn to are Linzen, Happer and Moore. The best grounding (it related to me) I found for my purposes was in this video by Happer.
https://youtu.be/Oog7-KOtpEA

I wouldn't ask anyone to blindly watch the entire video. At the 24 minute mark he goes in to dissecting the 'alarmist' model. From that foundation, I will be posting questions.

The first question is does Happer have the science right? The question is not do you like or what do you think about Happer?

Second question: If he does not have the science right, where is he wrong?

I will appreciate any and all feedback that is balanced. I especially thank Into The Night for his offer of assistance. I will not abuse it purposefully.

I do not judge videos for others. I only judge them for me.

You can judge what any scientists, university, government, or any other schmuck yourself though. Use the same levers as you would for climate 'scientists'.

In addition, consider:
* Is the individual proposing a theory? Is it falsifiable? Can the theory be tested using a specific test and produce a specific result? A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion.
* Is the theory have all of its terms and models clearly defined? Theories based on meaningless buzzwords are not even a theory of any kind, scientific or otherwise. No theory may exist based on a fallacy (internal consistency check).
* Is the theory conflicting with any other theory of science? No two theories of science can conflict with each other, for one or both theories MUST be False (external consistency check).

Too many people let others do their thinking for them. This is just laziness. These are the folks you see using copy and paste, links to numerous websites, newspapers, and blogs as if they were the Gospel Truth. They are not.

It is best to learn to think for yourself, and not let others do your thinking for you (not even me!). In this there is true freedom and liberty. No one can tell you what to be. No one can take that away. In this, you will find the Truth you seek. It is already within yourself.

Judge every argument on its merits, not on who is making it. Judge every theory proposed to you on its merits, not on who is proposing it. No government, university, scientist, academy, church, society, or degree is a license to the Truth.

Philosophy is about presenting arguments. It's only real rule is that the predicates for those arguments must come from the one making the argument. No outside sources can be used to prove any argument. You can't use anyone else's argument (or it's no longer your argument!).

Learn the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These are all simple equations. They can be found most anywhere, but one good place to look is here.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-10-2019 00:33
05-10-2019 00:55
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
Harry C wrote:
As an interested and objective observer, I came here looking for the truth and it doesn't look like this forum can get there.

There are people here who are relying upon scientific principles to shut down the debate. If it were that simple there would be no debate. But instead of reconciling the 'alarmists' assertions, which I find to be mostly anecdotal and speculative, to the 'realists' science and trying to educate those of us that are in the 'uneducated center', they refuse to add any clarity.

I've been reading everything and watching everyone I can to find something indisputable that I, as a representative of the average man, can believe in.

In a few weeks time I've been here, I've seen all I need to see. Anyone one to point me to someplace where I can find objective truth?

To be more specific, I'm looking to identify the lever that separates climatologists from scientists. Please don't tell me Climatologists are scientists.

climatologist. Noun. (plural climatologists) A person who studies, professes or practices climatology - the study of climate.
"the role of clouds is one of the big conundrums of climatology".



Harry, I have my own work that I am pursuing. What this ice core researcher discusses pointed me in the right direction. When reading it, consider what he says about CO2. It doesn't really agree with what the IPCC says. And I don't think anyone besides myself that's in this forum understands what he is saying. For me it's like the Rosetta Stone.
You might need to read several times to understand where he takes issues with the current debate.

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1
05-10-2019 02:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
James___ wrote:Harry, I have my own work that I am pursuing. What this ice core researcher discusses pointed me in the right direction. When reading it, consider what he says about CO2. It doesn't really agree with what the IPCC says. And I don't think anyone besides myself that's in this forum understands what he is saying. For me it's like the Rosetta Stone.
You might need to read several times to understand where he takes issues with the current debate.

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1

James__, how does he validate his claim of knowing earth's average CO2 levels back throughout time? Does he have a time machine? How did he compute the "average" for the planet for any given year? Did he just "assume" values for the sake of ease?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2019 03:19
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Harry, I have my own work that I am pursuing. What this ice core researcher discusses pointed me in the right direction. When reading it, consider what he says about CO2. It doesn't really agree with what the IPCC says. And I don't think anyone besides myself that's in this forum understands what he is saying. For me it's like the Rosetta Stone.
You might need to read several times to understand where he takes issues with the current debate.

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1

James__, how does he validate his claim of knowing earth's average CO2 levels back throughout time? Does he have a time machine? How did he compute the "average" for the planet for any given year? Did he just "assume" values for the sake of ease?


.



If you are that interested in the subject, go to school. Your queeries suggest that the only education that you have is what ITN slips into you
05-10-2019 17:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
James___ wrote:
If you are that interested in the subject, go to school. Your queeries suggest that the only education that you have is what ITN slips into you

I relish your inadvertent projecting.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2019 17:24
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
James___ wrote:
Harry, I have my own work that I am pursuing. What this ice core researcher discusses pointed me in the right direction. When reading it, consider what he says about CO2. It doesn't really agree with what the IPCC says. And I don't think anyone besides myself that's in this forum understands what he is saying. For me it's like the Rosetta Stone.
You might need to read several times to understand where he takes issues with the current debate.

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1


James thanks for the link which I did read a few times.
My take away is he infers a correlation between an increase in temperature and a reduction in CO2, the inverse of what's being claimed today.

I note this: [quote=from quoted article]We believe, that this CO2 feedback has significance as even small changes in solar radiation have had great effects. CO2 works as an intensifier.[/quote]

I don't know if it's the same "feedback" as in the climate models but appears to work in the opposite direction.

The impressions I have developed, based mostly on Lindzen, is that due to the current insignificant concentration in the atmosphere, CO2 is not causation for temperature change.

