Remember me
▼ Content

Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?



Page 4 of 7<<<23456>>>
14-07-2019 22:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What prevents you from formally defining "Greenhouse Effect"?


So I saw your link is to your own posts, the first to a glossary of some kind. Thanks but "peer reviewed" is a good way to go in science. Find some backup.

He posted copies of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics there, and a copy of the Stefan-Boltzmann law there. He did not make anything up. Those ARE the theories you are denying here. Bulverism fallacy.

Consensus is not used in science. The theory stands. They have not yet been falsified. You just deny them.
tmiddles wrote:
So the definition of things is fluid in every language. "Greenhouse effect" has three meanings I can see:

WRONG. A 'fluid' definition is not a definition at all. Words mean things.
tmiddles wrote:
What makes an actual greenhouse warm

Reducing heat.
tmiddles wrote:
Fourier's original discovery that having gas around a planet makes it warmer(than without gas)
The modern "add on" of believing that CO2, water vapor and other gases are able to absorb thermal energy from infra red radiation from the earth and from sun light to a degree significant enough to really influence the temperature.

Atmospheres absorb light and convert it to thermal energy just as the surface does. The surface is much better at it. You are denying Kirchoff's law again. You can't consider a part of a planet the same as the entire planet.
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles, looking from 1880 to present, CO2 levels do not parallel warming or cooling.


No they don't.

How do you know? It's not possible to measure either the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric CO2 content. We don't have enough instruments. You are denying statistical mathematics again.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm in the "global warming is real but insignificant camp".

This is what IBdaMann refers to as a Warmazombie. So far, the best term I've found this particular sect of the Church of Global Warming.
tmiddles wrote:
There just isn't enough CO2 to make a big enough difference. If there was we would see the correlation as you pointed out.

CO2 make NO difference. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
tmiddles wrote:
It can seem like global warming is very real when some go to the mat and deny everything.

Which is what YOU are doing. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Global warming deniers that deny basic facts

Redefinition fallacy. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth. Don't use it like one.
It is YOU that is denying science and mathematics. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
give more credibility to the political movement than anyone else.

No, it doesn't. You are trying to separate yourself from the Church of Global Warming. You are a member of the Church of Global Warming. There is no denying it.
tmiddles wrote:
Look CO2 does get hot relative to other gases:
Hotter Co2

I see you fell for this particular parlor trick.

All this clown is showing is that CO2 absorbs infrared light. Big deal. We already know this. Absorption of infrared light coming from the surface of a planet does NOT warm either the surface or the planet.

CO2, being warmer than absolute zero, emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, just as the surface does.

You seem to forget that.

tmiddles wrote:
You can't doubt the scientific use of Alka Seltzer

Must've been quite a party those scientists threw. I always refer to Alka Seltzer as 'process stabilizers'. A marketing gimmick we used once.

It was simply a matchbook cover with our logo and the words 'process stabilizers' printed on it. Opening the matchbook cover revealed two Alka Seltzer tablets.

tmiddles wrote:
but still I don't see results in our atmosphere to worry about.

Alka Seltzer doesn't work on the atmosphere.
tmiddles wrote:
Oddly enough the crazy spike in CO2

What spike? It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. Mauna Loa didn't even show a spike. They are cooking their data though, it's useless.
tmiddles wrote:
is a bit of a demonstration of it's insignificance as we don't see crazy shit happening.

I see crazy shit happening all the time. None of it has anything to do with 'global warming' or 'climate change'.

You might actually try DEFINING these words. So far, the best definition for them I've found is here.


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2019 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you missed it before, THIS LINK will provide you all the science references you will need to navigate your issue.


So I tried. For: "Venus", "Huffman", "Fourier", "grey body",
No threads were found.

Create some. You will find discussion about grey bodies at that site in the references section under the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
It would seem to be a glossary.

It is a forum, like this one. It just happens to be one where certain references are easily available.
tmiddles wrote:
Pointing out where wikipedia gets it wrong with well supported arguments would be useful work.


* You can't create energy out of nothing. Wikipedia says you can.
* You can't reduce entropy in any system. Wikipedia says you can.
* You can't make heat flow backwards (from cold to hot). Wikipedia says you can.
* You can't reduce the radiance of an object while that object is getting warmer. Wikipedia says you can.
* It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wikipedia says you can.
* It is not possible to measure a global sea level. Wikipedia says you can.
* It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. Wikipedia says you can.
* It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice content on Earth. Wikipedia says you can.

Wikipedia routinely denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They routinely deny statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics.

Wikipedia believes in the Church of Global warming, just the same as you do.

You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference source with either me or IBdaMann. Neither of us accept it as a reference source for anything.

tmiddles wrote:
I wish you'd clarify your argument here.

He has. So have I. You just deny the arguments presented. Argument of the stone fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
People need perspective on these issues so non-scientists like us can serve a valuable role in figuring out how to clarify an issue for other regular folks.

Then learn about:
* The 1st law of thermodynamics.
* The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* The Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* Kirchoff's law.
* Statistical mathematics.
* Probability mathematics.

These are perspectives that you can't just ignore. You can't just throw them away in favor of your religion without being a denier of science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2019 22:46
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You can't create or destroy energy, only transform it. ..any global warming crap


A distinction needs to be made between the blanket effect of an atmosphere and the separate "global warming crap" theory (that CO2 is struck by sunlight and it's presence is a significant factor in the temperature).

A planet gets hot and the heat is shared with it's atmosphere which can retain the heat.

Do you disagree with that?


No, I don't agree. CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is quite large, around 260 billion cubic miles. In order for CO2 to have any significant effect, it would have to create energy. I'm not aware of special properties, or super-powers, that CO2 might posses, in order to accomplish global warming.

CO2 is being demonized, only because it's the only byproduct of industry, that can't really be collected or contained. Since it's cast as being an evil planet killer, and can't be contained, the only option is to shut down the industrial sources. You have to understand, that 'green' energy is a poor joke, nothing comes close to fossil fuels, cost or energy density. None of the alternatives are as portable, easy to implement anywhere. Solar not so good in the northwest, cloudy much of the time. Wind power in Florida, either too little, or way too much. Biofuels need a lot of farm land, which is better used for food.

Atmosphere isn't a solid mass of molecules, lot of empty space there. Molecules can only deal with a very small amount of energy. Noting reflects or radiates in one direction only. If there was a blanket thrown over the planet, it would let the energy in, to the same degree you claim it hold it in. Works both ways. You do you see how the IPCC only presents one side of pretty much everything. And pretty much every time someone points out a flaw, they drag out a long list of studies and papers, most have little to do with anything, some you have to pay to read, to find out it doesn't really apply. Basically, you waste a lot of time spinning in circles, while they continue to sell a bad product.



Ozone reflects in one direction only. Kind of why there is life on this planet. This might as well be a Republican forum.
14-07-2019 22:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
GasGuzzler wrote:What is the difference between a theory and a law? Does a theory become a law? If so, how?


The easy answer: all laws are theories but not all theories are laws.

The better answer: Laws are science theories depicting cause -> effect, or how nature behaves.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law tells you that a body of a particular temperature (cause) will have a particular radiance (effect).

Einstein's E = mc^2 is also science but it isn't called a law. It is the "mass-energy equivalence" because it isn't a cause -> effect thing. It helps us predict nature but it doesn't address specific causes/effects, it leaves that to other models/theories

I hope that helps.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-07-2019 23:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science isn't 'research' or a 'study'. It is not a web site. It is not a book. It is not a scientists. It is not a 'community'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting in science. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


A bit of a sideways question, but I've been curious about something...

What is the difference between a theory and a law? Does a theory become a law? If so, how?

Thanks!


Not a problem. Settle in, this kind of long.

First a few definitions, as provided by logic:

An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A predicate is simply an assumed conditional. It is actually a fact, which is nothing more than an assumed predicate. We simply assume a predicate to be True for the purposes of the argument.

A predicate itself can be the result of a different argument, of course.

A theory is an explanatory argument. Each theory can come from anywhere, or be inspired by anything. The moment the explanatory argument is made, it is automatically a theory. The argument must of course be a valid one. Fallacies cannot become a theory since they are not a valid argument to begin with.

A theory of science is one that is falsifiable. That is the only requirement. For a theory to be falsifiable, a test must be available to try to destroy that theory. This test is applied to the Null Hypothesis of a theory. That hypothesis asks the question, "How can I try to show this theory to be False?". You can think of a hypothesis as a 'use case' for a theory. Hypothesis come from existing theories, not the other way around.

That test is the key. The test must be available, it must be practical to conduct, it must be specific, and it must produce a specific result. Only tests against the Null Hypothesis make any difference. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. All tests, experiments, etc. are there to try to BREAK the theory, not support it. The theory already has support: itself.

Now we get to a bit of a difference on how I see things as opposed to IBdaMann, but we both get to the same place in the end.

Science is an open functional system. That means any explanatory argument that is falsifiable can be a theory of science. There are literally no limits other than that.

Just explaining things isn't good enough. Open functional systems have no power of prediction, and we want the power of prediction to make the theory useful.

