Please update me

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > Please update me

Page 1 of 2

Please update me15-11-2019 23:23
jenb ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	I did my senior seminar in environmental physics about 20 years ago while earning my physics degree, but then I became a patent attorney and my climate change information is way out of date. Last I heard about 20 years ago, scientific consensus was that we were near the end of a natural global warming cycle that occurs periodically between ice ages, and it was difficult to determine definitively what amount of the observed temperature rise was being caused by man made sources. But then a predicted extreme increase in global temps did not occur in response to a large increase in CO2, and no one knew why at that time. 20 years later, all I can find online as an explanation for that discrepancy is an assumption that we moved into a natural global cooling cycle that at least partially offset the increase in CO2. Is that the only explanation that people have come up with, or are there other explanations I didn't find? If I recall correctly, most of the energy emitted by the sun is IR, but greenhouse models say that all of the IR is bent away from the earth by the atmosphere acting as a prism, so there is no significant amount of solar IR energy being deflected by atmospheric CO2 that would not otherwise be bent away anyway. Is that correct? Is it possible that there is some solar IR radiation reaching the earth's surface (e.g, near the edges, where we see red colors with sunrise and sunset), and that the increased CO2 is actually deflecting more of that than before, thus at least partially offsetting the temperature rise from the greenhouse effect? Thanks in advance.
16-11-2019 01:01
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	jenb wrote: I did my senior seminar in environmental physics about 20 years ago while earning my physics degree, but then I became a patent attorney and my climate change information is way out of date. Last I heard about 20 years ago, scientific consensus was that we were near the end of a natural global warming cycle that occurs periodically between ice ages, and it was difficult to determine definitively what amount of the observed temperature rise was being caused by man made sources. But then a predicted extreme increase in global temps did not occur in response to a large increase in CO2, and no one knew why at that time. 20 years later, all I can find online as an explanation for that discrepancy is an assumption that we moved into a natural global cooling cycle that at least partially offset the increase in CO2. Is that the only explanation that people have come up with, or are there other explanations I didn't find? If I recall correctly, most of the energy emitted by the sun is IR, but greenhouse models say that all of the IR is bent away from the earth by the atmosphere acting as a prism, so there is no significant amount of solar IR energy being deflected by atmospheric CO2 that would not otherwise be bent away anyway. Is that correct? Is it possible that there is some solar IR radiation reaching the earth's surface (e.g, near the edges, where we see red colors with sunrise and sunset), and that the increased CO2 is actually deflecting more of that than before, thus at least partially offsetting the temperature rise from the greenhouse effect? Thanks in advance. Hi, One thing I tried explaining to the people in here is that IMO (it's not humble by any means) is that collisions between molecules increases temperature. And that if the number of collisions between molecules increases then so does the rate at which they cycle. And an increase or decrease in the Earth's gravity (distance from the Sun) influences this as much as the solar radiation emitted by the Sun. It's all relative and HarveyH55 is helping to pay for surgery that I've been needing because that's the kind of guy he is
16-11-2019 02:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	jenb wrote: I did my senior seminar in environmental physics about 20 years ago while earning my physics degree, but then I became a patent attorney and my climate change information is way out of date. Define 'climate change'. There is no such thing as 'environmental physics'. jenb wrote: Last I heard about 20 years ago, scientific consensus Science doesn't use consensus. It doesn't use supporting evidence either. jenb wrote: was that we were near the end of a natural global warming cycle Define 'global warming'. jenb wrote: that occurs periodically between ice ages, When did these occur? How do you know they even occurred? Note: proxies aren't used in science either. jenb wrote: and it was difficult to determine definitively what amount of the observed temperature rise What observation? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. From when to when is this so-called 'warming'? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time not significant? jenb wrote: was being caused by man made sources. ...such as? jenb wrote: But then a predicted extreme increase in global temps did not occur in response to a large increase in CO2, and no one knew why at that time. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, and temperature on Earth is not uniform (indeed, it can vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile). jenb wrote: 20 years later, all I can find online as an explanation for that discrepancy is an assumption that we moved into a natural global cooling cycle that at least partially offset the increase in CO2. CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. jenb wrote: Is that the only explanation that people have come up with, or are there other explanations I didn't find? Explanation of what? Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating either the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. jenb wrote: If I recall correctly, most of the energy emitted by the sun is IR, This is correct. It is what warms the Earth when it is absorbed by the land and water. jenb wrote: but greenhouse models say that all of the IR is bent away from the earth by the atmosphere acting as a prism, so there is no significant amount of solar IR energy being deflected by atmospheric CO2 that would not otherwise be bent away anyway. Is that correct? No. Earth would be an ice ball if that were so. jenb wrote: Is it possible that there is some solar IR radiation reaching the earth's surface (e.g, near the edges, where we see red colors with sunrise and sunset), Visible light is not infrared. Red is not more intense at sunsets or sunrises. Blue is LESS intense. jenb wrote: and that the increased CO2 is actually deflecting more of that than before, thus at least partially offsetting the temperature rise from the greenhouse effect? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is unknown. We simply don't have enough stations to measure it. Further, the station at Mauna Loa is compromised. They are cooking the data. It's useless. It is obvious to me you have never studies physics. You deny physics. It is obvious to me you have never learned statistical mathematics either. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-11-2019 02:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	James___ wrote: jenb wrote: I did my senior seminar in environmental physics about 20 years ago while earning my physics degree, but then I became a patent attorney and my climate change information is way out of date. Last I heard about 20 years ago, scientific consensus was that we were near the end of a natural global warming cycle that occurs periodically between ice ages, and it was difficult to determine definitively what amount of the observed temperature rise was being caused by man made sources. But then a predicted extreme increase in global temps did not occur in response to a large increase in CO2, and no one knew why at that time. 20 years later, all I can find online as an explanation for that discrepancy is an assumption that we moved into a natural global cooling cycle that at least partially offset the increase in CO2. Is that the only explanation that people have come up with, or are there other explanations I didn't find? If I recall correctly, most of the energy emitted by the sun is IR, but greenhouse models say that all of the IR is bent away from the earth by the atmosphere acting as a prism, so there is no significant amount of solar IR energy being deflected by atmospheric CO2 that would not otherwise be bent away anyway. Is that correct? Is it possible that there is some solar IR radiation reaching the earth's surface (e.g, near the edges, where we see red colors with sunrise and sunset), and that the increased CO2 is actually deflecting more of that than before, thus at least partially offsetting the temperature rise from the greenhouse effect? Thanks in advance. Hi, One thing I tried explaining to the people in here is that IMO (it's not humble by any means) is that collisions between molecules increases temperature. Molecules can't increase temperature by themselves. You can't create energy out of nothing. James___ wrote: And that if the number of collisions between molecules increases then so does the rate at which they cycle. Why would they increase? James___ wrote: And an increase or decrease in the Earth's gravity (distance from the Sun) Gravity is not distance from the Sun. James___ wrote: influences this as much as the solar radiation emitted by the Sun. Assuming the Sun's output is the same, and Earth's regular orbit, Earth remains the same temperature. James___ wrote: It's all relative ...deleted irrelevant portion... Buzzword fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-11-2019 03:35