Another thing I think about, which will admittedly be lowbrow compared to others knowledge, is an old law of physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So I wonder about some sort of equilibrium of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen molecules. For example fossil fuels were all on this earth. The physical properties of earth just change it from one compound to another. So when there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere, what compounds were in lesser supply?

I'm prepared to be wrong which is why I'm here.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
05-10-2019 17:36
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
IBdaMann wrote:
James__, how does he validate his claim of knowing earth's average CO2 levels back throughout time? Does he have a time machine? How did he compute the "average" for the planet for any given year? Did he just "assume" values for the sake of ease?


I recognize that you didn't ask me. I also assume your questions are not rhetorical. So I wanted to share my perspective, which does not indicate truth, rather point of view.

I don't know how Jørgen Peder Steffensen "knows" the historical CO2 levels. That's been a problem all along for us lay participants wherein the majority of the public is expected to put some faith in the scientific community for the validity of their claims. I would have assumed that he can either measure or interpolate the CO2 level from his field of study.

I would be particularly interested in any facts you may care to share.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
05-10-2019 18:27
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1347)
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James__, how does he validate his claim of knowing earth's average CO2 levels back throughout time? Does he have a time machine? How did he compute the "average" for the planet for any given year? Did he just "assume" values for the sake of ease?


I recognize that you didn't ask me. I also assume your questions are not rhetorical. So I wanted to share my perspective, which does not indicate truth, rather point of view.

I don't know how Jørgen Peder Steffensen "knows" the historical CO2 levels. That's been a problem all along for us lay participants wherein the majority of the public is expected to put some faith in the scientific community for the validity of their claims. I would have assumed that he can either measure or interpolate the CO2 level from his field of study.

I would be particularly interested in any facts you may care to share.


Your search for the truth, is something you pretty much have to do on your own. You are only going to read about interpretations and speculations, often misused and misrepresented. It still requires a lot of faith, to accept the opinions. I recently (last month) was looking through an ice core research website, and found they represented their data and findings a little differently from the IPCC's interpretation and use. Their work is on the samples themselves, and they make no claims of accuracy, or relevance to environmental conditions. Basically, the CO2 concentration trapped in an ice core sample, is only relevant to the sample. Not the entire planet, as the IPCC leads us to believe. That website, does explain why it's not as well. You'll find the truth, by chasing down the various research projects used by the IPCC, to justify their claims. You'll find, like I have, that most don't support those claims, and in reality aren't that relevant to global warming.
05-10-2019 18:28
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Into the Night wrote:

I do not judge videos for others. I only judge them for me.

It was not my intention to ask anyone to judge the video. It was the points of exception that Happer took with two factors ('feedback' and 'forcing') in the climate change equation that I wanted feedback upon. The model is titled "Steady-State Temperature Change for Doubled CO2". Inferred in the referenced video, it came from Freeman Dyson's 1982 book "The Long-Term Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels".

I will continue to refine my questions to be more specific.

Into the Night wrote:
You can judge what any scientists, university, government, or any other schmuck yourself though. Use the same levers as you would for climate 'scientists'.

In addition, consider:
* Is the individual proposing a theory? Is it falsifiable? Can the theory be tested using a specific test and produce a specific result? A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion.
* Is the theory have all of its terms and models clearly defined? Theories based on meaningless buzzwords are not even a theory of any kind, scientific or otherwise. No theory may exist based on a fallacy (internal consistency check).
* Is the theory conflicting with any other theory of science? No two theories of science can conflict with each other, for one or both theories MUST be False (external consistency check).

Too many people let others do their thinking for them. This is just laziness. These are the folks you see using copy and paste, links to numerous websites, newspapers, and blogs as if they were the Gospel Truth. They are not.

It is best to learn to think for yourself, and not let others do your thinking for you (not even me!). In this there is true freedom and liberty. No one can tell you what to be. No one can take that away. In this, you will find the Truth you seek. It is already within yourself.

Judge every argument on its merits, not on who is making it. Judge every theory proposed to you on its merits, not on who is proposing it. No government, university, scientist, academy, church, society, or degree is a license to the Truth.

Philosophy is about presenting arguments. It's only real rule is that the predicates for those arguments must come from the one making the argument. No outside sources can be used to prove any argument. You can't use anyone else's argument (or it's no longer your argument!).

Learn the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These are all simple equations. They can be found most anywhere, but one good place to look is here.


Thank you for the primer in objectivity. I will read and heed. I'm sure I will also lapse because that's quite a discipline.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
05-10-2019 18:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James__, how does he validate his claim of knowing earth's average CO2 levels back throughout time? Does he have a time machine? How did he compute the "average" for the planet for any given year? Did he just "assume" values for the sake of ease?


I recognize that you didn't ask me. I also assume your questions are not rhetorical.

Actually Harry, the questions were rhetorical because James__ well knows that no one knows what those past conditions were. No one.

In religions, worshipers claim to "know" whatever their faith requires them to believe. Ask any Christian and he will assure you that he "knows" Christ is his savior. Ask tmiddles what the temperature is on Mars at [pick any arbitrary point] and his eyes will glaze over and assure you that "we know the temperature" and he will profess his faith with a prayer to the probe that was on the surface for a few minutes in the past. In short, religions are based on assuming things that are then claimed to be "known."

For this next part I want to be careful with my wording. Religions rely on "signs" and "omens" and "visions" as authority for the dogma (the required assumptions). A religion would lose members drastically if a leader were to say "I made this part up."

So this brings us to the Global Warming religion, which needs to legitimize its "history" just as much as Christianity needs its Creation story. All belief about unrecorded history is speculation, and everybody speculates differently. Of course whenever a Global Warming worshiper speculates, it is expressed as "what we know."