Thus, a theory must be transposed into a closed functional system, such as mathematics. Mathematics is such a system because the entire thing is based on a simple set of axioms and proofs that extend those axioms. Those axioms act like the 'rules of the game'. Mathematics cannot break the rules of the game, or you are playing a different game!

A closed functional system has the power of the formal proof. With that power comes the power of prediction. Example: if a=b+c, and b is 7, and a is 12, we can predict what b is. This is the inherent power of prediction in mathematics. It applies to all of mathematics except through the inverse of the modulus function, which is where random numbers come from and where our modern cryptography come from.

To gain the power of prediction, then, a theory must be transposed into mathematical form (or to that other closed system, logic, which also uses a 'mathematical' like form). The resulting equation is called a Law.

Thus, we can explain the effect of gravity and the parabolic nature of a thrown object on Earth, but we cannot predict it. To predict it, we transpose the theory to F=mA. This is Newton's law of motion. All three 'laws of motion' that you were taught in school stem from this equation. It is actually just a single law, used three different ways.

This law states that: Force is equal to mass times acceleration. Like the great works of Michelangelo, and the great literary works of Shakespeare, and the great music produced by Bash and Beethoven, this equation stands as a great work in science itself, for what Newton did by producing this theory and equation was to focus our attention on what 'force' is, what 'mass' is, and what 'acceleration' is. It focused science on having to answer for some very key things.

Thus:
* a theory comes from anywhere. It's an explanatory argument.
* a theory of science is nothing more than a falsifiable theory, on other words one that can be tested against it's null hypothesis.
* a theory by itself does not predict, it only explains, and therefore does not have the power of prediction.
* a theory transcribed into mathematical form creates an equation, called a 'Law'.

Note that a theory is never proven True. No theory EVER is proven True, whether a scientific one or a non-scientific one. Theories of science, however, can be shown to be False. That is the test of falsifiability.

Also note that non-scientific theories (ones that have no test of falsifiability), can never be proven True nor False. The theory exists, as a circular argument; forever. It may be True, it may be False; but we will never be able to show which. Theories of this sort include the Theory of Creation (an explanatory argument on how life appeared on Earth) or the Theory of Abiogenesis (another explanatory argument on how life appeared on Earth). We know that these two theories conflict with each other, at least one of them MUST be False. But we can't test their null hypothesis. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. BOTH theories remain non-scientific theories. They cannot be formalized into mathematics either, since neither are quantifiable. Neither is a True nor a False, so they can't be formalized into logic either. Neither of these theories have the power of prediction available to them, and neither of these theories have a Law associated with them.

Hope that helps.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-07-2019 23:15
14-07-2019 23:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
James___ wrote: Ozone reflects in one direction only.

How does O3 know in which direction to reflect? Does Climate give it instructions?

James___ wrote:Kind of why there is life on this planet.

Did earth's O3 cause the Big Bang?


James___ wrote:This might as well be a Republican forum.

This is an anonymous forum. No affiliations matter. All ideas need to stand on their own.

I think you are simply realizing that yours don't and "Republicans" was the first blame-target that came to mind.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-07-2019 23:13
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
@tmiddles, with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, they ignore the variable for the atmosphere. Put some hot coffee in a vacuum type thermos. The vacuum around what the coffee is in slows the heat transfer because of a lack of molecules. If the Earth were surrounded by a vacuum like the tropopause or the mesopause, same thing. But fortunately we know that no such barriers exist. It goes against common sense.
15-07-2019 03:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
James___ wrote: Put some hot coffee in a vacuum type thermos.

... and the coffee's temperature never increases. There's no Coffee Warming. Obviously that would be a violation of physics.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-07-2019 06:23
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1432)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science isn't 'research' or a 'study'. It is not a web site. It is not a book. It is not a scientists. It is not a 'community'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting in science. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


A bit of a sideways question, but I've been curious about something...

What is the difference between a theory and a law? Does a theory become a law? If so, how?

Thanks!


Not a problem. Settle in, this kind of long.

First a few definitions, as provided by logic:

An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A predicate is simply an assumed conditional. It is actually a fact, which is nothing more than an assumed predicate. We simply assume a predicate to be True for the purposes of the argument.

A predicate itself can be the result of a different argument, of course.

A theory is an explanatory argument. Each theory can come from anywhere, or be inspired by anything. The moment the explanatory argument is made, it is automatically a theory. The argument must of course be a valid one. Fallacies cannot become a theory since they are not a valid argument to begin with.

A theory of science is one that is falsifiable. That is the only requirement. For a theory to be falsifiable, a test must be available to try to destroy that theory. This test is applied to the Null Hypothesis of a theory. That hypothesis asks the question, "How can I try to show this theory to be False?". You can think of a hypothesis as a 'use case' for a theory. Hypothesis come from existing theories, not the other way around.

That test is the key. The test must be available, it must be practical to conduct, it must be specific, and it must produce a specific result. Only tests against the Null Hypothesis make any difference. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. All tests, experiments, etc. are there to try to BREAK the theory, not support it. The theory already has support: itself.

Now we get to a bit of a difference on how I see things as opposed to IBdaMann, but we both get to the same place in the end.

Science is an open functional system. That means any explanatory argument that is falsifiable can be a theory of science. There are literally no limits other than that.

Just explaining things isn't good enough. Open functional systems have no power of prediction, and we want the power of prediction to make the theory useful.

Thus, a theory must be transposed into a closed functional system, such as mathematics. Mathematics is such a system because the entire thing is based on a simple set of axioms and proofs that extend those axioms. Those axioms act like the 'rules of the game'. Mathematics cannot break the rules of the game, or you are playing a different game!

A closed functional system has the power of the formal proof. With that power comes the power of prediction. Example: if a=b+c, and b is 7, and a is 12, we can predict what b is. This is the inherent power of prediction in mathematics. It applies to all of mathematics except through the inverse of the modulus function, which is where random numbers come from and where our modern cryptography come from.

To gain the power of prediction, then, a theory must be transposed into mathematical form (or to that other closed system, logic, which also uses a 'mathematical' like form). The resulting equation is called a Law.

Thus, we can explain the effect of gravity and the parabolic nature of a thrown object on Earth, but we cannot predict it. To predict it, we transpose the theory to F=mA. This is Newton's law of motion. All three 'laws of motion' that you were taught in school stem from this equation. It is actually just a single law, used three different ways.

This law states that: Force is equal to mass times acceleration. Like the great works of Michelangelo, and the great literary works of Shakespeare, and the great music produced by Bash and Beethoven, this equation stands as a great work in science itself, for what Newton did by producing this theory and equation was to focus our attention on what 'force' is, what 'mass' is, and what 'acceleration' is. It focused science on having to answer for some very key things.

Thus:
* a theory comes from anywhere. It's an explanatory argument.
* a theory of science is nothing more than a falsifiable theory, on other words one that can be tested against it's null hypothesis.
* a theory by itself does not predict, it only explains, and therefore does not have the power of prediction.
* a theory transcribed into mathematical form creates an equation, called a 'Law'.

Note that a theory is never proven True. No theory EVER is proven True, whether a scientific one or a non-scientific one. Theories of science, however, can be shown to be False. That is the test of falsifiability.

Also note that non-scientific theories (ones that have no test of falsifiability), can never be proven True nor False. The theory exists, as a circular argument; forever. It may be True, it may be False; but we will never be able to show which. Theories of this sort include the Theory of Creation (an explanatory argument on how life appeared on Earth) or the Theory of Abiogenesis (another explanatory argument on how life appeared on Earth). We know that these two theories conflict with each other, at least one of them MUST be False. But we can't test their null hypothesis. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. BOTH theories remain non-scientific theories. They cannot be formalized into mathematics either, since neither are quantifiable. Neither is a True nor a False, so they can't be formalized into logic either. Neither of these theories have the power of prediction available to them, and neither of these theories have a Law associated with them.

Hope that helps.


Yeah, that's pretty clear, I think... Thanks!

So a theory cannot be quantified with mathematics, and it stands until it is destroyed.

A law is a quantifiable theory that uses mathematics to predict, or repeat. Have I got it?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
15-07-2019 18:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science isn't 'research' or a 'study'. It is not a web site. It is not a book. It is not a scientists. It is not a 'community'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting in science. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


A bit of a sideways question, but I've been curious about something...

What is the difference between a theory and a law? Does a theory become a law? If so, how?

Thanks!


Not a problem. Settle in, this kind of long.

First a few definitions, as provided by logic:

An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A predicate is simply an assumed conditional. It is actually a fact, which is nothing more than an assumed predicate. We simply assume a predicate to be True for the purposes of the argument.

A predicate itself can be the result of a different argument, of course.

A theory is an explanatory argument. Each theory can come from anywhere, or be inspired by anything. The moment the explanatory argument is made, it is automatically a theory. The argument must of course be a valid one. Fallacies cannot become a theory since they are not a valid argument to begin with.

A theory of science is one that is falsifiable. That is the only requirement. For a theory to be falsifiable, a test must be available to try to destroy that theory. This test is applied to the Null Hypothesis of a theory. That hypothesis asks the question, "How can I try to show this theory to be False?". You can think of a hypothesis as a 'use case' for a theory. Hypothesis come from existing theories, not the other way around.