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	James___ wrote: jenb wrote: I did my senior seminar in environmental physics about 20 years ago while earning my physics degree, but then I became a patent attorney and my climate change information is way out of date. Last I heard about 20 years ago, scientific consensus was that we were near the end of a natural global warming cycle that occurs periodically between ice ages, and it was difficult to determine definitively what amount of the observed temperature rise was being caused by man made sources. But then a predicted extreme increase in global temps did not occur in response to a large increase in CO2, and no one knew why at that time. 20 years later, all I can find online as an explanation for that discrepancy is an assumption that we moved into a natural global cooling cycle that at least partially offset the increase in CO2. Is that the only explanation that people have come up with, or are there other explanations I didn't find? If I recall correctly, most of the energy emitted by the sun is IR, but greenhouse models say that all of the IR is bent away from the earth by the atmosphere acting as a prism, so there is no significant amount of solar IR energy being deflected by atmospheric CO2 that would not otherwise be bent away anyway. Is that correct? Is it possible that there is some solar IR radiation reaching the earth's surface (e.g, near the edges, where we see red colors with sunrise and sunset), and that the increased CO2 is actually deflecting more of that than before, thus at least partially offsetting the temperature rise from the greenhouse effect? Thanks in advance. Hi, One thing I tried explaining to the people in here is that IMO (it's not humble by any means) is that collisions between molecules increases temperature. And that if the number of collisions between molecules increases then so does the rate at which they cycle. And an increase or decrease in the Earth's gravity (distance from the Sun) influences this as much as the solar radiation emitted by the Sun. It's all relative and HarveyH55 is helping to pay for surgery that I've been needing because that's the kind of guy he is I'm glad you appreciate my tax dollars at work. Enjoy your crap-sack, or what ever the medical term is these days. This is our first inter-glacial, as a civilized (mostly) society. We don't know what 'normally' happens. Personally, I think normal, will be when CO2 levels reach somewhere around 1200 ppm. Seems that plants do their best in the 700-1200 ppm range. Higher levels of CO2 don't seem to have an adverse effect, goes no longer show any benefit. They also die at 150 ppm... Going on the high side seems better, than pushing toward barely surviving. Plants are great indicator of what is 'normal'. They do amazingly well, when given all the CO2 they want. All life on the planet depends on photosynthesis for dietary carbon. Plants ar the only thing that metabolizes carbon directly from the environment, specifically CO2. All life is carbon based, and no other option, other than plants.

16-11-2019 03:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Molecules can increase temperature if they become more excited. This increases the flow of electromagnetic radiation, ie., heat. Gravity is relative to the distance from the Sun, ie, F=G(Mm/r2). Ergo, gravity or the absence of increases the energy of the atmosphere.
16-11-2019 22:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	James___ wrote: Molecules can increase temperature if they become more excited. This increases the flow of electromagnetic radiation, ie., heat. Molecules can't create their own energy. It is not possible create energy out of nothing. James___ wrote: Gravity is relative to the distance from the Sun, ie, F=G(Mm/r2). Ergo, gravity or the absence of increases the energy of the atmosphere. No. Gravity has nothing to do with the Sun. You are making the false equivalence between gravitational attraction between two masses and gravity. They are not the same. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 16-11-2019 22:24
17-11-2019 12:23
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	jenb wrote: I did my senior seminar in environmental physics about 20 years ago while earning my physics degree, but then I became a patent attorney and my climate change information is way out of date. Last I heard about 20 years ago, scientific consensus was that we were near the end of a natural global warming cycle that occurs periodically between ice ages, and it was difficult to determine definitively what amount of the observed temperature rise was being caused by man made sources. But then a predicted extreme increase in global temps did not occur in response to a large increase in CO2, and no one knew why at that time. 20 years later, all I can find online as an explanation for that discrepancy is an assumption that we moved into a natural global cooling cycle that at least partially offset the increase in CO2. Is that the only explanation that people have come up with, or are there other explanations I didn't find? If I recall correctly, most of the energy emitted by the sun is IR, but greenhouse models say that all of the IR is bent away from the earth by the atmosphere acting as a prism, so there is no significant amount of solar IR energy being deflected by atmospheric CO2 that would not otherwise be bent away anyway. Is that correct? Is it possible that there is some solar IR radiation reaching the earth's surface (e.g, near the edges, where we see red colors with sunrise and sunset), and that the increased CO2 is actually deflecting more of that than before, thus at least partially offsetting the temperature rise from the greenhouse effect? Thanks in advance. You are a University graduate and you come here for answers? I suggest you do your own research. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
20-11-2019 16:32
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	jenb wrote: I did my senior seminar in environmental physics about 20 years ago while earning my physics degree, but then I became a patent attorney and my climate change information is way out of date. Last I heard about 20 years ago, scientific consensus was that we were near the end of a natural global warming cycle that occurs periodically between ice ages, and it was difficult to determine definitively what amount of the observed temperature rise was being caused by man made sources. But then a predicted extreme increase in global temps did not occur in response to a large increase in CO2, and no one knew why at that time. 20 years later, all I can find online as an explanation for that discrepancy is an assumption that we moved into a natural global cooling cycle that at least partially offset the increase in CO2. Is that the only explanation that people have come up with, or are there other explanations I didn't find? If I recall correctly, most of the energy emitted by the sun is IR, but greenhouse models say that all of the IR is bent away from the earth by the atmosphere acting as a prism, so there is no significant amount of solar IR energy being deflected by atmospheric CO2 that would not otherwise be bent away anyway. Is that correct? Is it possible that there is some solar IR radiation reaching the earth's surface (e.g, near the edges, where we see red colors with sunrise and sunset), and that the increased CO2 is actually deflecting more of that than before, thus at least partially offsetting the temperature rise from the greenhouse effect? Thanks in advance. I like your question and approach. Without your background I stumbled in to the fray too. I was sick and tired of the crescendo of anecdotal evidence and looking for the science derived answer and came here. I had experienced this debate on other forums that