Harry C wrote: I don't know how Jørgen Peder Steffensen "knows" the historical CO2 levels. That's been a problem all along for us lay participants wherein the majority of the public is expected to put some faith in the scientific community for the validity of their claims.


Actually, you are expected to accept their faith. When someone is preaching Climate Change in confusing technical-sounding gibber-babble, just think of Mormon Missionaries inviting you to see how Joseph Smith's discovery of Moroni's gold plates proves that Mormonism is true. Warmizombies are eager to accept whatever justification they are told to believe that supports their overarching religious dogma.

Oh, within the Global Warming faith, worshipers don't use the terms "omens," "signs" and "visions" ... they call them "proxy data" ... and it literally can be anything. When the "proxies" are patently silly, absurd even, then they aren't specified, they just say "from proxy data" to minimize the embarrassment.

Proxy data is 100% invalid in science. If you see that word, science is not being discussed ... but religion definitely is.

... and I will once again suggest that you read through The Manual. It is a quick read and I guarantee the light bulb will come on.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
RE: Perhaps I started my quest in the wrong spot...05-10-2019 19:01
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Without a scientific background I'm trying to learn for myself. (I feel like a newborn lion cub who is being bitten and battered by his family to influence his behaviors. It's OK.)

My takeaway from the last round is that I've bitten in to sour meat. Let me back up a little further.

I assumed (yeah, I know) that in the linked video Happer was attempting to use his knowledge base to reconcile (my word) the errors in a climate change equation (model). My observation is that his effort to do so, puts some legitimacy in to the assumption that climate can be modeled.

My foundational premise is that both sides of the argument revolves around the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps I'm making quantum leaps with the assumptions I'm trying to tie together.

I'm going back to Happer because he was highly relatable to me but going to step away from the model to the physical properties of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm looking for a fair summary of the issue. (these are lay words and at some point I will tire of being an apologist for that). Can the conflict be summarized thusly:
- Climate Scientist rely upon an action by 'CO2 molecules in the atmosphere' to amplify temperature; ergo more CO2 = Higher global temperatures;
and
- Physicists state that the laws of physics must be broken for that to happen.



You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
Edited on 05-10-2019 19:53
05-10-2019 19:44
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
Harry C wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harry, I have my own work that I am pursuing. What this ice core researcher discusses pointed me in the right direction. When reading it, consider what he says about CO2. It doesn't really agree with what the IPCC says. And I don't think anyone besides myself that's in this forum understands what he is saying. For me it's like the Rosetta Stone.
You might need to read several times to understand where he takes issues with the current debate.

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1


James thanks for the link which I did read a few times.
My take away is he infers a correlation between an increase in temperature and a reduction in CO2, the inverse of what's being claimed today.

I note this: [quote=from quoted article]We believe, that this CO2 feedback has significance as even small changes in solar radiation have had great effects. CO2 works as an intensifier.


I don't know if it's the same "feedback" as in the climate models but appears to work in the opposite direction.

The impressions I have developed, based mostly on Lindzen, is that due to the current insignificant concentration in the atmosphere, CO2 is not causation for temperature change.

Another thing I think about, which will admittedly be lowbrow compared to others knowledge, is an old law of physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So I wonder about some sort of equilibrium of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen molecules. For example fossil fuels were all on this earth. The physical properties of earth just change it from one compound to another. So when there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere, what compounds were in lesser supply?

I'm prepared to be wrong which is why I'm here.[/quote]


You're welcome. There are 2 things the ice core researcher mentioned that are worth considering. The Earth's position around the Sun and not CO2 is what caused the warming that ended the ice age. Scientists now say that CO2 levels rose about 500 years later.
This is according to NASA,
Although the temperature changes were touched off by variations in Earth's orbit,
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

The ice core researcher also said that there were 30 climate ripples during the last ice age which CO2 levels couldn't explain.
The Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age and the current warming might be climate ripples. Scientists do not understand why they happen.
In another thread I mentioned the "k" value which is w/mk. If you have a cube that measures 1 meter tall, 1 meter deep and 1 meter wide, if heat goes in one side then what the other side emits is the k value. This shows how gasses slow the flow of heat. This hasn't been used to show how the composition of atmospheric gasses effects the flow of heat.
If they did something like that and if CO2 doesn't account for a significant part of temperature increase then they might wonder what causes climate ripples.
05-10-2019 19:46
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
IBdaMann wrote:

Actually Harry, the questions were rhetorical because James__ well knows that no one knows what those past conditions were. No one.


Thanks for the admission. I'm still learning the ropes.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and I will once again suggest that you read through The Manual. It is a quick read and I guarantee the light bulb will come on.


.


Thank you. I did read through it. I found it an amusing parody but short on satiating my interest in the subject.

Speaking of that, I read this by you on another thread about quantifying the calamity.

What you need to explain is how the earth is able to somehow destroy or create energy (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics) by your obsession with focusing on atmospheric CO2 ...

*AND*

... how the earth can lower in radiance while increasing in temperature (in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann) by your obsession with focusing on atmospheric CO2).

Until you explain those, EVERYTHING ELSE is summarily dismissed.


I understand the premise of your statements. My earlier criticism though is that you state your case but don't go any further in making it. I'm looking for more detail. Please draw me a little closer to your thoughts.

I would guess that you don't believe in AGW/CC. If so, I would think you would want to use your efforts to educate and change the tide of public opinion. That would be my objective even though I can only use the hyper-exposed talking points to do so. I want to know more.

I can also understand if you don't deem my inquiries worthy because you've been here a long time or answered the questions before. You could either just quit answering or stop giving me grief. I don't mean anyone harm and am only trying to learn.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
05-10-2019 21:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I do not judge videos for others. I only judge them for me.

