Remember me
▼ Content

Since when has science became a computer game?


Since when has science became a computer game?24-02-2019 02:09
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
10 ppm CO2 absorbs 98% of whatever they absorb. So it's impossible every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by the same amount. No wonder why we don't have men like Thales, Fibonacci, Galileo, Newton, Planck, Crick and Watson, Hawking anymore. Nowadays they are all computer gamers. And computer gamers are not scientists.
Edited on 24-02-2019 02:10
24-02-2019 02:26
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
10 ppm CO2 absorbs 98% of whatever they absorb. So it's impossible every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by the same amount. No wonder why we don't have men like Thales, Fibonacci, Galileo, Newton, Planck, Crick and Watson, Hawking anymore. Nowadays they are all computer gamers. And computer gamers are not scientists.



One question for you if you don't mind. 0º C. = 273.15º kelvin, how are CO2 levels factored? Is the increase in 3/2kT a constant from absolute 0 or is there a gradient curve where an increase in CO2 has a value that can be compared to
y = x + (x + 1)
Has an exponential increase ever been considered and if not, why?

@Wake, y = x + (x + 1) is getting into calculus. 2 different values. y can be atmospheric gasses with no CO2 while x + (x + 1) added to atmospheric gases might represent CO2's effect if we consider political correctness which nature isn't.

@Tai Hai Chen, just a debate and nothing personal. It seems that you don't support CO2 as causing climate change. Myself, I am aware of the need for political correctness.
24-02-2019 02:29
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
James___ wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
10 ppm CO2 absorbs 98% of whatever they absorb. So it's impossible every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by the same amount. No wonder why we don't have men like Thales, Fibonacci, Galileo, Newton, Planck, Crick and Watson, Hawking anymore. Nowadays they are all computer gamers. And computer gamers are not scientists.



One question for you if you don't mind. 0º C. = 273.15º kelvin, how are CO2 levels factored? Is the increase in 3/2kT a constant from absolute 0 or is there a gradient curve where an increase in CO2 has a value that can be compared to
y = x + (x + 1)
Has an exponential increase ever been considered and if not, why?

@Wake, y = x + (x + 1) is getting into calculus. 2 different values. y can be atmospheric gasses with no CO2 while x + (x + 1) added to atmospheric gases might represent CO2's effect if we consider political correctness which nature isn't.

@Tai Hai Chen, just a debate and nothing personal. It seems that you don't support CO2 as causing climate change. Myself, I am aware of the need for political correctness.


How does it not? CO2 and O3 are critical components of the atmosphere. 10 ppm O3 in the air absorb 98% of incoming UV radiation. Likewise, 10 ppm CO2 in the air absorb 98% of outgoing IR radiation. I do not believe every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by the same amount, since there's only 2% outgoing IR left to absorb after the first 10 ppm CO2.
Edited on 24-02-2019 02:30
24-02-2019 03:24
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
10 ppm CO2 absorbs 98% of whatever they absorb. So it's impossible every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by the same amount. No wonder why we don't have men like Thales, Fibonacci, Galileo, Newton, Planck, Crick and Watson, Hawking anymore. Nowadays they are all computer gamers. And computer gamers are not scientists.



One question for you if you don't mind. 0º C. = 273.15º kelvin, how are CO2 levels factored? Is the increase in 3/2kT a constant from absolute 0 or is there a gradient curve where an increase in CO2 has a value that can be compared to
y = x + (x + 1)
Has an exponential increase ever been considered and if not, why?

@Wake, y = x + (x + 1) is getting into calculus. 2 different values. y can be atmospheric gasses with no CO2 while x + (x + 1) added to atmospheric gases might represent CO2's effect if we consider political correctness which nature isn't.

@Tai Hai Chen, just a debate and nothing personal. It seems that you don't support CO2 as causing climate change. Myself, I am aware of the need for political correctness.


How does it not? CO2 and O3 are critical components of the atmosphere. 10 ppm O3 in the air absorb 98% of incoming UV radiation. Likewise, 10 ppm CO2 in the air absorb 98% of outgoing IR radiation. I do not believe every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by the same amount, since there's only 2% outgoing IR left to absorb after the first 10 ppm CO2.