That test is the key. The test must be available, it must be practical to conduct, it must be specific, and it must produce a specific result. Only tests against the Null Hypothesis make any difference. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. All tests, experiments, etc. are there to try to BREAK the theory, not support it. The theory already has support: itself.

Now we get to a bit of a difference on how I see things as opposed to IBdaMann, but we both get to the same place in the end.

Science is an open functional system. That means any explanatory argument that is falsifiable can be a theory of science. There are literally no limits other than that.

Just explaining things isn't good enough. Open functional systems have no power of prediction, and we want the power of prediction to make the theory useful.

Thus, a theory must be transposed into a closed functional system, such as mathematics. Mathematics is such a system because the entire thing is based on a simple set of axioms and proofs that extend those axioms. Those axioms act like the 'rules of the game'. Mathematics cannot break the rules of the game, or you are playing a different game!

A closed functional system has the power of the formal proof. With that power comes the power of prediction. Example: if a=b+c, and b is 7, and a is 12, we can predict what b is. This is the inherent power of prediction in mathematics. It applies to all of mathematics except through the inverse of the modulus function, which is where random numbers come from and where our modern cryptography come from.

To gain the power of prediction, then, a theory must be transposed into mathematical form (or to that other closed system, logic, which also uses a 'mathematical' like form). The resulting equation is called a Law.

Thus, we can explain the effect of gravity and the parabolic nature of a thrown object on Earth, but we cannot predict it. To predict it, we transpose the theory to F=mA. This is Newton's law of motion. All three 'laws of motion' that you were taught in school stem from this equation. It is actually just a single law, used three different ways.

This law states that: Force is equal to mass times acceleration. Like the great works of Michelangelo, and the great literary works of Shakespeare, and the great music produced by Bash and Beethoven, this equation stands as a great work in science itself, for what Newton did by producing this theory and equation was to focus our attention on what 'force' is, what 'mass' is, and what 'acceleration' is. It focused science on having to answer for some very key things.

Thus:
* a theory comes from anywhere. It's an explanatory argument.
* a theory of science is nothing more than a falsifiable theory, on other words one that can be tested against it's null hypothesis.
* a theory by itself does not predict, it only explains, and therefore does not have the power of prediction.
* a theory transcribed into mathematical form creates an equation, called a 'Law'.

Note that a theory is never proven True. No theory EVER is proven True, whether a scientific one or a non-scientific one. Theories of science, however, can be shown to be False. That is the test of falsifiability.

Also note that non-scientific theories (ones that have no test of falsifiability), can never be proven True nor False. The theory exists, as a circular argument; forever. It may be True, it may be False; but we will never be able to show which. Theories of this sort include the Theory of Creation (an explanatory argument on how life appeared on Earth) or the Theory of Abiogenesis (another explanatory argument on how life appeared on Earth). We know that these two theories conflict with each other, at least one of them MUST be False. But we can't test their null hypothesis. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. BOTH theories remain non-scientific theories. They cannot be formalized into mathematics either, since neither are quantifiable. Neither is a True nor a False, so they can't be formalized into logic either. Neither of these theories have the power of prediction available to them, and neither of these theories have a Law associated with them.

Hope that helps.


Yeah, that's pretty clear, I think... Thanks!

So a theory cannot be quantified with mathematics, and it stands until it is destroyed.

A law is a quantifiable theory that uses mathematics to predict, or repeat. Have I got it?


Pretty close. A theory about something that is quantifiable, such as the way a temperature might behave, can be formalized into mathematical form. A theory that is not quantifiable, such as something about climate, can never be formalized into mathematical form.

You are correct. A theory stands until it is destroyed by falsification. Non-falsifiable, and therefore, non-scientific theories stand forever, since they can never be falsified.

A theory is not a Truth. No theory is ever proven True.

Here is where IBdaMann and I come together in the end. His position is that a theory of science IS basically the equation itself. Otherwise everything holds true about a theory.

He also does recognize, as do I, that a theory also includes a model. This is the noun, so to speak, that the verb, the theory, talks about. It is the simplified bit of the Universe that is used for the theory to explain something.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-07-2019 18:46
15-07-2019 19:22
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1432)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science isn't 'research' or a 'study'. It is not a web site. It is not a book. It is not a scientists. It is not a 'community'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting in science. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


A bit of a sideways question, but I've been curious about something...

What is the difference between a theory and a law? Does a theory become a law? If so, how?

Thanks!


Not a problem. Settle in, this kind of long.

First a few definitions, as provided by logic:

An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A predicate is simply an assumed conditional. It is actually a fact, which is nothing more than an assumed predicate. We simply assume a predicate to be True for the purposes of the argument.

A predicate itself can be the result of a different argument, of course.

A theory is an explanatory argument. Each theory can come from anywhere, or be inspired by anything. The moment the explanatory argument is made, it is automatically a theory. The argument must of course be a valid one. Fallacies cannot become a theory since they are not a valid argument to begin with.

A theory of science is one that is falsifiable. That is the only requirement. For a theory to be falsifiable, a test must be available to try to destroy that theory. This test is applied to the Null Hypothesis of a theory. That hypothesis asks the question, "How can I try to show this theory to be False?". You can think of a hypothesis as a 'use case' for a theory. Hypothesis come from existing theories, not the other way around.

That test is the key. The test must be available, it must be practical to conduct, it must be specific, and it must produce a specific result. Only tests against the Null Hypothesis make any difference. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. All tests, experiments, etc. are there to try to BREAK the theory, not support it. The theory already has support: itself.

Now we get to a bit of a difference on how I see things as opposed to IBdaMann, but we both get to the same place in the end.

Science is an open functional system. That means any explanatory argument that is falsifiable can be a theory of science. There are literally no limits other than that.

Just explaining things isn't good enough. Open functional systems have no power of prediction, and we want the power of prediction to make the theory useful.

Thus, a theory must be transposed into a closed functional system, such as mathematics. Mathematics is such a system because the entire thing is based on a simple set of axioms and proofs that extend those axioms. Those axioms act like the 'rules of the game'. Mathematics cannot break the rules of the game, or you are playing a different game!

A closed functional system has the power of the formal proof. With that power comes the power of prediction. Example: if a=b+c, and b is 7, and a is 12, we can predict what b is. This is the inherent power of prediction in mathematics. It applies to all of mathematics except through the inverse of the modulus function, which is where random numbers come from and where our modern cryptography come from.

To gain the power of prediction, then, a theory must be transposed into mathematical form (or to that other closed system, logic, which also uses a 'mathematical' like form). The resulting equation is called a Law.

Thus, we can explain the effect of gravity and the parabolic nature of a thrown object on Earth, but we cannot predict it. To predict it, we transpose the theory to F=mA. This is Newton's law of motion. All three 'laws of motion' that you were taught in school stem from this equation. It is actually just a single law, used three different ways.

This law states that: Force is equal to mass times acceleration. Like the great works of Michelangelo, and the great literary works of Shakespeare, and the great music produced by Bash and Beethoven, this equation stands as a great work in science itself, for what Newton did by producing this theory and equation was to focus our attention on what 'force' is, what 'mass' is, and what 'acceleration' is. It focused science on having to answer for some very key things.

Thus:
* a theory comes from anywhere. It's an explanatory argument.
* a theory of science is nothing more than a falsifiable theory, on other words one that can be tested against it's null hypothesis.
* a theory by itself does not predict, it only explains, and therefore does not have the power of prediction.
* a theory transcribed into mathematical form creates an equation, called a 'Law'.

Note that a theory is never proven True. No theory EVER is proven True, whether a scientific one or a non-scientific one. Theories of science, however, can be shown to be False. That is the test of falsifiability.

Also note that non-scientific theories (ones that have no test of falsifiability), can never be proven True nor False. The theory exists, as a circular argument; forever. It may be True, it may be False; but we will never be able to show which. Theories of this sort include the Theory of Creation (an explanatory argument on how life appeared on Earth) or the Theory of Abiogenesis (another explanatory argument on how life appeared on Earth). We know that these two theories conflict with each other, at least one of them MUST be False. But we can't test their null hypothesis. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. BOTH theories remain non-scientific theories. They cannot be formalized into mathematics either, since neither are quantifiable. Neither is a True nor a False, so they can't be formalized into logic either. Neither of these theories have the power of prediction available to them, and neither of these theories have a Law associated with them.

Hope that helps.


Yeah, that's pretty clear, I think... Thanks!

So a theory cannot be quantified with mathematics, and it stands until it is destroyed.

A law is a quantifiable theory that uses mathematics to predict, or repeat. Have I got it?


Pretty close. A theory about something that is quantifiable, such as the way a temperature might behave, can be formalized into mathematical form. A theory that is not quantifiable, such as something about climate, can never be formalized into mathematical form.

You are correct. A theory stands until it is destroyed by falsification. Non-falsifiable, and therefore, non-scientific theories stand forever, since they can never be falsified.

A theory is not a Truth. No theory is ever proven True.