It was not my intention to ask anyone to judge the video. It was the points of exception that Happer took with two factors ('feedback' and 'forcing') in the climate change equation that I wanted feedback upon. The model is titled "Steady-State Temperature Change for Doubled CO2". Inferred in the referenced video, it came from Freeman Dyson's 1982 book "The Long-Term Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels".

It takes energy to increase the temperature. That energy has to come from somewhere. Assuming the Sun hasn't changed, then the energy Earth receives from it hasn't changed. What Earth radiates out in to space has not changed either.

The 'climate change' equation is pure fiction. 'Climate change' itself has not yet even been defined. Any model based on 'climate change' is also undefined. Any equation stemming from that model is based on a void argument fallacy.

Any twit can make an equation. What gives any equation meaning is defining ALL the terms of the model and the theory for it.

The 'climate change' equation is just as meaningless as 'climate change' itself.

'Forcing' implies a force being applied causing a change. That is energy. Where is this 'force' coming from? CO2 is not a force of nature.

'Feedback' implies an unstable system. Any such unstable system would have long ago destroyed the Earth. On other words, there is no 'feedback'.

Earth is just like a hot coal glowing in the warmth of a fire. Nothing about that coal makes the fire hotter, and nothing about that coal makes itself hotter. Instead of the fire of course, we have the Sun. Otherwise, it's the same thing.
Harry C wrote:
I will continue to refine my questions to be more specific.

The usually is best
. The more specific your questions, the more specific my answers can be.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You can judge what any scientists, university, government, or any other schmuck yourself though. Use the same levers as you would for climate 'scientists'.

Thank you for the primer in objectivity. I will read and heed. I'm sure I will also lapse because that's quite a discipline.


It's actually easier than it looks, but like anything else, it takes practice. As long as you recognize this goal, you will get there.

Practicing in a vacuum, of course, is not going to work. You need to study for yourself things like these laws of physics. They are all simple equations, but they have some amazing ramifications.

Logic and mathematics also help, of course. Learning statistical math is a bit cumbersome, but once you see why the rules for it are there, you will see why so many summaries you see in the papers and on blogs and government websites are pure BS.

In particular, you will see why news polls are completely BS.

Statistical math makes use of random numbers. This takes away the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics. since you don't know what the random numbers themselves are until they are generated. It is a powerful summary tool, but it does not have the power of prediction. Any 'trend' coming out of statistical math is pure BS. As any weatherman or stock analyst will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future performance. This their way of saying statistical math does not have the power of prediction, and way to cover their butt.

Statistical math must use unbiased data, otherwise the summary is biased (and useless). To verify factors that may bias the data, the raw data itself must be made available (no paywalls!). It's method of collection must be known. The time it was collected it must be known. The instrumentation used, if any, must be known. The news poll questions must be shown, in the case of a news poll, for example. The number and locations of thermometers must be known for temperature summaries.

Data must also be collected by the same authority. That simply means one authority is responsible for the data used. Only one. Otherwise you are introducing biasing random elements into the data.

When, and only when, you have unbiased data sources that are supported as above, then, and only then, does performing a statistical summary even begin to make sense. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.

A statistical summary produces two values: the mean, and the margin of error. The mean is what you get after you run the data through averaging and marginalizing algorithms (this is where the 'standard deviation' comes in). The other value, margin of error, is calculate from the declared variance possible in the data. This variance is simply the range the data may be found in. In a summary of basketball player height, for example, the variance is simply the total range of heights of any one basketball player.. Note that variance does not come from the data. It comes from outside the data. It comes from the range of heights of people in general, for anyone might pick up a basketball and play in a game.

The Church of Global Warming is of course based on the circular argument that the Earth is warming. This phrase is undefined simply because the starting and ending points of this 'warming' are undefined.

Measuring the temperature of the Earth is quite impossible with the instrumentation we have. Considering the Earth's size, and how much temperature can change in a single mile (I have personally observed some 20 degF per mile on a fairly regular basis, so this is the variance I use). one has to distribute these thermometers over 197 million square miles of Earth uniformly to get any useful data at all. Since storms and weather is constantly moving and changing, and Earth's spin varies where daylight is at any given moment, time is a significant biasing factor. All thermometers must be read at the same time by the same authority.

Currently, NOAA uses a network called USCRN for measuring temperatures in the contiguous U.S. These are 114 thermometers spread evenly across the U.S., but none are in any city. This already introduces bias. The lower 48 States of the United States is 3 million square miles. That means 114 thermometers are being used to measure an area of 3 million square miles with a variance of 20 deg F per mile possible.

You can see that any summary of the temperature of this area is simply a blind guess.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2019 22:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
Another thing I think about, which will admittedly be lowbrow compared to others knowledge, is an old law of physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So I wonder about some sort of equilibrium of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen molecules. For example fossil fuels were all on this earth. The physical properties of earth just change it from one compound to another. So when there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere, what compounds were in lesser supply?

I'm prepared to be wrong which is why I'm here.


The Earth itself is made up of many chemicals. most of which is iron, silicon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, of course carbon.

Carbon dioxide is created by our own body metabolism, by any fire of any carbon based fuel (there are no 'fossil fuels', fossils don't burn), volcanic eruptions, etc.

It is destroyed again by plants, by plankton, and by the action of dissolved carbon dioxide in water in the presence of calcium. Carbon itself moves from place to place on Earth, some of which is known, some of which is not. This is called the 'carbon cycle'. The formation and destruction of carbon dioxide is only a part of this cycle. Carbohydrates, carbonates, carbides, chlorides, and just plain carbon itself (coal) is all just part of this cycle.

Carbon dioxide does not cause a shortage of carbon. Carbon monoxide, coal, carbonates, carbides, chlorides, and all the rest are still there. Where carbon happens to be in the cycle, such as additional CO2, is pretty insignificant to the total carbon that is on Earth.