58.5º F. or 14.722º C. = 287.87º kelvin.
At what point does CO2 start effecting temperature? Quoting NASA;
The maps above show temperature anomalies, or changes, not absolute temperature. They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

..My question is this, from absolute 0º kelvin, what is the influence of CO2? It has yet to be shown. It is shown from 14º C.
Does the increase to 14.722º C. show the same relationship in kelvins? Is it an exponential increase? 14º C. = 287.15º kelvins. Am using online info, it doesn't quite agree. 273.15º kelvin = 0º C. = 32º f.
58.5º f. seems to be what is considered average temperature from 1950-1980 when there was no warming.
In school the question would be can you graph the increase in temperature and CO2 from x and y axis starting at 0º kelvin and 0 ppm CO2?
I don't think that graph has yet to be shown. This might be a simple one to do. Previous to 1950 when global warming started data can be extrapolated.
Easy enough to do. Can anyone (besides me) do this? It's an easy yes I can or no I can't.
24-02-2019 06:19
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
error code 404. item not found. 2 graphs. 1950-present and 1950-1880.
From 1950-present an increase of CO2 at the annual rate of 1.25 ppm (graphed at 1.4, 300-400). From 310 to 400 ppm.
From 1950-1880, a decrease from 310 to 280. Temperature decrease over a 70 year period (1950-1880) was observed as a decrease in actual observation as taking only 40 years and not 70 years for the corresponding warming. The temperature did not go below 14º C with a corresponding drop in CO2 levels to 200 ppm. The increase after 1950 which predicted the decrease before 1950 were not consistent. The time frame and decrease in CO2 levels were not required.
Are simple questions too difficult to ask? Asking of everyone. It is not possible to mirror the time frame 2019-1950 with 1950-1880. If CO2's are a reflection of atmospheric warming then time frames of 70 years should reflect each other.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7Pk1gGeV91jtsnpe7

edited to add; in both instances the change in temperature is greater than CO2. Yet the temperature and CO2 drop going backwards from 1950 did not materialize. This error needs to be corrected.
edited to correct statements which were in error.

p.s., noticed the graphs that search engines bring up go back to 1960. There was a bump in warming then. Could be where the information being put out is being changed.
Edited on 24-02-2019 06:27
24-02-2019 07:21
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
To simplify the climate change argument.
From 1880 - 1950, + 30 ppm, + 0.2
From 1950 - 2019, + 90 ppm, + 0.6

What's being ignored is the temperature from 1880 - 1910 dropping
and then from 1945 - 1978 basically no increase. When 2 separate events happen
that are ignored so an overall trend can be observed, it's not science.
24-02-2019 15:45
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1171)
Think the key point is that you can make certain, isolated observations of behaviors in a laboratory environment. You can play with all kinds of numbers on the computer, Google search for data, use proxies (estimates/guesses). But, there is no actual way to measure or observe any of it outside, in the actual atmosphere, where it's a real busy place, and a whole lot of other things going on. There is so much discounted as insignificant, or unrelated, but only when considered individually, but doesn't mean that combined, there is no influence at all.

We do experiments and tests on small scale samples, since that's the best we can do these days. Then we use math and computers to scale them up to planetary size results. Just doesn't work out that way in reality, most of the time, a small isolated sample can work a certain way, but it's effectiveness fails as it the scale increases, there are limits.

I really don't understand the part where it's okay to substitute data (proxies) or extrapolate data (create), and call these numbers accurate replacements. They are good enough to illustrate an idea, but they prove nothing. It's still just an idea, and still needs real data to support it, before we can accept it as factual.
24-02-2019 18:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
10 ppm CO2 absorbs 98% of whatever they absorb. So it's impossible every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by the same amount. No wonder why we don't have men like Thales, Fibonacci, Galileo, Newton, Planck, Crick and Watson, Hawking anymore. Nowadays they are all computer gamers. And computer gamers are not scientists.



One question for you if you don't mind. 0º C. = 273.15º kelvin, how are CO2 levels factored? Is the increase in 3/2kT a constant from absolute 0 or is there a gradient curve where an increase in CO2 has a value that can be compared to
y = x + (x + 1)
Has an exponential increase ever been considered and if not, why?

@Wake, y = x + (x + 1) is getting into calculus. 2 different values. y can be atmospheric gasses with no CO2 while x + (x + 1) added to atmospheric gases might represent CO2's effect if we consider political correctness which nature isn't.

@Tai Hai Chen, just a debate and nothing personal. It seems that you don't support CO2 as causing climate change. Myself, I am aware of the need for political correctness.