Here is where IBdaMann and I come together in the end. His position is that a theory of science IS basically the equation itself. Otherwise everything holds true about a theory.

He also does recognize, as do I, that a theory also includes a model. This is the noun, so to speak, that the verb, the theory, talks about. It is the simplified bit of the Universe that is used for the theory to explain something.


I guess where I'm hung up in this...

Numbers don't lie, there are no grey areas. Why can't a quantifiable theory be proven true? A couple examples maybe? Thanks again for taking the time.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
15-07-2019 20:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
GasGuzzler wrote:Numbers don't lie, there are no grey areas. Why can't a quantifiable theory be proven true? A couple examples maybe? Thanks again for taking the time.

The numbers form exact predictions.

You cannot know if the prediction will, in fact be correct until it occurs. If today's prediction turns out to be false then the model is obviously false.

However, if today's prediction turns out to be correct then you have not yet shown the model to be false. Then you check tomorrow's prediction, and then next week's prediction, and then the one after that, and then the one after that ... and you can certainly prove the model true after the universe's time runs out and you verify that all predictions were correct ... but not until then.

I hope that helps.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-07-2019 20:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
GasGuzzler wrote:I guess where I'm hung up in this...

Numbers don't lie, there are no grey areas. Why can't a quantifiable theory be proven true? A couple examples maybe? Thanks again for taking the time.


I'd like to add something on this point into which I did not delve in my previous post:

Science is based around the word "false," not around the word "true."

A science model is, of course, a predicate believed to be true by its author but belief in its truth/veracity is not assumed beyond that. For this reason the model's falsifiability is mandated to be explicitly stated so that any who want to show the model to be false know exactly how to do so, provided that the model is, in fact, false.

To this end, the scientific method is entirely about showing models to be false. There is nothing in the scientific method to "confirm" any model as "true" for the reasons I stated in my previous post.

The scientific method takes as input a falsifiable model, latches onto its falsifiability and systematically attempts to prove it false. If a model is not proven false today, then the scientific method engages in the next steps to prove it false tomorrow, and then the next steps, and then more steps ... like the Terminator systematically trying non-stop to kill Sarah Connor.

Oh, and that's the definition of an "experiment" by the way, i.e. a test designed to prove a science model false. That's why all experiments are required to start with an hypothesis, i.e. a statement that if it doesn't hold then the model is false.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-07-2019 20:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...*snip*...
Also note that non-scientific theories (ones that have no test of falsifiability), can never be proven True nor False. The theory exists, as a circular argument; forever. It may be True, it may be False; but we will never be able to show which. Theories of this sort include the Theory of Creation (an explanatory argument on how life appeared on Earth) or the Theory of Abiogenesis (another explanatory argument on how life appeared on Earth). We know that these two theories conflict with each other, at least one of them MUST be False. But we can't test their null hypothesis. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. BOTH theories remain non-scientific theories. They cannot be formalized into mathematics either, since neither are quantifiable. Neither is a True nor a False, so they can't be formalized into logic either. Neither of these theories have the power of prediction available to them, and neither of these theories have a Law associated with them.

Hope that helps.


Yeah, that's pretty clear, I think... Thanks!

So a theory cannot be quantified with mathematics, and it stands until it is destroyed.

A law is a quantifiable theory that uses mathematics to predict, or repeat. Have I got it?


Pretty close. A theory about something that is quantifiable, such as the way a temperature might behave, can be formalized into mathematical form. A theory that is not quantifiable, such as something about climate, can never be formalized into mathematical form.

You are correct. A theory stands until it is destroyed by falsification. Non-falsifiable, and therefore, non-scientific theories stand forever, since they can never be falsified.

A theory is not a Truth. No theory is ever proven True.

Here is where IBdaMann and I come together in the end. His position is that a theory of science IS basically the equation itself. Otherwise everything holds true about a theory.

He also does recognize, as do I, that a theory also includes a model. This is the noun, so to speak, that the verb, the theory, talks about. It is the simplified bit of the Universe that is used for the theory to explain something.[/quote]

I guess where I'm hung up in this...

Numbers don't lie, there are no grey areas.[/quote]
Numbers DO lie. Heck. Las Vegas couldn't exist without it!

Math is math. The rules of mathematics do not extend outside the founding axioms of that system. That's why it is a closed functional system.

Where the lie comes in is the assigning of numbers to meaning. Numbers by themselves have no meaning beyond a simple count. What a theory of science does is create an equation that carries a meaning beyond the simple numbers.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Why can't a quantifiable theory be proven true?

Because the theory itself is nothing more than an explanatory argument, thought up by someone to explain what they see or experience.

A theory about a temperature and how it behaves under certain conditions is about:
* the temperature, a quantifiable value.
* the condition (let's say pressure), that is also a quantifiable value.

A theory relates these kinds of things together. It looks like it might be True, but it can never be proven True. There may be an exception we do not know about. That single exception would falsify and destroy the entire theory...utterly.

GasGuzzler wrote:
A couple examples maybe?


Sure. I mentioned earlier a relationship between temperature and pressure. It is noted that when you compress a gas, it's temperature goes up. When this kind of relationship is noted, someone will build a theory around it, such as building a model of atoms bouncing around like individual particles in an enclosed box, and describing what happens when you make the box smaller. The theory explains that when you compress a gas, it gets hotter.

By itself, this doesn't predict anything. It only explains. It does not describe, for example, how much hotter the gas becomes, or how much you have to compress it. Is it linear? Do all gases behave this way? These are answered by supplemental theories such that all gases behave exactly the same way, since all gases are made up of atoms bouncing around in this box model.

Now let's look at the quantifiable values with this model:

First, temperature. But which scale? Fahrenheit is great for describing weather and our own body temperature, but lousy for cooking. Centigrade is a better scale for cooking (and chemistry!) but it doesn't really describe the total thermal energy in an atom or molecule. We want to discuss absolute values of temperature, so the Kelvin scale would be the best to use.

Already, we are discussing quantifiable things, but now we are choosing a scale based on the needs of our model and theory.

How do you describe compression of a gas? One way is to simply make the box smaller. That is, to reduce the volume of the box. That's a quantifiable value. The scale we will use will be the metric scale, in cubic meters (m^3). Can we use cubic inches? Sure. We can build a term in the equation that converts everything to our units of measurement. This kind term is a constant, sometimes called a natural constant, and it's purpose is to convert the equation to our units of measure.

How many little bouncing atoms are in the box to begin with? If there are less of them, doesn't that affect the pressure in the box for a given volume? Sure it does. We can quantify how many little bouncing things are in the box by counting them or weighing them. If we weight them, we run into the problem that different atoms weigh differently, and gasses may be made of many different kinds of atoms. So counting them seems to be the best way. That's a quantifiable value. A common scale for this is the mole, a scale commonly used in chemistry.

One mole of atoms is 6.022 * 10^23 atoms. This is also known as Avogadro's number. It is a simple count of atoms converted into a more convenient scale.

We know that increasing pressure increase temperature. P=RT. In other words, as pressure increases, temperature increases by pressure times some constant (to convert things to our unit of measure).

But there are other factors to consider. Volume is part of pressure, so we can put it on the left side of the equation like so: PV=RT. In other words, P*V is proportional to temperature. As pressure increases, so does temperature, but as volume decreases, so does pressure also increase.

The more atoms (or molecules) in the box, the better. Thermal energy is the average kinetic energy in a molecule or atom, so we can put how many of them there are on the right side of the equation like so: PV=nRT.

Now we have all the factors accounted for. Since this supposed to apply to all gases, we can call it the Ideal Gas Law.

Now we have something we can predict with. It is an equation, and therefore a law of the theory. Now we have something we can test the theory against. That test can be specific and produce a specific result. We can look for exceptions that would falsify the theory or one of the supplemental theories.

One supplemental theory says that this applies to all gases.

We start measuring all different kinds of gases. They all behave according to this equation except for a very few that do behave sort of like the equation, but only if you change R.

So the theory that all gases are ideal is falsified. There is something about some gases that is more elastic concerning the particles in the box. Could the shape be a factor? Unfortunately, the shape of a molecule is not a quantifiable value. The gas is not ideal, but it behaves almost as if it was, and for most practical purposes, the equation still holds true.

So far, no gas has been found to blow up the equation entirely. The theory has not yet been falsified. The Ideal Gas Law is still a theory of science to this day.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Thanks again for taking the time.


Thanks for asking the question with an open mind. This is how we learn. My hat's off to you. Few people take the trouble to try to learn.

This description of forming what is known as the Ideal Gas Law is somewhat brief out of necessity, being on a forum. Hopefully, it's clear enough to show how a theory can be constructed, its quantifiable nature identified, and the formalization process of that theory into a Law. It also hopefully shows, that the meaning of the numbers are important and what can be challenged. The numbers themselves are just simply meaningless numbers. It's the theory that gives these numbers meaning. Perhaps something will come along that destroys the theory, and the equation with it.

The numbers remain. The math remains. What is destroyed is the equation, along with the theory, should such a falsification take place.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-07-2019 20:58
16-07-2019 01:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
Into the Night wrote: Here is where IBdaMann and I come together in the end. His position is that a theory of science IS basically the equation itself.