Oxygen is the same way. It too moves through a cycle involving water, ozone, oxides of practically anything, such as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, dihydrogen monoxide (water), silicone dioxide (sand and rock), carbonates (starch and sugar), calcium carbonate (lime), potassium nitrate (salt peter or 'night' soil), etc. There is no shortage of oxygen anywhere either if there happens to be more CO2.

Earth itself isn't an isolated body in space that never changes mass. Hydrogen is caught by Earth's gravitational field and it becomes part of our atmosphere. Meteors and meteorites (a meteor that hit the surface) both contribute mass to Earth (in their own small way!). Earth does tend to sweep up anything that happens to wander near it's orbit in space, if the Sun doesn't get it first!

We also lose mass. From time to time, for example, we send spacecraft away from Earth, never to return (such as the Pioneer series) or even the junk and instrumentation we left on the Moon (I wonder if we can get that old car we left up there running again
).


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2019 22:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
Without a scientific background I'm trying to learn for myself. (I feel like a newborn lion cub who is being bitten and battered by his family to influence his behaviors. It's OK.)

My takeaway from the last round is that I've bitten in to sour meat. Let me back up a little further.

I assumed (yeah, I know) that in the linked video Happer was attempting to use his knowledge base to reconcile (my word) the errors in a climate change equation (model). My observation is that his effort to do so, puts some legitimacy in to the assumption that climate can be modeled.

My foundational premise is that both sides of the argument revolves around the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps I'm making quantum leaps with the assumptions I'm trying to tie together.

I'm going back to Happer because he was highly relatable to me but going to step away from the model to the physical properties of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm looking for a fair summary of the issue. (these are lay words and at some point I will tire of being an apologist for that). Can the conflict be summarized thusly:
- Climate Scientist rely upon an action by 'CO2 molecules in the atmosphere' to amplify temperature; ergo more CO2 = Higher global temperatures;
and
- Physicists state that the laws of physics must be broken for that to happen.


Your summary is pretty close, but not quite in the gold.

Physicists comes in all shapes and sizes. They come with all beliefs. Some (not a lot) deny the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law (usually they don't realize they're doing it!). Physicists are, after all, people. People make mistakes. It's part of how we learn. Hopefully, we can watch someone else make a mistake and learn from that!
.

That said, the theories themselves do not change. The equations they have been formalized into do not change.

It is the theories themselves and the people that created them that are the final authority of any theory. There is no other authority. No book, no website, no video, not even me nor IBdaMann nor anyone else. Each theory supports itself. It needs no supporting evidence once created.

It doesn't matter what any physicist says. It is not who is making an argument at all. It is the argument itself. All theories are explanatory arguments. Judge the argument, not the one making it.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2019 22:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... and I will once again suggest that you read through The Manual. It is a quick read and I guarantee the light bulb will come on.

Thank you. I did read through it. I found it an amusing parody but short on satiating my interest in the subject.

The light bulb comes on when you realize that it is not a parody.

All of the content came directly from Global Warming worshippers. All of it. I did not fabricate any of it. In fact, for most of it I have been told that I am a moron for not "understanding" it. This is why neither you nor any warmizombie nor any climate lemming can find anything inaccurate in it.

If it's 100% accurate, and it didn't come from me ... what does that tell you about the Global Warming faith?


Harry C wrote:Speaking of that, I read this by you on another thread about quantifying the calamity.

What you need to explain is how the earth is able to somehow destroy or create energy (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics) by your obsession with focusing on atmospheric CO2 ...

*AND*

... how the earth can lower in radiance while increasing in temperature (in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann) by your obsession with focusing on atmospheric CO2).

Until you explain those, EVERYTHING ELSE is summarily dismissed.


I understand the premise of your statements. My earlier criticism though is that you state your case but don't go any further in making it. I'm looking for more detail. Please draw me a little closer to your thoughts.

Well ... the specifics are right there. Stefan-Boltzmann (which is actual bona-fide physics) shows that Temperature and Radiance move in the same direction, i.e. if the temperature increases then the radiance increases. That's how nature works. You can't get around it.

However warmizombies are forever claiming that these magickal "greenhouse gases" have the amazing superpower to defy Stefan-Boltzmann and to cause earth's temperature to increase by causing its radiance to decrease, by acting like a baby's blanket that cradles the earth in loving warmth, i.e. the absolute miracle of Greenhouse Effect that forms the core of their WACKY religious dogma.

... so when you make the error of their argument obvious by phrasing it as I just did, they invariably pivot dishonestly and claim "No one is saying that a radiance reduction is increasing the temperature" ... and they shift to arguing that some sequence of solar energy form-changes increases the earth's temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy, ergo the argument is that there exists a particular sequence of energy form-changes that creates new additional energy. Unfortunately, the first law of thermodynamics states that no matter how often energy changes form, you can't create or destroy any.

... so when you make the error of their argument obvious by phrasing it as I just did, they invariably pivot dishonestly and claim "No one is saying that energy is being created ... " and they go right back to arguing that these magickal "greenhouse gases" have the amazing superpower to defy Stefan-Boltzmann and to cause earth's temperature to increase by causing its radiance to decrease, by acting like a baby's blanket that cradles the earth in loving warmth, i.e. the absolute miracle of Greenhouse Effect that forms the core of their WACKY religious dogma.

... so when you make the error of their argument obvious by phrasing it as I just did, they invariably pivot dishonestly and claim "No one is saying that a radiance reduction is increasing the temperature" ... and they shift to arguing that some sequence of solar energy form-changes increases the earth's temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy, ergo the argument is that there exists a particular sequence of energy form-changes that creates new additional energy. Unfortunately, the first law of thermodynamics states that no matter how often energy changes form, you can't create or destroy any.