were non specific to the topic so wanted to step up my comprehension. Since I didn't agree with the prognostications, I had been reading a great deal and watching videos from scientists that were doing a credible job of explaining the science as far as I knew. What I didn't like on either side is resting on a point without further explanation. There is a strong consistency between the 'alarmists' point of view. There's a myriad of approaches from the 'skeptics' point of view. The more you research, the more you have to drill down. Knowledge of the leading players is foundational to a comprehensive understanding. With that background I will direct your attention to this video featuring William Happer. https://youtu.be/Oog7-KOtpEA. His credentials will be cited at the beginning of the video. I'm not a scientist or of a scientific background so I will allow for the fact that I may have been mislead by what he said. However he puts forth the best explanation for me about how CO2 works in the atmosphere. In a nutshell there are some characteristics that the 'alarmists' attribute to CO2 that cause them to overestimate the increase in global average temperatures, which I believe to be the center of the controversy. I hope you get the chance to look at the video and will come back to discuss it. I would like to participate in an objective dialog on the subject with a group somewhere. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
20-11-2019 17:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	jenb wrote: I did my senior seminar in environmental physics about 20 years ago while earning my physics degree, but then I became a patent attorney and my climate change information is way out of date. Last I heard about 20 years ago, scientific consensus was that we were near the end of a natural global warming cycle that occurs periodically between ice ages, and it was difficult to determine definitively what amount of the observed temperature rise was being caused by man made sources. But then a predicted extreme increase in global temps did not occur in response to a large increase in CO2, and no one knew why at that time. 20 years later, all I can find online as an explanation for that discrepancy is an assumption that we moved into a natural global cooling cycle that at least partially offset the increase in CO2. Is that the only explanation that people have come up with, or are there other explanations I didn't find? If I recall correctly, most of the energy emitted by the sun is IR, but greenhouse models say that all of the IR is bent away from the earth by the atmosphere acting as a prism, so there is no significant amount of solar IR energy being deflected by atmospheric CO2 that would not otherwise be bent away anyway. Is that correct? Is it possible that there is some solar IR radiation reaching the earth's surface (e.g, near the edges, where we see red colors with sunrise and sunset), and that the increased CO2 is actually deflecting more of that than before, thus at least partially offsetting the temperature rise from the greenhouse effect? Thanks in advance. You never got a physics degree. Ask me how I know. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2019 17:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	Harry C wrote: With that background I will direct your attention to this video featuring William Happer. https://youtu.be/Oog7-KOtpEA. His credentials will be cited at the beginning of the video. You clearly have an agenda. Don't think that you are going to fool me. I can tell that you don't realize it but your recommendation of this video gives you away. Let's shine a spotlight on your agenda, shall we? You presumably watched this video that you are recommending so what did you learn from it? Harry C wrote: I'm not a scientist or of a scientific background so I will allow for the fact that I may have been mislead by what he said. Assuming you weren't misled, what did you learn from the video? Harry C wrote: However he puts forth the best explanation for me about how CO2 works in the atmosphere. ... and how is that? Harry C wrote: In a nutshell there are some characteristics that the 'alarmists' attribute to CO2 that cause them to overestimate the increase in global average temperatures, which I believe to be the center of the controversy. ... and what would those be exactly? Harry C wrote: I hope you get the chance to look at the video and will come back to discuss it. ... so discuss it. What did you learn? Harry C wrote: I would like to participate in an objective dialog on the subject with a group somewhere. Great! Let's discuss. I watched the video as well. What did you take away from the video specifically? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2019 22:02
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	IBdaMann wrote: Let's shine a spotlight on your agenda, shall we? You presumably watched this video that you are recommending so what did you learn from it? Assuming you weren't misled, what did you learn from the video? ... and how is that? ... and what would those be exactly? ... so discuss it. What did you learn? Great! Let's discuss. I watched the video as well. What did you take away from the video specifically? Sure, let's go. Consistent with my prior declarations I don't know and am coming here trying to bolster my understanding. I have deemed the center of the conflict to revolve around the actions of CO2. I don't believe in the 'greenhouse effect' and was looking for a reconciliation of why one group believes one thing and the other side believes something else. I really have no idea what the problem with Happer is for you. It seems the objections to him are from the other side because of his relatedness to energy companies. To me, it's either science or it's not. What is so frustrating for me is trying to find something the average man can relate to. I greatly respect the counsel that you and ITN have made available. I went back and read the 19 page thread with great interest where you were both trying to instruct tmiddles on the matter. I see exactly where it went of the rails with him and don't have the same objection about heat flowing from cooler body to warmer. However, the public of 'alarmists' is not going to blindly accept that their belief in "AGW/CC" has been debunked because two guys on the internet say it violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann law. As true as it may be, I really want to understand what that point of failure is with that theory AND BE ABLE TO RELATE IT TO ANYONE THAT WILL LISTEN. That said, I've experienced the arguments about Magick gas that vibrates and create heat, which I don't subscribe to. So in Happer's presentation, I was enjoying (whether correct or incorrrect) his description about the action of CO2. The reason I recommended the Happer video, which I had seen previously, was because he attempted to reconcile the subjet of the original post. I thought it was relevant. Somehow, I just know I'm about to be wrong about something. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
20-11-2019 22:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Harry C wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Let's shine a spotlight on your agenda, shall we? You presumably watched this video that you are recommending so what did you learn from it? Assuming you weren't misled, what did you learn from the video? ... and how is that? ... and what would those be exactly? ... so discuss it. What did you learn? Great! Let's discuss. I watched the video as well. What did you take away from the video specifically? Sure, let's go. Consistent with my prior declarations I don't know and am coming here trying to bolster my understanding. I have deemed the center of the conflict to revolve around the actions of CO2. I don't believe in the 'greenhouse effect' and was looking for a reconciliation of why one group believes one thing and the other side believes something else. I really have no idea what the problem with Happer is for you. It seems the objections to him are from the other side because of his relatedness to energy companies. To me, it's either science or it's not. What is so frustrating for me is trying to find something the average man can relate to. I greatly respect the counsel that you and ITN have made available. I went back and read the 19 page thread with great interest where you were both trying to instruct tmiddles on the matter. I see exactly where it went of the rails with him and don't have the same objection about heat flowing from cooler body to warmer. However, the public of 'alarmists' is not going to blindly accept that their belief in "AGW/CC" has been debunked because two guys on the internet say it violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann law. As true as it may be, I really want to understand what that point of failure is with that theory AND BE ABLE TO RELATE IT TO ANYONE THAT WILL LISTEN. That said, I've experienced the arguments about Magick gas that vibrates and create heat, which I don't subscribe to. So in Happer's presentation, I was enjoying (whether correct or incorrrect) his description about the action of CO2. The reason I recommended the Happer video, which I had seen previously, was because he attempted to reconcile the subjet of the original post. I thought it was relevant. Somehow, I just know I'm about to be wrong about something. A good way to approach it is to first not blindly accept that 'climate change' or 'global warming' must be disproven. This common approach taken by the Church of Global Warming is known as an Attempted Force of Negative Proof fallacy. Here is why this is a fallacy: This fallacy is related to another fallacy, known as the Argument of Ignorance fallacy. The Attempted Force of a Negative Proof fallacy is an attempt to force an Argument of Ignorance fallacy. The argument of ignorance is about set theory. Putting this in a more common scenario: A little boy fears monsters are hiding under the bed. He tells his parents his concerns, and they all look under the bed and find no monster there. The little boy doesn't believe it and thinks his parents are full of shit, and that there are really monsters under the bed. Is the little boy correct? Are the parents? Turns out the little boy is correct. The parents are full of shit. They are making an argument of ignorance fallacy. Sure, when they checked under the bed together, there were no monsters at that time. But what about any other time? Unknown. In formal terms, taking set U which contains unknown elements E1, E2, E3, etc. It is found that E5 does not exist in the set. Does this prove no other elements exist in the set? Of course not. In our scenario with the little boy, E1, E2, etc. are the monsters. The set is the set of all possible monsters at some possible times. Checking for monsters at a particular time does not prove monsters don't exist under the bed at some time. To call it a proof anyway is the fallacy. The argument of ignorance is called that because the one test does not prove all tests. You are ignorant of those results. Sure, you could try to test for all possible monsters at all possible times, but that's an open set. It contains an unknown number of elements. You can't test them all. You cannot make a proof by exhaustion (necessary, and only possible with closed sets) which to test each and every element. Sure, most adults do not believe there are monsters hiding under the bed, but have you ever seen a picture of a dust mite up close? This is where most people go wrong about the Church of Global Warming. You are not required to prove a negative. The Church of Global Warming is required to prove the positive. So far, they have been unable to do so. Instead, they try to turn the tables upon you and attempt a force of a negative proof. It is nothing more than shifting the burden of proof, a fallacy in and of itself. What does the Church of Global Warming need to prove? They must show that what they are arguing is in accordance with a theory of science. A theory is an explanatory argument, so they must also show they have a valid argument. Do even begin, they must: 1) Define 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Obviously circular definitions don't work and are not allowed. Until this is done, no argument can be made, since no argument can be based on a meaningless word without forming a void argument fallacy. (The internal consistency check) 2) Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating any existing theory of science. Science can have no two theories conflict with other. One or both must be falsified. (The external consistency check) 3) Show that any test against the theory is quantifiable, specific, and produces a specific result. (The test of falsifiability) Notice there is no data required. No government agency required. No credentials of any kind required. No peer review required. No negative proof required. Not even the test requires data of any kind. It simply specifies what data must be gathered to perform the test. 3) is meaningless without 1) and 2), which must be accomplished first. Until the Church of Global Warming can accomplish these three requirements, they have nothing to stem any other claim from. This is the proof which they MUST accomplish. You are not required to prove anything. Until they prove these three items, there is simply nothing but religion and noise. This is the point where the train leaves the rail. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 20-11-2019 23:01
21-11-2019 04:42
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	ITN, I understand your point of view but it does not suit my needs. I can see on a debate forum how that position works. However the public at large isn't as sophisticated as the people on this board. They are reading a headline and choosing a side. The 'skeptics' are losing the public relations war. It's not going to work to tell the public that their belief in AGW/CC is wrong. There has to be some effort put forward to discredit the theory. The approach that I'm looking for is to dissect the global warming models with science. There are only so many independent variables involved and some hugely subjective variables like forcing and feedback. I would appreciate legitimate feedback on Happer's presentation. By referring to it I was hoping that I found an approach that can not be falsified. I also hope that IBDM will give me an assessment on Happer's presentation and how factual it is.
21-11-2019 18:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	Harry C wrote: I don't believe in the 'greenhouse effect' and was looking for a reconciliation of why one group believes one thing and the other side believes something else. What specifically did you learn from the video about this? Specifically? From the video? Harry C wrote: I really have no idea what the problem with Happer is for you. Not with Happer, ... with the video. Harry C wrote: To me, it's either science or it's not. So how do you determine that? It appears that you are willing to believe any lie, no matter how WACKY, or to believe that utter gibberish is meaningful wisdom, as long as you are under the impression that the person so feeding you is a "scientist." So let's get back to the video. What specificly do you believe you learned from it? Please remember: you posted it. What specifically are people supposed to learn from the video? Harry C wrote: What is so frustrating for me is trying to find something the average man can relate to. Boolsch'it. Whenever you read the simple truth you dismiss it out of hand. You aren't interested in the truth. You are pushing what appears to be a climate-lemming agenda. Harry C wrote: I see exactly where it went of the rails with him and don't have the same objection about heat flowing from cooler body to warmer. What do you believe you mean by "heat"? Heat: noun In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient. I realize that "heat" is a word in the dictionary. You are the one who is using it. What do you believe you mean by it or are you just gibbering when you use it? Harry C wrote: As true as it may be, I really want to understand what that point of failure is with that theory AND BE ABLE TO RELATE IT TO ANYONE THAT WILL LISTEN. Boolsch'it. I have explained this point of failure to you and you dismiss it out of hand. I will repeat it for your benefit. The short answer is that the warmizombie algorithm is to switch back and forth between violating the laws of thermodynamics and violating Stefan-Boltzmann. The moment you point out that they are violating thermodynamics they immediately respond "no one is saying that additional energy is being created in violation of thermodynamics" ... and they pivot to violating Stefan-Boltzmann. The moment you point out that they are now violating Stefan-Boltzmann they immediately respond "no one is saying that temperature and radiance are moving in opposite directions" ... and they pivot back to violating thermodynamics and you go around and around and around in circles. The longer answer is that warmizombies claim the earth's average global temperature is rising. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy because temperature does not just spontaneously increase. Warmizombies will claim one of two categories of successions of energy form changes that result in an increase in temperature: 1) short-wave to long-wave IR via climate forcings through thermal feedbacks, etc.. or 2) tracking photons that are "re-radiated" back to the surface. In neither case are any of the overly convoluted details of any importance, the bottom line is that they are implying that energy form changes somehow create additional energy, i.e. the necessary implication of an increase in temperature. You point out that this violates thermodynamics. The warmizombies roll their eyes like you are stupid and say "no one is saying that additional energy is being created" (except that they just did) and now they pivot to the claim that "heat is trapped" or "heat loss is slowed" by preventing thermal radiation from escaping into space. In physics terms, they are claiming that earth's temperature is increasing while earth's radiance is decreasing. Stefan-Boltzman explains how that is not possible. Radiance and Temperature necessarily move in the same direction. When you point this out, be prepared for every imaginable semantic quibble about thermal equilibrium, emissivity, even the number of bodies in question (you have to continually wrestle the number of bodies back to "one" because warmizombies will lock you into their death struggle to create a second separate body out of the atmosphere; if you allow that error to be introduced then warmizombies can make any math work to support their arguments). As you are trying to keep the number of bodies to just one, warmizombies will assure you that you "must" treat the atmosphere as a separate body because you need to examine how energy behaves in the atmosphere ... where Global Warming is created. Without skipping a beat they then pivot right back to claiming one of two categories of successions of energy form changes that result in an increase in temperature: 1) short-wave to long-wave IR via climate forcings through thermal feedbacks, etc.. or 2) tracking photons that are "re-radiated" back to the surface. And around and around and around you go. When you will stop, nobody knows. Harry C wrote: So in Happer's presentation, I was enjoying (whether correct or incorrrect) his description about the action of CO2. What did you learn, specifically, is the action of CO2? Did you learn that CO2 creates energy? What specifically is the action and what specifically is the effect? Can you relate this to a real world example in your own experience? OK, I'll save you time and effort. The answer is "no" because Happer opened the video with the promise that he wasn't going to baffle the audience with complicated science ... and then in the middle of the video he presents a monstrous convolution of equation sets and without any explanation he dishonestly leaves the audience to believe that what they are looking at is the settled science of Global Warming ... but it is absolute gibberish. My question to you is "Did you fall for it?" Are you realizing yet that you actually didn't learn anything from that video. Nothing at all. You wasted your time listening to a pleasant, friendly guy lie to you. Harry C wrote: The reason I recommended the Happer video, which I had seen previously, was because he attempted to reconcile the subjet of the original post. Happer did no such thing. In fact, he didn't say anything meaningful in that video. This is why I am asking what you believe you learned from the video because there is nothing to be learned from this video. I want to know why you really posted it; it certainly wasn't to impart any knowledge. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

21-11-2019 19:19
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: Molecules can't increase temperature by themselves. You can't create energy out of nothing. Yet you refuse to accept that molecules have heat content and that Boltzmann's ideal gas law allows for this. When you refuse to accept basic principles in science...
21-11-2019 20:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote:Molecules can't increase temperature by themselves. You can't create energy out of nothing. Yet you refuse to accept that molecules have heat content and that Boltzmann's ideal gas law allows for this. When you refuse to accept basic principles in science... What do you believe you mean by "Heat Content"? All matter has thermal energy giving it temperature. Beyond that, you are inventing concepts for those who don't know the basic principles in science. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-11-2019 04:57
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote: I don't believe in the 'greenhouse effect' and was looking for a reconciliation of why one group believes one thing and the other side believes something else. What specifically did you learn from the video about this? Specifically? From the video? I have to start with what I was attracted to. I had seen Happer's videos and read some of his news items. I was searching specifically for information on what explained the pause in the rise in global average temperatures. (and please forgive my word choice) As I have stated before, I really want to understand why 'alarmists' think CO2 increases temperature. The IPCC information I have read supports the theory of the bouncing molecule increasing heat. So I was interested in any information I could find. From reading here, its represented that the movements of the CO2 molecule are very simple but they are not. Most of the representations make you believe that the molecule moves in only two dimensions. The molecule while flopping up and down in bending mode also rotates on its axis and in circles. [Controversy alert!] Only the bending mode is attributed to global warming. (according to Happer) As the molecule moves it can change frequencies and doesn't remain in the same mode. It mixes with other modes. I also learned the elements of the global warming model. [and I understand your disdain for it, but I want to know what I'm up against] I learned about feedback and forcing factors [boogey science] and that [according to Happer] they are responsible for causing the climate models to be overstated. At that point in time, and without the benefit of the same body of knowledge that you possess, I thought that I had found something relevant to my search. IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote: I really have no idea what the problem with Happer is for you. Not with Happer, ... with the video. Which you get to below. Thank you. IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote: To me, it's either science or it's not. So how do you determine that? It appears that you are willing to believe any lie, no matter how WACKY, or to believe that utter gibberish is meaningful wisdom, as long as you are under the impression that the person so feeding you is a "scientist." I don't know where you come up with your assertions. I am trying to be open minded and listening to everything. Is Happer not a scientist? If not, how will I know one when I find one? IBdaMann wrote: So let's get back to the video. What specificly do you believe you learned from it? Please remember: you posted it. What specifically are people supposed to learn from the video? I already answered the first part. What they were supposed to learn was the following: 1. The predicted increase in average global temperatures stalled around 2003 and has declined since that time. 2. There isn't any correlation between the increase in CO2 and change in global average temperatures. 3. In short, CO2 is not the boogeyman it is made out to be. IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote: What is so frustrating for me is trying to find something the average man can relate to. Boolsch'it. Whenever you read the simple truth you dismiss it out of hand. You aren't interested in the truth. You are pushing what appears to be a climate-lemming agenda. I have not dismissed anything. I'm still learning. Again with the hollow assertions. I don't know what else to say but I am not pushing a "climate-lemming" agenda. IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote: I see exactly where it went of the rails with him and don't have the same objection about heat flowing from cooler body to warmer. What do you believe you mean by "heat"? Heat: noun In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient. I realize that "heat" is a word in the dictionary. You are the one who is using it. What do you believe you mean by it or are you just gibbering when you use it? Heat Transfer: The movement of heat from a warmer object to a colder one – when two substances at different temperatures are mixed together, heat flows from the warmer body to the cooler body until they reach the same temperature (Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics – Thermal Equilibrium). IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote: As true as it may be, I really want to understand what that point of failure is with that theory AND BE ABLE TO RELATE IT TO ANYONE THAT WILL LISTEN. Boolsch'it. I have explained this point of failure to you and you dismiss it out of hand. NEGATIVE! IBdaMann wrote: I will repeat it for your benefit. The short answer is that the warmizombie algorithm is to switch back and forth between violating the laws of thermodynamics and violating Stefan-Boltzmann. The moment you point out that they are violating thermodynamics they immediately respond "no one is saying that additional energy is being created in violation of thermodynamics" ... and they pivot to violating Stefan-Boltzmann. The moment you point out that they are now violating Stefan-Boltzmann they immediately respond "no one is saying that temperature and radiance are moving in opposite directions" ... and they pivot back to violating thermodynamics and you go around and around and around in circles. The longer answer is that warmizombies claim the earth's average global temperature is rising. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy because temperature does not just spontaneously increase. Warmizombies will claim one of two categories of successions of energy form changes that result in an increase in temperature: 1) short-wave to long-wave IR via climate forcings through thermal feedbacks, etc.. or 2) tracking photons that are "re-radiated" back to the surface. In neither case are any of the overly convoluted details of any importance, the bottom line is that they are implying that energy form changes somehow create additional energy, i.e. the necessary implication of an increase in temperature. You point out that this violates thermodynamics. The warmizombies roll their eyes like you are stupid and say "no one is saying that additional energy is being created" (except that they just did) and now they pivot to the claim that "heat is trapped" or "heat loss is slowed" by preventing thermal radiation from escaping into space. In physics terms, they are claiming that earth's temperature is increasing while earth's radiance is decreasing. Stefan-Boltzman explains how that is not possible. Radiance and Temperature necessarily move in the same direction. When you point this out, be prepared for every imaginable semantic quibble about thermal equilibrium, emissivity, even the number of bodies in question (you have to continually wrestle the number of bodies back to "one" because warmizombies will lock you into their death struggle to create a second separate body out of the atmosphere; if you allow that error to be introduced then warmizombies can make any math work to support their arguments). As you are trying to keep the number of bodies to just one, warmizombies will assure you that you "must" treat the atmosphere as a separate body because you need to examine how energy behaves in the atmosphere ... where Global Warming is created. Without skipping a beat they then pivot right back to claiming one of two categories of successions of energy form changes that result in an increase in temperature: 1) short-wave to long-wave IR via climate forcings through thermal feedbacks, etc.. or 2) tracking photons that are "re-radiated" back to the surface. And around and around and around you go. When you will stop, nobody knows. I don't have a single problem with any of the foregoing. In fact I read your global warming bible twice and have inferred all of the above from the interactions that you and ITN have had. IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote: So in Happer's presentation, I was enjoying (whether correct or incorrrect) his description about the action of CO2. What did you learn, specifically, is the action of CO2? Did you learn that CO2 creates energy? What specifically is the action and what specifically is the effect? Can you relate this to a real world example in your own experience? Asked and answered. IBdaMann wrote: OK, I'll save you time and effort. The answer is "no" because Happer opened the video with the promise that he wasn't going to baffle the audience with complicated science ... and then in the middle of the video he presents a monstrous convolution of equation sets and without any explanation he dishonestly leaves the audience to believe that what they are looking at is the settled science of Global Warming ... but it is absolute gibberish. My question to you is "Did you fall for it?" Are you realizing yet that you actually didn't learn anything from that video. Nothing at all. You wasted your time listening to a pleasant, friendly guy lie to you. I would be interested in knowing exactly what you are referring to because I missed it. Don't infer that I'm arguing that it wasn't there. I'm much too green...and just missed where he "dishonestly leaves the audience to believe that what they are looking at is the settled science of Global Warming". IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote: The reason I recommended the Happer video, which I had seen previously, was because he attempted to reconcile the subject of the original post. Happer did no such thing. In fact, he didn't say anything meaningful in that video. This is why I am asking what you believe you learned from the video because there is nothing to be learned from this video. I want to know why you really posted it; it certainly wasn't to impart any knowledge. I said "he attempted" and he did. I posted the video because I'm trying to learn and thought it was relevant to the original post. I've stated before, and I'm not shying away from trying to differentiate the actions of CO2 as attributed by 'alarmists' and 'skeptics' or 'realists', if you prefer. Now, why all the vitriol?
22-11-2019 11:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Harry C wrote: ITN, I understand your point of view but it does not suit my needs. Actually it does, if you are looking for why the Church of Global Warming arguments are wrong. Harry C wrote: I can see on a debate forum how that position works. I really doubt you do. You have been on this forum for a very short time. I have presented my arguments exactly as I've presented them here both on various forums, with politicians, and with others personally. Many have no trouble understanding them. The science involved with showing why 'greenhouse effect' cannot possibly work is simple and easy to learn. There are really only three simple equations to learn: 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)+U where E is energy and U is work, and t is time. In other words, if no work is being performed to add energy to a system, energy is not being added to the system. No gas, vapor, or liquid is any kind of work, and is not any kind of additional energy. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t) where e is entropy and t is time. Entropy can be described as the dispersion of energy in a system. Work can only be performed by concentrated energy in a system. That energy naturally dissipates. When it has done so, no work can be performed. Combining this with the 1st law also means that any work performed does not add energy to the system. Something that is hot is a concentration of thermal energy. Something that is cold is reduced thermal energy. Since energy naturally dissipates, heat (the flow of thermal energy) can only flow from hot to cold. Stefan-Boltzmann law: r=Cet^4 where r is radiance in square meters, t is in deg Kelvin, and both C and e are constants. C is the natural constant 5.67 * 10^-8 and e is a measured constant of the ability of a surface (or gas) to radiate, described as 0 to 100% of an ideal black body's ability to radiate. The Stefan-Boltzmann law covers all frequencies of light. There is no frequency term in the equation or in the value of e. These three concepts are simple. They can be learned by anyone not locked into a fundamentalist belief. Harry C wrote: However the public at large isn't as sophisticated as the people on this board. Some are, some are not. It runs the gamut, just like the people you find on this or any forum. Harry C wrote: They are reading a headline and choosing a side. If you are reading headlines to choose a side,you already have chosen a side. The press today is so full of propaganda that people are leaving it in droves. The same thing is happening to the network news, particularly from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and CBS. In the UK, the BBC has gotten really bad as well. It is, after all, government radio. Frankly, the National Enquirer could almost be considered a better news source than the ones I've just mentioned. The fake news media is just as bad. Harry C wrote: The 'skeptics' are losing the public relations war. No, they are winning. The Church of Global Warming is actually getting smaller, but they are also getting more vocal. More and more people are realizing it's all just a costly hoax. Harry C wrote: It's not going to work to tell the