Well said. The formal, unambiguous expression is a requirement for falsifiability and mandatory to have science.

Into the Night wrote: Sure. I mentioned earlier a relationship between temperature and pressure. It is noted that when you compress a gas, it's temperature goes up. ...[stuff deleted] ... The theory explains that when you compress a gas, it gets hotter.

I'd like to tie this to the Church of Global Warming.

Temperature cannot suddenly increase on its own without additional energy. Warmizombies inevitably claim that something other than additional energy causes an increase in temperature, whether it's the addition of greenhouse gas (whatever that is), photons changing wavelength, photons "slowing," etc... This is simply not possible.

A couple of times (it's very rare but sometimes one encounters warmizombies with a modicum of chemistry background and thus no excuse for believing in Global Warming) I was hit with the retort (I'm paraphrasing) "Of course temperature can increase without additional energy. It happens every time the pressure increases, you stupid denier!"

Keep in mind, additional force is required to increase the pressure which amounts to additional work performed which requires ... you guessed it ... additional energy. How much energy is required to perform that amount of work? Exactly the amount of energy required to increase the temperature the amount raised.

Just remember that temperature cannot increase without additional energy. Ever.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-07-2019 02:07
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1355)
Where can I get a list of molecules with special powers and abilities? CO2, creates energy, destroys they planet with hell fire. O3 reflects in only one direction, and created all life on this planet. The didn't teach this stuff in Chem 101, or maybe I missed those lectures. Guess you only get that kind of education at a Liberal Arts school...
16-07-2019 02:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Here is where IBdaMann and I come together in the end. His position is that a theory of science IS basically the equation itself.

Well said. The formal, unambiguous expression is a requirement for falsifiability and mandatory to have science.

Into the Night wrote: Sure. I mentioned earlier a relationship between temperature and pressure. It is noted that when you compress a gas, it's temperature goes up. ...[stuff deleted] ... The theory explains that when you compress a gas, it gets hotter.

I'd like to tie this to the Church of Global Warming.

Temperature cannot suddenly increase on its own without additional energy. Warmizombies inevitably claim that something other than additional energy causes an increase in temperature, whether it's the addition of greenhouse gas (whatever that is), photons changing wavelength, photons "slowing," etc... This is simply not possible.

A couple of times (it's very rare but sometimes one encounters warmizombies with a modicum of chemistry background and thus no excuse for believing in Global Warming) I was hit with the retort (I'm paraphrasing) "Of course temperature can increase without additional energy. It happens every time the pressure increases, you stupid denier!"

Keep in mind, additional force is required to increase the pressure which amounts to additional work performed which requires ... you guessed it ... additional energy. How much energy is required to perform that amount of work? Exactly the amount of energy required to increase the temperature the amount raised.

Just remember that temperature cannot increase without additional energy. Ever.


Quite right. Increasing pressure is work.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-07-2019 02:30
16-07-2019 02:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Where can I get a list of molecules with special powers and abilities? CO2, creates energy, destroys they planet with hell fire. O3 reflects in only one direction, and created all life on this planet. The didn't teach this stuff in Chem 101, or maybe I missed those lectures. Guess you only get that kind of education at a Liberal Arts school...


They teach it in Magick 101, a required course when majoring in climate 'science'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-07-2019 02:31
16-07-2019 05:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Where can I get a list of molecules with special powers and abilities? CO2, creates energy, destroys they planet with hell fire. O3 reflects in only one direction, and created all life on this planet. The didn't teach this stuff in Chem 101, or maybe I missed those lectures. Guess you only get that kind of education at a Liberal Arts school...


Don't snub cow farts (methane) and the Climate forcings thus created. Some of them are thermal feedbacks that propagate throughout entire synchronized networks of Climate indices.

Don't you forget it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-07-2019 10:43
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1355)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Where can I get a list of molecules with special powers and abilities? CO2, creates energy, destroys they planet with hell fire. O3 reflects in only one direction, and created all life on this planet. The didn't teach this stuff in Chem 101, or maybe I missed those lectures. Guess you only get that kind of education at a Liberal Arts school...


Don't snub cow farts (methane) and the Climate forcings thus created. Some of them are thermal feedbacks that propagate throughout entire synchronized networks of Climate indices.

Don't you forget it.


Wonder if anyone else ever noticed how much Climate Change parallels a cult. They really do have their own language. I know many professions have basically their own language, but you don't really have to go to school, to figure it out. Lawyer talk sucks, but not impossible to follow along. Some technical fields have some unique terminology, mostly calling something by another name. Climate Science, is the only one that has so many things, you actually have to look up, and the only source, is from them. These thing aren't used anywhere else, or aren't used the same way. I guess it's the modern version of the classic cult, gone high-tech.
16-07-2019 12:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:My position is that:

1. You claim ...."


I didn't introduce these concepts they are out there. THIS forum is supposed to be a place to talk about them. And your position is to sit back and not have an argument?

Breaking a wrong answer down is a critical part of the process so join in.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: "Greenhouse effect" has three meanings I can see:

... but it can only have one if we are to discuss it.


Yes and I was clear. I meant Fourier's original greenhouse effect, not including anything to do with CO2 specifically.

My question to you is why is VENUS so much hotter than it should be?

If you don't have an answer and you don't have a response to the common answer that it's due to the gas blanket we call an atmosphere than you're simply opting out of the debate.

Oh and I mentioned Alka-Seltzer because the video you called a parlor trick used to get a bottle full of CO2.

IBdaMann wrote:Let me guess, you don't have any valid datasets for any of this either, do you?


CO2 spiked and the temperature didn't. You think I should take my own measurements on that?

James___ wrote: The pressure difference in the bottles could account for the difference in temperature.

AND
Into the Night wrote:
All gases are heated directly by sunlight. Nothing special about CO2.


James, Into the Night and anyone here: Do you really think that the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation when Oxygen and Nitrogen don't has been faked everywhere? It would be SO easy to prove that! So prove it! That "parlor trick" is pretty easy to set up. Show that the temperature does not go up for CO2 relative to a "non greenhouse" gas.

HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
A distinction needs to be made between the blanket effect of an atmosphere and the separate "global warming crap" theory (that CO2 is struck by sunlight and it's presence is a significant factor in the temperature).

A planet gets hot and the heat is shared with it's atmosphere which can retain the heat.

Do you disagree with that?


No, I don't agree. CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, ...


HarveyH55 I was asking about the blanket effect of an atmosphere not including CO2 in the theory at all. What Fourier observed and what we see in the extreme on Venus.

But general question for you. Do you think it's 0.04% CO2? Is that a reliable number? Do you trust some numbers measured and not others? Do you believe we actually measured the temperature on the surface and through the atmospher of Venus? Because you keep saying that measurements, real actual measurements, are speculation or not reliable.

Help me out here. How can you talk about anything with that level of doubt of about the data that's available.

I mean you act like it's the MATRIX.

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy.


What does a greenhouse do? I truly want to avoid having you launch into the vocab diatribe from now on so let me know how you'd describe it.

I mean an actual greenhouse, with the flowers in it.

We all believe in those. Even HarveryH55

Into the Night wrote:Those ARE the theories you are denying here.


I've been asking questions and you act like I'm trying to sell you insurance. Once again Into the Night why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury? Why do you think it is? I really want to know.

IBdaMann wrote:There's no Coffee Warming. Obviously that would be a violation of physics.


Even if you put it out into the sun?

IBdaMann wrote:
The scientific method takes as input a falsifiable model, latches onto its falsifiability and systematically attempts to prove it false.


Like you could show that CO2 get's no warmer when exposed to infrared radiation than oxygen or Nitrogen. If you could show that with a repeatable experiment it would be undeniable right?

Dude you should totally do that! You would be famous.

Into the Night wrote:
Quite right. Increasing pressure is work.


So are you guys saying that Venus is hotter because it has stronger gravity?

And if an atmosphere cannot act like a blanket and have thermal energy transferred to it, how could it get hot even with pressure?

Just really curious why Venus is so dang hot.
Edited on 16-07-2019 12:27
16-07-2019 14:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
tmiddles wrote one waste of a post


Your post was one long-winded avoidance of your requirements.

You did not define Greenhouse Effect. Fourier is deceased; he can't do it for you. You have had ample opportunities to define your term and have reneged every time.

You have given us your conclusions but you still have not provided any valid datasets that support your conclusions. As such, your conclusions are merely WACKY, unsupported opinions.

You expect others to justify not believing what you refuse to define. What are you, new?

You expect others to engage in a discussion with you when you refuse to participate beyond preaching.

Venus is exactly as hot as it should be. Science, which you ignore, explains it. Go read up.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-07-2019 19:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Where can I get a list of molecules with special powers and abilities? CO2, creates energy, destroys they planet with hell fire. O3 reflects in only one direction, and created all life on this planet. The didn't teach this stuff in Chem 101, or maybe I missed those lectures. Guess you only get that kind of education at a Liberal Arts school...


Don't snub cow farts (methane) and the Climate forcings thus created. Some of them are thermal feedbacks that propagate throughout entire synchronized networks of Climate indices.