... so when you make the error of their argument obvious by phrasing it as I just did, they invariably pivot dishonestly and claim "No one is saying that energy is being created ... " and they go right back to arguing that these magickal "greenhouse gases" have the amazing superpower to defy Stefan-Boltzmann and to cause earth's temperature to increase by causing its radiance to decrease, by acting like a baby's blanket that cradles the earth in loving warmth, i.e. the absolute miracle of Greenhouse Effect that forms the core of their WACKY religious dogma.

.... repeat ad infinitum.

Harry C wrote:I would guess that you don't believe in AGW/CC.

I don't have really any religion.

I don't mind anyone worshipping as he or she sees fit, but the Global Warming faith is really nothing more than a Marxist scam that targets the gullible and the scientifically illiterate and convinces them that they somehow transform into fugging scientific geniuses if only they just BELIEVE! ... Which then motives stupid people to arrogantly lecture others who haven't fallen for the scam.

Show me someone who is a Global Warming believer and I will show you someone who is either scientifically illiterate or who is a flat out science denier.


Harry C wrote: If so, I would think you would want to use your efforts to educate and change the tide of public opinion.

Once again, I don't care how someone chooses to worship. It's just when stupid morons go out of their way to call me stupid that I like to put a pin to their bubble.

I mean, if they are going to beg for it ...



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2019 23:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Actually Harry, the questions were rhetorical because James__ well knows that no one knows what those past conditions were. No one.


Thanks for the admission. I'm still learning the ropes.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and I will once again suggest that you read through The Manual. It is a quick read and I guarantee the light bulb will come on.


.


Thank you. I did read through it. I found it an amusing parody but short on satiating my interest in the subject.

Speaking of that, I read this by you on another thread about quantifying the calamity.

What you need to explain is how the earth is able to somehow destroy or create energy (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics) by your obsession with focusing on atmospheric CO2 ...

*AND*

... how the earth can lower in radiance while increasing in temperature (in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann) by your obsession with focusing on atmospheric CO2).

Until you explain those, EVERYTHING ELSE is summarily dismissed.


I understand the premise of your statements. My earlier criticism though is that you state your case but don't go any further in making it. I'm looking for more detail. Please draw me a little closer to your thoughts.

I would guess that you don't believe in AGW/CC. If so, I would think you would want to use your efforts to educate and change the tide of public opinion. That would be my objective even though I can only use the hyper-exposed talking points to do so. I want to know more.

I can also understand if you don't deem my inquiries worthy because you've been here a long time or answered the questions before. You could either just quit answering or stop giving me grief. I don't mean anyone harm and am only trying to learn.


There are two questions here. I will answer them one at a time.

It has long been accepted that it is not possible to create or destroy energy. All you can do is convert it from one form to another. It is also not possible to create or destroy matter. All you can do is convert it from one form to another.

Energy itself is just matter in a different frame of reference (E-mc^2). It all matters.


In the case of The Debate, electromagnetic energy arrives from the Sun. Some of that is reflected away again, some of it is absorbed, and some of it passes right through the Earth like it wasn't even there. The Sun puts out electromagnetic energy across a very wide band of frequencies. Most of that energy is in the infrared frequency band.

If light is absorbed, it is converted to another form of energy. A photon that is absorbed is utterly destroyed. All the photon is, is a little packet of energy. Depending on the color of that photon (it's frequency), the amount of energy in that little packet is different. This is what Planck's law discusses. Higher frequency photons have higher energy.

Depending on that frequency, absorption will convert to a different form of energy:

UV light and X rays cause direct ionization. Some UV can also cause chemical reactions, such as driving the reaction in the formation of ozone from oxygen.

Visible light generally converts to chemical energy. Some is converted to thermal energy (what we call 'temperature'). The chemical energy drives reactions such as photosynthesis, the reactions in your own retinas that allow you to see, the polymerization of some plastics, etc.

Infrared light is converted primarily into thermal energy. It is infrared light from the Sun that heats the land, the oceans, and our air.

Lower frequencies may be absorbed or even pass right through the Earth. If absorbed, they may cause electron agitation (which MIGHT result in thermal energy, but usually just shows up as part of the static in radios).

To make light, all you have to do is take a charge particle (electron or proton, it doesn't matter), and shake it.

Earth radiates over a range of temperatures from 135 deg F all the way down to -126 deg F (that we have measured so far). This radiance is a conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy. The frequencies radiated are quite wide. All of them occur in the infrared band. It is all caused by the agitation of charged particles (both protons and electrons) as part of thermal energy.

It is not the only light radiated from Earth.

Light can also be generated 'harmonically', that is, by the direct agitation of any charged particle (usually electrons). This can happen as electrons move from one orbital to another. If that move results in a drop in energy of the atom or molecule, a photon is emitted. This is how light from lasers, LEDs, colored stars in fireworks, and bio-luminescence occurs. These frequencies are over a narrow range of emission, giving the emitter a pure 'color'.

Where 'harmonic' radiance is like playing a violin, black body radiance is like smashing it and burning it for fuel. Both produce sound from that violin. (Both produce light too!)

Ah, the comforting sound of a crackling fire from violin wood....


So energy is conserved. Matter is conserved. According to E=mc^2, they are really the same thing...just a different frame of reference. A photon has no mass, because it's moving at the speed of light. IF you could somehow slow down a photon, it would gain a mass. Absorption effectively does this very thing. This is why you can actually move an object using nothing but photons (not very far, and not very fast, but it's there!). It would be conversion of electromagnetic energy into mechanical energy (kinetic energy).

Now to the Stefan-Boltzmann law question:

As I've just described, there are a couple of ways to generate light. One by thermal energy being converted to electromagnetic energy (the Stefan-Boltzmann law), and the other by 'harmonic' radiance (Planck's law and quantum mechanics).