public that their belief in AGW/CC is wrong. There has to be some effort put forward to discredit the theory. First, it's not a theory. You have to DEFINE 'climate change' and 'global warming' before you can make any theory about them. A theory is an explanatory argument. You have to have a valid argument in the first place, not a void argument. Harry C wrote: The approach that I'm looking for is to dissect the global warming models with science. There are only so many independent variables involved and some hugely subjective variables like forcing and feedback. There are no variables. There is no 'global warming' model, for 'global warming' itself hasn't even been defined yet. The 'greenhouse effect' denies science, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No one has been able to describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating one or more (usually all three) laws of physics. Harry C wrote: I would appreciate legitimate feedback on Happer's presentation. By referring to it I was hoping that I found an approach that can not be falsified. I also hope that IBDM will give me an assessment on Happer's presentation and how factual it is. Happer makes quite a few important mistakes: The first is that he claims to know the amount of CO2 in the global atmosphere. This is not possible to measure. We don't have enough stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. The Mauna Loa station has been caught cooking their data. It's quite useless. It is this 'data' that Happer is quoting. Cooked data is not allowed in statistical math. The second is that he claims to know the temperature of the Earth. This is not possible to measure. We simply don't have anywhere near enough thermometers. Both values are the result of bad math. People often make mistakes with statistical math, but these are whoppers. These mistakes are usually the misuse of statistical math to push some kind of agenda. Statistical math is not capable of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to its use of random numbers. Statistical math requires the use of unbiased source data. That data must be published so it can be examined. For temperature, there are two major sources of bias: 1) Time. The Earth moves, the storms move, the air and the ocean move, even the land moves. At the very least, you must measure everything at the same time (by the same authority). 2) Location grouping. Ten thermometers in Seattle tell you nothing about Issaquah, a town just 15 miles away. Averaging these ten thermometers doesn't change that one bit. Thermometers must be uniformly spaced. The big problem is the requirement in statistical math that not only the mean must be calculated, but also the margin of error. One is meaningless without the other. The margin of error calculate requires the declaration of the variance. For temperature, that is simply an observed temperature gradient per mile (or meter, or whatever favorite length unit you like). Temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile is fairly common. If you cook data, you are guessing. You have not a statistical analysis yet! Even running one doesn't mean anything, since every analysis is completely independent of the last one, even with the same data! Thus: * It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. * It is not possible to measure the temperature of the ocean. * It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. * It is not possible to measure the global CO2 content in the atmosphere. * It is not possible to measure the global water vapor in the atmosphere. * It is not possible to measure the precipitation at any given moment in the whole world, or even or a region as small as a city. The only you can measure is the 1 in square that is the opening of the rain gauge. * It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice in the world today. * It is not possible to measure global sea level. You need a reference point for that, and there is none that is valid. Land moves. It even has a tide just like the oceans, just not as pronounced. Satellites cannot measure an absolute temperature. All satellites can measure is light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. You must first know the temperature, which is not possible. No headline can change these things. No government agency, university, news article, etc. can change these things. Anyone telling you the Earth is warming, cooling, etc. is lying. There is no data. It's all just random numbers. Anyone showing you a graph of Earth's temperatures is lying. There is no data. Anyone showing you a graph of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lying. There is no data. Anyone telling you that any magick gas can warm or cool the Earth is lying. They are denying at least one and probably all three laws of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Anyone telling you the 'greenhouse effect' is science is lying. It denies the laws of physics I just mentioned. Anyone claiming credentials is science is lying. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Anyone claiming data is science is lying. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not data. Anyone claiming a consensus in science is lying. Consensus is not used in science at all. It is only used in politics and religion. No YouTube video, newspaper, government agency, scientist, group of scientists, voting bloc, research or study, written paper, book, forum, blog, or any other website, or news network can change any of these things. It is the math. It is the science. 'Greenhouse effect' can't work. Supporting evidence is never used in science. The 'data' that you see constantly repeated over and over is not even 'data'. If you want to start anywhere, ask anyone supporting the Church of Global Warming to define 'global warming' or 'climate change'. You cannot define a word with itself. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 22-11-2019 11:57
24-11-2019 13:28
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	The reason why the 'alarmists' as you like to call it are consistent is because the 'alarmist' position is constrained by the observation of the real world. Happer is wrong, ITN and Ibdaman are also wrong. They are different but still wrong If you are interested in the real world you are in the wrong place. If you want to get told that Steven Hawking, Brian Cox and thousands of other physicists who have made public statements on climate change don't understand basic thermodynamics you are in the right place. And if you think that you more intelligent then the general public after entertaining that ridiculous idea I pity you. Politics should be advised by the science not the science advised by politics.
24-11-2019 23:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	spot wrote: The reason why the 'alarmists' as you like to call it are consistent is because the 'alarmist' position is constrained by the observation of the real world. The reason alarmists are consistent is because their opinions are handed to them by their church leaders and they OBEY without question. Independent thought brings rise to differing viewpoints. Science brings consistency in that regard, but alarmists run counter to science in deference to being consistent with their religious dogma. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-11-2019 23:49
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	[img][/img] IBdaMann wrote: spot wrote: The reason why the 'alarmists' as you like to call it are consistent is because the 'alarmist' position is constrained by the observation of the real world. The reason alarmists are consistent is because their opinions are handed to them by their church leaders and they OBEY without question. Independent thought brings rise to differing viewpoints. Science brings consistency in that regard, but alarmists run counter to science in deference to being consistent with their religious dogma. . I independently figured that your argument is absurd. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 02:48
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	spot wrote: [img][/img] IBdaMann wrote: spot wrote: The reason why the 'alarmists' as you like to call it are consistent is because the 'alarmist' position is constrained by the observation of the real world. The reason alarmists are consistent is because their opinions are handed to them by their church leaders and they OBEY without question. Independent thought brings rise to differing viewpoints. Science brings consistency in that regard, but alarmists run counter to science in deference to being consistent with their religious dogma. . I independently figured that your argument is absurd. Haven't you noticed? itn has been quiet. He's letting his disciples do all the talking.