James - I have absolutely NO IDEA of what you think you're indicating. If you say that the CO2 increase has any relationship at all with temperature you FIRST have to prove that there was a temperature increase. And because we have proof that NASA climate division has committed perjury with the temperatures records that remains to be seen. What we DO know is that Satellite records absolutely DO NOT show anything other than normal chaotic weather patterns since 1978 when they were launched.

Moreover, if you use a 40 or 50 year running average as you should for climate, there has actually been a decreasing in temperature during this period.

Also - there has actually been NO sea level changes. The Mariana's and other low lying islands that were supposedly going to be drowned and for which their governments hit the UN up for billions of dollars have actually grown in land area. The only place where "sea level is rising" is in the New England area which is on the same tectonic plate as upper Quebec which is losing large glaciers that were formed during the Little Ice Age. As these glaciers melt back to their LIA levels the upper ends of this plate lifts with tilts the plate back to it's normal balance dropping the other end of it and making it appear that the sea level is rising.

Moreover, you also have to prove that CO2 in some manner can absorb heat in any areas other than the three narrow absorption bands in which there is almost no energy. That is other than the normal conduction of heat from the surface into the Tropopause like all of the other gases which actually have higher specific heat capacities and conduct more heat than CO2 does.

In order for y = x + (x + 1) to have ANY meaning you have to define the terms and show that they have this specific relationship. And you haven't even attempted to do that.
24-02-2019 21:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
James___ wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
10 ppm CO2 absorbs 98% of whatever they absorb. So it's impossible every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by the same amount. No wonder why we don't have men like Thales, Fibonacci, Galileo, Newton, Planck, Crick and Watson, Hawking anymore. Nowadays they are all computer gamers. And computer gamers are not scientists.



One question for you if you don't mind. 0º C. = 273.15º kelvin, how are CO2 levels factored?

Unrelated. Non-sequitur fallacy.
James___ wrote:
Is the increase in 3/2kT a constant from absolute 0 or is there a gradient curve where an increase in CO2 has a value that can be compared to
y = x + (x + 1)

Unrelated. Non-sequitur fallacy. 3/2kT is not y=x+(x+1).
James___ wrote:
Has an exponential increase ever been considered and if not, why?

Void argument fallacy.
James___ wrote:
@Wake, y = x + (x + 1) is getting into calculus.

y=x+(x+1) is not calculus. It is the simple equation y=2x+1, the equation for a straight line that passes through the Y axis at one and has a slope of two.

As is typical of you, James, you fill your posts with numerous buzzwords and hope something will stick because it sounds 'scientific'.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2019 21:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
10 ppm CO2 absorbs 98% of whatever they absorb. So it's impossible every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by the same amount. No wonder why we don't have men like Thales, Fibonacci, Galileo, Newton, Planck, Crick and Watson, Hawking anymore. Nowadays they are all computer gamers. And computer gamers are not scientists.



One question for you if you don't mind. 0º C. = 273.15º kelvin, how are CO2 levels factored? Is the increase in 3/2kT a constant from absolute 0 or is there a gradient curve where an increase in CO2 has a value that can be compared to
y = x + (x + 1)
Has an exponential increase ever been considered and if not, why?

@Wake, y = x + (x + 1) is getting into calculus. 2 different values. y can be atmospheric gasses with no CO2 while x + (x + 1) added to atmospheric gases might represent CO2's effect if we consider political correctness which nature isn't.

@Tai Hai Chen, just a debate and nothing personal. It seems that you don't support CO2 as causing climate change. Myself, I am aware of the need for political correctness.


How does it not? CO2 and O3 are critical components of the atmosphere. 10 ppm O3 in the air absorb 98% of incoming UV radiation. Likewise, 10 ppm CO2 in the air absorb 98% of outgoing IR radiation. I do not believe every doubling of CO2 increases temperature by the same amount, since there's only 2% outgoing IR left to absorb after the first 10 ppm CO2.

WRONG. ALL of the infrared light is emitted by Earth. Most of the radiance of Earth is from the surface itself. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

While CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light, it is above absolute zero. It is also emitting infrared light to space, just like every other gas in the atmosphere does.

You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.
You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Since when has science became a computer game?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
Still No Climate Change Science1111-07-2019 04:23
Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat128-05-2019 20:13
Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science028-05-2019 15:12
▲ 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