The Stefan-Boltzmann law sates:
r = C * e * t^4 where r is radiance in watts/sq meter, and t is temperature (thermal energy) in degK. Everything else is a constant. C is a constant of nature (5.76*10^-8) that serves to convert the relation to our units of measure, and e is a measured constant of the ability of a surface to radiate, as compared to an ideal radiator at the same temperature.

This law shows that r is proportional to t. If r increases, t MUST increase. If t increases, r MUST increase. There is no case where t increases and r decreases. There is no case where they are inversely proportional.

The Church of Global Warming insists that CO2 (or some other magick gas), 'traps' light, and uses that energy to increase the temperature of Earth. Trapping light in this way, of course, means it doesn't escape to space. Radiance is reduced.

This idea sets up an inverse relationship between r and t, (as r decreases, t is increasing) in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

I call this particular mechanism of the 'greenhouse effect' and the argument that makes it, the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. It's BS.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2019 23:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... and I will once again suggest that you read through The Manual. It is a quick read and I guarantee the light bulb will come on.

Thank you. I did read through it. I found it an amusing parody but short on satiating my interest in the subject.

The light bulb comes on when you realize that it is not a parody.

All of the content came directly from Global Warming worshippers. All of it. I did not fabricate any of it. In fact, for most of it I have been told that I am a moron for not "understanding" it. This is why neither you nor any warmizombie nor any climate lemming can find anything inaccurate in it.

If it's 100% accurate, and it didn't come from me ... what does that tell you about the Global Warming faith?


This is dead right. It is all completely accurate, according to the Church of Global Warming itself.

The Manual started out as a thread right here on this forum which I started, called The Wordsmith. Like other thread of this sort I start, I set up the rules for that thread. It was to declare a single thread for people to offer definitions of words. The rule was that the authority of the definition of that word must also be given. Dictionaries are not such authorities. People define words, not dictionaries.

If you watch liberals, you will see them speaking in a different language. The Church of Global Warming is no different. It looks like English, but the words in it take on different meanings, and many words have no meaning at all. This 2nd language is the source of all the political correctness you see today.

Many words and phrases, such as 'global warming' and 'climate change' remain undefined. They are meaningless phrases tossed about like they actually mean something. After decades of trying to get an actual definition of 'global warming' or 'climate change' that didn't involve using the undefined word to define that word (a circular definition), I started the Wordsmith thread.

It was an open opportunity for people to define words like 'global warming' or 'climate change' or even 'climate' clearly, and by what authority they use that definition of the word.

No takers, until IBdaMann offered the first definition for both 'global warming' and 'climate change' I have ever seen that wasn't merely a circular definition. Oddly enough, NO member of the Faithful challenged those definitions.

The Wordsmith thread echoed on other forums. Definitions were provided by others for other aspects of the language used by the Church of Global Warming. To date, NONE have been challenged by any member of the Church. For all intents and purposes then, The Manual is the ONLY dictionary recording the definitions of words in this 2nd language that are part of the so-called climate debate.

Thus, it is completely accurate. 100%. It is not a parody. It is the ONLY definitive meaning of these words so far.

You might call it the mythology of the Church of Global Warming, but it is my no means, any parody.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-10-2019 23:41
06-10-2019 00:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Into the Night wrote:The Manual started out as a thread right here on this forum which I started, called The Wordsmith. Like other thread of this sort I start, I set up the rules for that thread. It was to declare a single thread for people to offer definitions of words. The rule was that the authority of the definition of that word must also be given.

I was remiss for not having mentioned this aspect. Yes your creation of that thread was genius; I did not foresee at the time the practical uses and impact.

For what it's worth, you could very well say that Politiplex would not exist had you not created The Word Smithy. The Data Mine is similarly a compelling argument unto itself.

Well done. You have a good track record for making threads.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
Edited on 06-10-2019 00:50
RE: Thank you ITN & IBDM!06-10-2019 02:17
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
I am humbled by your replies gentlemen. Thank you. I have read through them once and have some immediate thoughts I will share with quoted replies. On others I will need to re-read and further consider which will take me a little while longer to make a considerate response. Anything I may come back with is not to be contrarian but reinforce my comprehension.

Today's big takeaway, which I should have already realized and feel ignorant for not seeing already, is that you can't win playing someone else's (IPCC) game. That's a sucker's game. I like the brute force of the scientific response wherein I am indequate. There is such a rich fabric of obfuscation you have to give a damn to overcome the inertia of the mainstream narrative.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
06-10-2019 02:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Harry C wrote:Anyone one to point me to someplace where I can find objective truth?
Your use of "objective" means that you are implying there is bias in everything available. I would agree only in part. Battle lines are drawn yes, with a pro and anti camp spinning and pressing their agenda. BUT this is because it is a hot topic and has been for about 40 years.

One of the great tools a detective has is in looking into areas where there is no bias. Is there bias in everything? Not at all. There is no bias when no one gives a cr@p one way or the other.

There is a tremendous amount of science and research that predates "GLOBAL WARMING" being an issue at all. I'd say safely anything pre 1980 is unlikely to be touched by anything you could call bias on that subject.

So when someone trying to claim science "got it wrong" due to bias and they are pointing at work from, I don't know, say 239 years ago. They are full of it.

Pier Provost, father of radiative heat transfer, was NOT thinking about global warming.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them.
06-10-2019 03:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
gfm7175 wrote:...Science is a set of falsifiable theories. This definition comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper...
NO it is not. This weird definition was made up by ITN.
See here:Just 7 results on Google, BS Called

Try quoting Popper if you're going to say Popper said something:
"But science is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. "

Science is a method, it is an activity, a discipline, an action. It is not dead and pointless as ITN/IBD pretend it is. Alive and debated.

gfm7175 wrote:...currently standing theories of science, or else they need to falsify the theories of science standing in their way.
I agree. The failure of ITN/IBD to do so is in my signature.

gfm7175 wrote:
Harry C wrote:...they refuse to add any clarity.