Don't you forget it.


Wonder if anyone else ever noticed how much Climate Change parallels a cult. They really do have their own language. I know many professions have basically their own language, but you don't really have to go to school, to figure it out. Lawyer talk sucks, but not impossible to follow along. Some technical fields have some unique terminology, mostly calling something by another name. Climate Science, is the only one that has so many things, you actually have to look up, and the only source, is from them. These thing aren't used anywhere else, or aren't used the same way. I guess it's the modern version of the classic cult, gone high-tech.


More no-tech. Probably the biggest difference between a cult and religion is simply the size. Cults tend to have no more than a few hundred members at most, while the Church of Global Warming has thousands of members.

Most things have their own language to a degree, few outside of radio care about Auroral propagation paths or spread spectrum packet simplex communication (what our cell phones use).

Few outside of optometry care about a sinister eye (the left one) by that name.
Few outside of chemistry know or care what a covalent bond is or what a titration is.
Few outside of aviation know or care what a vortex generator is or why you have them on aircraft.
Few outside of computer programming know or care what an aligned stack object is.

Every profession has its own specialty words, it's own culture. It's own language. Why should the Church of Global Warming be any different?

What you DO see, in addition to that, is the Liberal language. It looks like English, but the words have different meanings, and in many cases have no meaning at all. Those who speak it for long enough can no longer speak English. English speakers are frustrated by Liberal because it looks similar to English and they try to converse with a Liberal, only to get frustrated with the different and void meanings of the words found in Liberal.


The Parrot Killer
16-07-2019 19:22
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1432)
Hey I'd be one wanting to know what a vortex generator is! Never heard of it. Always found flight fascinating but never found my way into aviation.
16-07-2019 19:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:My position is that:

1. You claim ...."


I didn't introduce these concepts they are out there. THIS forum is supposed to be a place to talk about them. And your position is to sit back and not have an argument?

An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. You are making arguments just as he and I are.
tmiddles wrote:
Breaking a wrong answer down is a critical part of the process so join in.

Okay, but when you keep asking the same thing, ignoring the answers, don't be surprised that people get angry at you for wasting their time.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: "Greenhouse effect" has three meanings I can see:

... but it can only have one if we are to discuss it.


Yes and I was clear. I meant Fourier's original greenhouse effect, not including anything to do with CO2 specifically.

Nope. Fourier does not heat any gas. He's dead. Like any mass, any gas can be heated by infrared sunlight.
tmiddles wrote:
My question to you is why is VENUS so much hotter than it should be?

It isn't. It's exactly as hot as it should be. Who are you to assign what temperature a planet should be?
tmiddles wrote:
If you don't have an answer and you don't have a response to the common answer that it's due to the gas blanket we call an atmosphere than you're simply opting out of the debate.

The atmosphere is not a blanket. It does not reduce heat nor create energy.
tmiddles wrote:
Oh and I mentioned Alka-Seltzer because the video you called a parlor trick used to get a bottle full of CO2.

A convenient way to generate small amounts of CO2. Wait...weren't you saying earlier you didn't care if it was CO2??
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Let me guess, you don't have any valid datasets for any of this either, do you?


CO2 spiked and the temperature didn't. You think I should take my own measurements on that?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. We don't have anywhere near enough instrumentation to do it. What instrumentation we DO have is biased by time and location grouping. These are significant factors that MUST be eliminated from the raw data.
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote: The pressure difference in the bottles could account for the difference in temperature.

AND
Into the Night wrote:
All gases are heated directly by sunlight. Nothing special about CO2.


James, Into the Night and anyone here: Do you really think that the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation when Oxygen and Nitrogen don't has been faked everywhere?

Both oxygen and nitrogen absorb infrared radiation. CO2 is better at it. Water is excellent at it.
tmiddles wrote:
It would be SO easy to prove that!

Not a proof. An observation. People have already measured this stuff.
tmiddles wrote:
So prove it!

Not a proof. An observation.
tmiddles wrote:
That "parlor trick" is pretty easy to set up. Show that the temperature does not go up for CO2 relative to a "non greenhouse" gas.

This parlor trick is trying to show that CO2 absorbs infrared light better than another gas. We already know this. The purpose of the parlor trick is to convince fools like you that CO2 is able to retain that heat ans use that to heat the surface of a planet.

* you can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You can't do it on Earth. You can't do it on Venus. You can't make heat flow backwards. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:
A distinction needs to be made between the blanket effect of an atmosphere

There is no blanket effect of an atmosphere. An atmosphere is not a blanket. It does not reduce heat.
tmiddles wrote:
and the separate "global warming crap" theory (that CO2 is struck by sunlight and it's presence is a significant factor in the temperature).

CO2 is like any mass. It absorbs infrared light and converts that to thermal energy. Big deal.
tmiddles wrote:
A planet gets hot and the heat is shared with it's atmosphere which can retain the heat.
Do you disagree with that?

No. It is not possible to slow or trap heat.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 I was asking about the blanket effect of an atmosphere not including CO2 in the theory at all. What Fourier observed and what we see in the extreme on Venus.

Fourier didn't observe it. He speculated it.
tmiddles wrote:
But general question for you. Do you think it's 0.04% CO2? Is that a reliable number?

No. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you trust some numbers measured and not others?

Sure. I trust the temperature at the location of a thermometer. I do not trust that such a number describes the location of anything 100 ft away.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe we actually measured the temperature on the surface

So? One thermometer does not measure the entire surface or the entire planet.
tmiddles wrote:
and through the atmosphere of Venus?

So? One thermometer does not measure the entire atmosphere or the entire planet.
tmiddles wrote:
Because you keep saying that measurements, real actual measurements, are speculation or not reliable.

The measurements at those locations are real, you're reassigning them to describe the entire surface or the entire atmosphere is not. It's a math error.
tmiddles wrote:
Help me out here. How can you talk about anything with that level of doubt of about the data that's available.

We don't. You are assigning a different meaning to the data. That's your error.
tmiddles wrote:
I mean you act like it's the MATRIX.

Maybe to you it is.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy.


What does a greenhouse do?

Reduce heat.
tmiddles wrote:
I truly want to avoid having you launch into the vocab diatribe from now on so let me know how you'd describe it.

A greenhouse reduces heat.
tmiddles wrote:
I mean an actual greenhouse, with the flowers in it.

Yup. A greenhouse reduces heat.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Those ARE the theories you are denying here.


I've been asking questions and you act like I'm trying to sell you insurance.

No, you are trying to sell the Church of Global Warming. I'm not buying.
tmiddles wrote:
Once again Into the Night why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury?

This has already been answered several times. Why do you keep asking the same question?

I'll answer it one last time: Venus is not hotter than Mercury. The surface is hotter because of the sheer weight and pressure of the atmosphere make absorption from the surface so much more efficient, and because the surface is darker than Mercury. It's emissivity is apparently higher.
tmiddles wrote:
Why do you think it is? I really want to know.

Already answered. Do not ask again.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:There's no Coffee Warming. Obviously that would be a violation of physics.


Even if you put it out into the sun?

Shifting the goalpost fallacy (a type of false equivalence fallacy).
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The scientific method takes as input a falsifiable model, latches onto its falsifiability and systematically attempts to prove it false.


Like you could show that CO2 get's no warmer when exposed to infrared radiation than oxygen or Nitrogen.

It doesn't.
tmiddles wrote:
If you could show that with a repeatable experiment it would be undeniable right?

Already done. See the absorption spectra of a variety of different gases of your interest. They are catalogued.
tmiddles wrote:
Dude you should totally do that! You would be famous.

No, he wouldn't. The work has already been done. Most people who did it never became famous.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Quite right. Increasing pressure is work.

So are you guys saying that Venus is hotter because it has stronger gravity?

Venus is not hotter. You are comparing apples to oranges again.
tmiddles wrote:
And if an atmosphere cannot act like a blanket and have thermal energy transferred to it, how could it get hot even with pressure?

Atmospheres are not blankets. They do not reduce heat.
tmiddles wrote:
Just really curious why Venus is so dang hot.

Do not ask again. You have been answered.


The Parrot Killer
16-07-2019 19:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey I'd be one wanting to know what a vortex generator is! Never heard of it. Always found flight fascinating but never found my way into aviation.


Vortex generators are mounted on the top surface of the wing of an aircraft. On some aircraft, you will see little vertical tabs sticking out of the top surface of the wing.

Those little tabs are set at a slight angle to the normal airflow of the wing. As the air passes them, they form little vortices. These essentially suck nearby air back down to the wing surface again, delaying the break away point that airflow leaves the top of the wing's surface. This makes the wing capable of slower flight, and make it more efficient at higher speeds.

Now you know what those little vertical tabs you often see sticking out of the wing on an airline are for and what they are called and why they are there.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-07-2019 19:45
16-07-2019 20:50
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1355)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Where can I get a list of molecules with special powers and abilities? CO2, creates energy, destroys they planet with hell fire. O3 reflects in only one direction, and created all life on this planet. The didn't teach this stuff in Chem 101, or maybe I missed those lectures. Guess you only get that kind of education at a Liberal Arts school...