25-11-2019 07:46
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	James___ wrote: spot wrote: [img][/img] IBdaMann wrote: spot wrote: The reason why the 'alarmists' as you like to call it are consistent is because the 'alarmist' position is constrained by the observation of the real world. The reason alarmists are consistent is because their opinions are handed to them by their church leaders and they OBEY without question. Independent thought brings rise to differing viewpoints. Science brings consistency in that regard, but alarmists run counter to science in deference to being consistent with their religious dogma. . I independently figured that your argument is absurd. Haven't you noticed? itn has been quiet. He's letting his disciples do all the talking. Crashed his plane into an ideal black body. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 10:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	spot wrote: The reason why the 'alarmists' as you like to call it are consistent is because the 'alarmist' position is constrained by the observation of the real world. What observations? You apparently forgot that observations are not a proof. spot wrote: Happer is wrong, ITN and Ibdaman are also wrong. They are different but still wrong If you are interested in the real world you are in the wrong place. If you want to get told that Steven Hawking, Brian Cox and thousands of other physicists who have made public statements on climate change don't understand basic thermodynamics you are in the right place. You don't get to speak for anyone but you. spot wrote: And if you think that you more intelligent then the general public after entertaining that ridiculous idea I pity you. It is you making the ridiculous claim here. It is YOU that is denying both science and mathematics. spot wrote: Politics should be advised by the science not the science advised by politics. True. Don't treat your religion as science. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-11-2019 10:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	spot wrote: [img][/img] IBdaMann wrote: spot wrote: The reason why the 'alarmists' as you like to call it are consistent is because the 'alarmist' position is constrained by the observation of the real world. The reason alarmists are consistent is because their opinions are handed to them by their church leaders and they OBEY without question. Independent thought brings rise to differing viewpoints. Science brings consistency in that regard, but alarmists run counter to science in deference to being consistent with their religious dogma. . I independently figured that your argument is absurd. ...because you deny science and mathematics, the same as any other member of the Church of Global Warming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-11-2019 12:54
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: [img][/img] IBdaMann wrote: spot wrote: The reason why the 'alarmists' as you like to call it are consistent is because the 'alarmist' position is constrained by the observation of the real world. The reason alarmists are consistent is because their opinions are handed to them by their church leaders and they OBEY without question. Independent thought brings rise to differing viewpoints. Science brings consistency in that regard, but alarmists run counter to science in deference to being consistent with their religious dogma. . I independently figured that your argument is absurd. ...because you deny science and mathematics, the same as any other member of the Church of Global Warming. Where as you have a Cult with two members and maybe GasGuzler as a mindless acolyte. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 19:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: [img][/img] IBdaMann wrote: spot wrote: The reason why the 'alarmists' as you like to call it are consistent is because the 'alarmist' position is constrained by the observation of the real world. The reason alarmists are consistent is because their opinions are handed to them by their church leaders and they OBEY without question. Independent thought brings rise to differing viewpoints. Science brings consistency in that regard, but alarmists run counter to science in deference to being consistent with their religious dogma. . I independently figured that your argument is absurd. ...because you deny science and mathematics, the same as any other member of the Church of Global Warming. Where as you have a Cult with two members and maybe GasGuzler as a mindless acolyte. The 1st law of thermodynamics is not a cult. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not a cult. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a cult. Mathematics is not a cult (though it was once considered one!). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-11-2019 19:32
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	y Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: [img][/img] IBdaMann wrote: spot wrote: The reason why the 'alarmists' as you like to call it are consistent is because the 'alarmist' position is constrained by the observation of the real world. The reason alarmists are consistent is because their opinions are handed to them by their church leaders and they OBEY without question. Independent thought brings rise to differing viewpoints. Science brings consistency in that regard, but alarmists run counter to science in deference to being consistent with their religious dogma. . I independently figured that your argument is absurd. ...because you deny science and mathematics, the same as any other member of the Church of Global Warming. Where as you have a Cult with two members and maybe GasGuzler as a mindless acolyte. The 1st law of thermodynamics is not a cult. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not a cult. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a cult. Mathematics is not a cult (though it was once considered one!). You don't know what these things mean they are just mindless invocations to you. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 19:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	spot wrote: y Into the Night wrote: I independently figured that your argument is absurd. ...because you deny science and mathematics, the same as any other member of the Church of Global Warming. Where as you have a Cult with two members and maybe GasGuzler as a mindless acolyte.[/quote] The 1st law of thermodynamics is not a cult. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not a cult. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a cult. Mathematics is not a cult (though it was once considered one!).[/quote] You don't know what these things mean they are just mindless invocations to you.[/quote] You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

25-11-2019 20:21
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	IBdaMann wrote: You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. If heat cannot be stored and you are so smart why dont you grab a poker straight out of a fire? IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. Edited on 25-11-2019 20:24
25-11-2019 20:36
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	spot wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. If heat cannot be stored and you are so smart why dont you grab a poker straight out of a fire? Getting burned by a hot chunk of iron only shows thermal energy NOT being stored and flowing into your hand. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
25-11-2019 20:44
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	GasGuzzler wrote: spot wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. If heat cannot be stored and you are so smart why dont you grab a poker straight out of a fire? Getting burned by a hot chunk of iron only shows thermal energy NOT being stored and flowing into your hand. So if a bar of iron holds onto heat temporarily, why cant a gas? IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 21:13
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	spot wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: spot wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. If heat cannot be stored and you are so smart why dont you grab a poker straight out of a fire? Getting burned by a hot chunk of iron only shows thermal energy NOT being stored and flowing into your hand. So if a bar of iron holds onto heat temporarily, why cant a gas? You do like to assign positions, don't you? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
25-11-2019 21:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	spot wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. If heat cannot be stored and you are so smart why dont you grab a poker straight out of a fire? I do better than that. I weld. I also use gloves. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-11-2019 21:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	spot wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: spot wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. If heat cannot be stored and you are so smart why dont you grab a poker straight out of a fire? Getting burned by a hot chunk of iron only shows thermal energy NOT being stored and flowing into your hand. So if a bar of iron holds onto heat temporarily, why cant a gas? Heat is not contained in anything. Nothing holds heat. You cannot hold, store, or trap heat. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-11-2019 21:52
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	GasGuzzler wrote: spot wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: spot wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. If heat cannot be stored and you are so smart why dont you grab a poker straight out of a fire? Getting burned by a hot chunk of iron only shows thermal energy NOT being stored and flowing into your hand. So if a bar of iron holds onto heat temporarily, why cant a gas? You do like to assign positions, don't you? Assign positions? It's a simple question. It's not hard why won't you answer? IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 21:54
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: spot wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. If heat cannot be stored and you are so smart why dont you grab a poker straight out of a fire? Getting burned by a hot chunk of iron only shows thermal energy NOT being stored and flowing into your hand. So if a bar of iron holds onto heat temporarily, why cant a gas? Heat is not contained in anything. Nothing holds heat. You cannot hold, store, or trap heat. So why not grab the bar. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 21:54
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. If heat cannot be stored and you are so smart why dont you grab a poker straight out of a fire? I do better than that. I weld. I also use gloves. So do I IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
25-11-2019 22:05
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: spot wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are projecting again. I'm trying to recall whether you have ever demonstrated knowledge of anything. Can you help me out on that? Nothing comes to mind off-hand. If heat cannot be stored and you are so smart why dont you grab a poker straight out of a fire? Getting burned by a hot chunk of iron only shows thermal energy NOT being stored and flowing into your hand. So if a bar of iron holds onto heat temporarily, why cant a gas? Heat is not contained in anything. Nothing holds heat. You cannot hold, store, or trap heat. So why not grab the bar. If the hot bar is trapping heat then it should be OK...go for it! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Please update me:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Vaccination Mandate, update...	28	09-11-2021 21:46
The New Global Saving Storage Currency Project Seeking Investors & Update On The ICO Event	0	05-11-2021 11:21
2020.05.17 COVID 19 UPDATE	26	21-05-2020 08:28
Report: Great Lakes feeling effects of rapid climate warming (Update)	1	22-03-2019 17:37
UPDATE: Climate change protester arrested during Charlottetown city council meeting	2	12-03-2019 17:37