The theories of science that are standing in the way of AGW Theory are quite clear.
I love how he points out you guys refuse to add any clarity and you give no clarification at all.

gfm7175 wrote:
How about the currently standing theories of science??
I will point out agian that what ITN/IBD and you claim are "LAWS" are contradicted by every published text book and reference I could find (I stopped at 12):
AND by Planck himself.12 references debunking the lies about "Accepted Laws of Science" spread here by faudsters.

But this is the sad thing. There is a robust, well supported and interesting counter to AGW put forth by real scientists like Huffman. The lunatics on this forum won't discuss them because they'd have to accept the actually accepted laws of thermodynamics to say anything at all. So they essentially bow out of the debate.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
06-10-2019 03:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:For the purposes of 'greenhouse effect', it means the Magick Bouncing Photon


ITN/IBD have domenstrated repeatedly that they have odd, unsupported laws of science they follow.

ITN talks about a magic blanket but he can't explain ANY blanket.

Here's the proof: None of these guys can calculate the thermodynamics of anything real and get a plausible answer.

It's jut like some nut jobs who insist a bumble bee cannot fly due to the laws of aerodynamics. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument

This is where I'm trying to sort out the mainstream theory on global warming. So far the only person on the board also interested in debating these things is Verner: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php

"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 06-10-2019 03:20
06-10-2019 04:25
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Another thing I think about, which will admittedly be lowbrow compared to others knowledge, is an old law of physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So I wonder about some sort of equilibrium of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen molecules. For example fossil fuels [I should have said hydrocarbons]were all on this earth. The physical properties [meant processes sucn as photosynthesis] of earth just change it from one compound to another. So when there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere, what [chemical]compounds were in lesser supply?

I'm prepared to be wrong which is why I'm here.


Carbon dioxide does not cause a shortage of carbon. Carbon monoxide, coal, carbonates, carbides, chlorides, and all the rest are still there. Where carbon happens to be in the cycle, such as additional CO2, is pretty insignificant to the total carbon that is on Earth.

From time to time, for example, we send spacecraft away from Earth, never to return (such as the Pioneer series) or even the junk and instrumentation we left on the Moon (I wonder if we can get that old car we left up there running again
).


Again, I apologize for being imprecise with my question. I don't do it purposely.

I was thinking that if there was an abundance of CO2 that there must be other compounds that are less existentent because of the lack of carbon molecules. Perhaps there is some meaning to what carbon based compound(s) is easier for carbon dioxide to exchage with.

The hardware left on the moon reminds me of an old tv show Salvage 1.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
06-10-2019 04:55
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
tmiddles wrote:
None of these guys can calculate the thermodynamics of anything real and get a plausible answer.

This is where I'm trying to sort out the mainstream theory on global warming. So far the only person on the board also interested in debating these things is Verner: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720.php


I really want to keep things cool so deleted the personal stuff..

I now just want to understand the energy mass balance. Have you got an equation for that? It seems like a great deal of the conflict comes from the use of nomenclature from the interchange of casual terms with scientifific, or even scientific sounding. I've got to go away and bone up on my science.

I've read the the thread on calamity math. You guys are over my head on some of that minutae.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
06-10-2019 05:33
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...Science is a set of falsifiable theories. This definition comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper...
NO it is not. This weird definition was made up by ITN.
See here:Just 7 results on Google, BS Called

Try quoting Popper if you're going to say Popper said something:
"But science is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. "



You guys have really got me on my toes. Here's my two bits on Popper. I took up your challenge to look up Popper and what he said or didn't say. It appears to me that what is attributed to Popper is not exactly the same but substantially true. To wit:
Popper's early work attempts to solve the problem of demarcation and offer a clear criterion that distinguishes scientific theories from metaphysical or mythological claims. Popper's falsificationist methodology holds that scientific theories are characterized by entailing predictions that future observations might reveal to be false. When theories are falsified by such observations, scientists can respond by revising the theory, or by rejecting the theory in favor of a rival or by maintaining the theory as is and changing an auxiliary hypothesis. In either case, however, this process must aim at the production of new, falsifiable predictions. While Popper recognizes that scientists can and do hold onto theories in the face of failed predictions when there are no predictively superior rivals to turn to. He holds that scientific practice is characterized by its continual effort to test theories against experience and make revisions based on the outcomes of these tests. By contrast, theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific. Among other things, Popper argues that his falsificationist proposal allows for a solution of the problem of induction, since inductive reasoning plays no role in his account of theory choice.


Popper was an economist who wrote on sociology and politics. Ironically, and the reason I am posting this, Popper was looking to find the demarcation between science and non-science, same as I am on this issue.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
06-10-2019 06:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Harry C wrote:You guys have really got me on my toes. Here's my two bits on Popper.

Harry, I'm going to recommend you forget about Popper (the person). You should certainly respect the man's accomplishments; he had great ideas that got the ball moving in the right direction ... into which they have snowballed into the modern research and development industry we have today. Many a great man has built upon Popper's ideas and now what we have today is so much more. If all you are talking about is Popper then you are not talking about what is de facto scientific method today.

Your takeaway should be that Popper made the world realize that theories need to be falsifiable to even begin the scientific method, an absolute requirement for science. If you do anything, learn what falsifiability means. Once you are an expert on that concept, you won't need to ask for anyone's help; you'll be able to easily see through the bulslhit on your own.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate In general...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate change is costing Hydro-Québec millions, director-general says123-04-2019 19:49
▲ 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