Don't snub cow farts (methane) and the Climate forcings thus created. Some of them are thermal feedbacks that propagate throughout entire synchronized networks of Climate indices.

Don't you forget it.


Wonder if anyone else ever noticed how much Climate Change parallels a cult. They really do have their own language. I know many professions have basically their own language, but you don't really have to go to school, to figure it out. Lawyer talk sucks, but not impossible to follow along. Some technical fields have some unique terminology, mostly calling something by another name. Climate Science, is the only one that has so many things, you actually have to look up, and the only source, is from them. These thing aren't used anywhere else, or aren't used the same way. I guess it's the modern version of the classic cult, gone high-tech.


More no-tech. Probably the biggest difference between a cult and religion is simply the size. Cults tend to have no more than a few hundred members at most, while the Church of Global Warming has thousands of members.

Most things have their own language to a degree, few outside of radio care about Auroral propagation paths or spread spectrum packet simplex communication (what our cell phones use).

Few outside of optometry care about a sinister eye (the left one) by that name.
Few outside of chemistry know or care what a covalent bond is or what a titration is.
Few outside of aviation know or care what a vortex generator is or why you have them on aircraft.
Few outside of computer programming know or care what an aligned stack object is.

Every profession has its own specialty words, it's own culture. It's own language. Why should the Church of Global Warming be any different?

What you DO see, in addition to that, is the Liberal language. It looks like English, but the words have different meanings, and in many cases have no meaning at all. Those who speak it for long enough can no longer speak English. English speakers are frustrated by Liberal because it looks similar to English and they try to converse with a Liberal, only to get frustrated with the different and void meanings of the words found in Liberal.


Sort of what I was getting at, the other professions have original terms to learn, new words to add to your vocabulary, but they still mean only one thing. Climate Change has a few of those as well, but they assign alternate meanings to words and phrases, which is confusing. Have to learn a new mean, for something that is used a totally different way, anywhere else. Then, you have to recognize the context in which it's used, and who you are speaking with.

I'll probably not understand Greenhouse Effect, since it's not about heat, it's really more about cooling. Outside air doesn't get in or out, to take heat away from the interior, as quickly, if there were no walls at all. In the winter, it's cold, it's windy, but when you find any sort of shelter from the wind, you feel warmer, or actually less cold. Greenhouse only controls the movement of air. The air (gasses) aren't any warmer, than anything else inside the greenhouse.

Forcing and Feedback are a little confusing as well, don't really agree with them, but sort of understand how they are using them.

Man-made CO2, and natural CO2... There is really only one kind of CO2, and it's measured primarily near Hawaii. They get an estimate of man-made CO2, from what is produced, bought and sold, which really doesn't accurately measure how much is actually burned, how much is used for other things. Nature can produce a large quantity as well. Does humans exhaling count differently from the other animals, or do they mean man-burned CO2? Regardless, the total, is a very small, fractional percent of the atmosphere. Not a lot of monitoring stations, some located nearer to the sources of CO2 (pollution), like volcanoes, or power plants. Others are surrounded by vegetation, forests or fields, which use quite a bit, during the day. Even a CO2 monitor in a home, doesn't give a very stable reading, unless programmed to smooth it out a little, longer period between readings.
16-07-2019 21:00
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1355)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey I'd be one wanting to know what a vortex generator is! Never heard of it. Always found flight fascinating but never found my way into aviation.


Vortex generators are mounted on the top surface of the wing of an aircraft. On some aircraft, you will see little vertical tabs sticking out of the top surface of the wing.

Those little tabs are set at a slight angle to the normal airflow of the wing. As the air passes them, they form little vortices. These essentially suck nearby air back down to the wing surface again, delaying the break away point that airflow leaves the top of the wing's surface. This makes the wing capable of slower flight, and make it more efficient at higher speeds.

Now you know what those little vertical tabs you often see sticking out of the wing on an airline are for and what they are called and why they are there.


Flying helicopters and quads, vortex ring state, is a very bad thing. Never imagined intentionally a generating vortex. I only experience it twice, and fortunately recognized it, before it got bad, and slowed my decent, applied some forward motion, settled out pretty quick, thought I was going to crash.
16-07-2019 21:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
HarveyH55 wrote:Wonder if anyone else ever noticed how much Climate Change parallels a cult.

That's why The Global Warming Mythology Reference Manual was created, i.e. to help outsiders understand the mysterious and WACKY cult of Global Warming.

Christians have a religious dogma; they call it "The Word of God."

Warmizombies and Climate Lemmings have a religious dogma; they call it "Climate Science" (formal) or "The Science" (informal).

Christians have/had a slur for non-believers, i.e. "heathens."

Warmizombies and Climate Lemmings have a slur for non-believers, i.e. "deniers."

Christians point out heathens who don't accept the Word of God.

Warmizombies and Climate Lemmings point out the deniers who don't accept The Science.

The vast majority of Christians are smart enough to realize their religion is a religion, and that science is not incompatible with their faith.

The vast majority of Warmizombies and Climate Lemmings aren't smart enough to realize their WACKY religion is a religion, and instead believe that it is science, and actually fear real science, believing it to be a WACKY cult religion to be avoided.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-07-2019 21:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
Into the Night wrote:What you DO see, in addition to that, is the Liberal language.

This is what I see:

Marxist: Capitalism is destroying human society.
Warmizombie: Capitalism is the root of Global Warming and will destroy human society.

Marxist: We need to tax businesses heavily until they go out of business.
Warmizombie: We need to tax businesses heavily until they go out of busines ... in order to combat Global Warming.

Marxist: "Fossil fuels" are making some people very wealthy and are fueling global capitalism, ... and so all "fossil fuels" should all be illegal.
Warmizombie: "Fossil Fuels" fuel global capitalism which fuels Global Warming ... so all "fossil fuels" should be illegal.

Marxist: The "Top 1%" are evil and should have their wealth confiscated and redistributed to everyone else ... and by "everyone else" I mean "to me."
Warmizombie: The "Top 1%" are evil and cause 98% of the world's Global Warming, and they should therefore have their wealth confiscated to subsidize overly expensive energy industries that can't compete on their own, injuring the US and stifling global capitalism.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-07-2019 21:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
Into the Night wrote:These essentially suck nearby air back down to the wing surface again, delaying the break away point that airflow leaves the top of the wing's surface. This makes the wing capable of slower flight, and make it more efficient at higher speeds.


I understand the assistance to slower flight, but I don't see how it makes faster flight more efficient. Did the SR-71 have vortex generators? It seems that they would geometrically increase the drag as flight speed increases.




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-07-2019 22:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
Venus is exactly as hot as it should be. ...Go read up.

And:
Into the Night wrote: you keep asking the same thing, ignoring the answers, don't be surprised that people get angry at you for wasting their time.


I presume you mean look at what comes up on the internet?

I'm asking you IBdaMann and Into the Night: Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury. Mercury being much closer to the Sun. That's a very clear question.

NONE of you have answered it.

Though actually this is the Tangiers Island thread so I'll post a fresh one. Respond there if you choose to.
Edited on 16-07-2019 23:02
16-07-2019 23:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Where can I get a list of molecules with special powers and abilities? CO2, creates energy, destroys they planet with hell fire. O3 reflects in only one direction, and created all life on this planet. The didn't teach this stuff in Chem 101, or maybe I missed those lectures. Guess you only get that kind of education at a Liberal Arts school...


Don't snub cow farts (methane) and the Climate forcings thus created. Some of them are thermal feedbacks that propagate throughout entire synchronized networks of Climate indices.

Don't you forget it.


Wonder if anyone else ever noticed how much Climate Change parallels a cult. They really do have their own language. I know many professions have basically their own language, but you don't really have to go to school, to figure it out. Lawyer talk sucks, but not impossible to follow along. Some technical fields have some unique terminology, mostly calling something by another name. Climate Science, is the only one that has so many things, you actually have to look up, and the only source, is from them. These thing aren't used anywhere else, or aren't used the same way. I guess it's the modern version of the classic cult, gone high-tech.


More no-tech. Probably the biggest difference between a cult and religion is simply the size. Cults tend to have no more than a few hundred members at most, while the Church of Global Warming has thousands of members.

Most things have their own language to a degree, few outside of radio care about Auroral propagation paths or spread spectrum packet simplex communication (what our cell phones use).

Few outside of optometry care about a sinister eye (the left one) by that name.
Few outside of chemistry know or care what a covalent bond is or what a titration is.
Few outside of aviation know or care what a vortex generator is or why you have them on aircraft.
Few outside of computer programming know or care what an aligned stack object is.

Every profession has its own specialty words, it's own culture. It's own language. Why should the Church of Global Warming be any different?

What you DO see, in addition to that, is the Liberal language. It looks like English, but the words have different meanings, and in many cases have no meaning at all. Those who speak it for long enough can no longer speak English. English speakers are frustrated by Liberal because it looks similar to English and they try to converse with a Liberal, only to get frustrated with the different and void meanings of the words found in Liberal.


Sort of what I was getting at, the other professions have original terms to learn, new words to add to your vocabulary, but they still mean only one thing. Climate Change has a few of those as well, but they assign alternate meanings to words and phrases, which is confusing. Have to learn a new mean, for something that is used a totally different way, anywhere else. Then, you have to recognize the context in which it's used, and who you are speaking with.

'Climate change' itself has no meaning at all. Neither does 'global warming'. No one from the Church of Global Warming has been able to define either phrase.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'll probably not understand Greenhouse Effect, since it's not about heat, it's really more about cooling.

Cooling is heat. Every time heat is flowing, something is cooling while something else is warming.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Outside air doesn't get in or out, to take heat away from the interior, as quickly, if there were no walls at all. In the winter, it's cold, it's windy, but when you find any sort of shelter from the wind, you feel warmer, or actually less cold. Greenhouse only controls the movement of air. The air (gasses) aren't any warmer, than anything else inside the greenhouse.
Walls (and greenhouses) work by reducing heat. You can do so by decoupling the hot and cold regions. This is what walls, insulation, blankets, coats, etc. actually do.

The interior of a house is warmer because it has a furnace and the walls reduce heat.
The interior of a greenhouse also reduces heat. It is warmer during the day because radiant heat from the sun is absorbed just like the outside (more or less), but convective heat does not occur to help cool the greenhouse. The roof is in the way. The usual convection of hot air that the surface creates is not available. Convective heat is not available to dissipate thermal energy across a wider area.

The open atmosphere has no roof, nothing to reduce radiant heat from Earth. The only form of heat from Earth is radiant heat. There is conductive heat in space to speak of, and there is no convective heat in space to speak of.

There is still radiant heat coming off the greenhouse. At night, of course, the greenhouse cools to nighttime temperatures just like the outside. This is why a fair number of greenhouses have heaters installed in them.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Forcing and Feedback are a little confusing as well, don't really agree with them, but sort of understand how they are using them.

They don't exist. These 'forcings' and 'feedbacks' are an attempt to enhance their dire message. If you look at such arguments, they are said to be causing the temperature increase, because the temperature increase triggers the 'forcing' or 'feedback'. It's a circular argument fallacy. They are attempting to use a circular argument as a proof.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Man-made CO2, and natural CO2... There is really only one kind of CO2, and it's measured primarily near Hawaii.

Well, there IS a station there, as to what is being measured there and reported...who knows?

There are a few dozen stations scattered around the world, but Hawaii gets special treatment for some reason. These few dozen stations report different amounts of CO2 for readings taken at the same time. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

The Mauna Loa station has been shown to be cooking their data. It is quite useless.

You may recall awhile ago the eruption on the Big Island of a nearby volcano. This was a major eruption, spewing a LOT of CO2 into the atmosphere,right near the Mauna Loa station.

We should have seen a HUGE spike in the data. There was NOTHING.

The only way that can happen is that Mauna Loa station is cooking their data. Cooked data is not acceptable for use in statistical analysis. Only raw data can be used, and THAT must be available AND show that biasing influences on the collection methods have been removed.

The charts you see posted by Church of Global Warming members are the Mauna Loa data, and exclude data from any other station taking readings at the same time. In other words, they are using a SINGLE station to represent global CO2 content, and that station's data is compromised.

So we really have no idea what the global atmosphere CO2 content is, just as we have no idea what the temperature of Earth really is. We don't even have a clear idea if CO2 or temperature are going up, going down, or just staying the same.

We DO know that Sun's output has been relatively constant. We DO know the distance from the Earth to the Sun and that it varies very little. Earth is in an almost circular orbit, becoming more circular as the years pass.

All indications from these factors would indicate Earth's temperature is remaining the same.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They get an estimate of man-made CO2, from what is produced, bought and sold, which really doesn't accurately measure how much is actually burned, how much is used for other things.

More of a wild guess. There are no records world wide of how much CO2 is created by burning stuff. No one is counting or measuring CO2 from campfires, wildfires started by Man, etc. Industrial activity is rather impossible to measure as well. Sometimes a plant burns a lot of fuel, sometimes less, sometimes more. The industrial output of CO2 from a single plant varies hour by hour, day by day, according to the needs of the plant at the time.

The Church of Global Warming wants to concentrate their blame on industrial activity because they stem from the Church of Karl Marx. They are Marxists trying to justify state control of industries.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Nature can produce a large quantity as well.
That it can. A single lightning stroke can create huge wildfires, for example. That's thousands of acres of forest converted into smoke and other particulates, ash, and of course CO2. A single eruption from Mt Saint Helens put out more CO2 than the people of Seattle did since there WAS a city of Seattle (not counting their breathing).

Oh...and Longview, WA and Yakima, WA did not see higher temperatures as a result of the eruption. They got a lot of ash and mud, but no higher temperatures. Yakima in particular got a lot of LOWER temperatures from the eruption effects, since the particulates were so thick they were blocking out much of the Sun.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Does humans exhaling count differently from the other animals, or do they mean man-burned CO2?
They mean CO2 produced by our fires and industrial activity, particularly our industrial activity, since they are Marxists.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Regardless, the total, is a very small, fractional percent of the atmosphere.

True. IF the numbers of Mauna Loa are to be believed, CO2 has a concentration of 0.04% total in the atmosphere. Man's contribution is obviously is some unknown fraction of that.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Not a lot of monitoring stations, some located nearer to the sources of CO2 (pollution), like volcanoes, or power plants. Others are surrounded by vegetation, forests or fields, which use quite a bit, during the day.

Vegetation, including forests and fields, also emit CO2.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Even a CO2 monitor in a home, doesn't give a very stable reading, unless programmed to smooth it out a little, longer period between readings.

Rather a pointless instrument. CO monitors are much more useful to have around if you're going to measure oxides of carbon.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 00:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey I'd be one wanting to know what a vortex generator is! Never heard of it. Always found flight fascinating but never found my way into aviation.


Vortex generators are mounted on the top surface of the wing of an aircraft. On some aircraft, you will see little vertical tabs sticking out of the top surface of the wing.

Those little tabs are set at a slight angle to the normal airflow of the wing. As the air passes them, they form little vortices. These essentially suck nearby air back down to the wing surface again, delaying the break away point that airflow leaves the top of the wing's surface. This makes the wing capable of slower flight, and make it more efficient at higher speeds.

Now you know what those little vertical tabs you often see sticking out of the wing on an airline are for and what they are called and why they are there.


Flying helicopters and quads, vortex ring state, is a very bad thing. Never imagined intentionally a generating vortex.

Yeah. That condition is scary when it hits. It's essentially like a stalled rotor in a helicopter. The stall creates a vortex from the tips of the rotor producing a useless vortex and very little lift. It tends to happen when a rotorcraft descends straight down with too little power, then tries to stop the descent by adding power. The correct course of action is to get the bird moving FORWARD, thus dragging the now useless rotor out of the established ring.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I only experience it twice, and fortunately recognized it, before it got bad, and slowed my decent, applied some forward motion, settled out pretty quick, thought I was going to crash.

It's the forward motion that's the key. Good reactions. It's a scary moment in any rotorcraft flight, even unmanned remote control quadcopters!.

Some rotorcraft respond a bit better by sliding a bit to the LEFT as you go forward. The vortex ring tends to form from the RIGHT side first. This is because of the nature of the linkage at the rotorhead, causing a 90 degree delay in effect. Fortunately for you, quadcopters are rather immune to this problem.

It can be a real BIG problem on autogyros, causing kind of a 'tuck under' under full power and steep climbs. The problem is made worse because the thrust point is below the main drag point (the rotor) and tends to increase the load on the blades. There is no getting out of it unless you cut power entirely, and nose it forcefully DOWN and forward. That takes guts at low altitude, and no mistake about it.

Keep your craft moving forward, particularly when descending, and you will never have a problem with it again.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-07-2019 00:13
17-07-2019 00:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:What you DO see, in addition to that, is the Liberal language.

This is what I see:

Marxist: Capitalism is destroying human society.
Warmizombie: Capitalism is the root of Global Warming and will destroy human society.

Marxist: We need to tax businesses heavily until they go out of business.
Warmizombie: We need to tax businesses heavily until they go out of busines ... in order to combat Global Warming.

Marxist: "Fossil fuels" are making some people very wealthy and are fueling global capitalism, ... and so all "fossil fuels" should all be illegal.
Warmizombie: "Fossil Fuels" fuel global capitalism which fuels Global Warming ... so all "fossil fuels" should be illegal.

Marxist: The "Top 1%" are evil and should have their wealth confiscated and redistributed to everyone else ... and by "everyone else" I mean "to me."
Warmizombie: The "Top 1%" are evil and cause 98% of the world's Global Warming, and they should therefore have their wealth confiscated to subsidize overly expensive energy industries that can't compete on their own, injuring the US and stifling global capitalism.


Good comparison of the two arguments. I see the same thing.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 00:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:These essentially suck nearby air back down to the wing surface again, delaying the break away point that airflow leaves the top of the wing's surface. This makes the wing capable of slower flight, and make it more efficient at higher speeds.


I understand the assistance to slower flight, but I don't see how it makes faster flight more efficient. Did the SR-71 have vortex generators? It seems that they would geometrically increase the drag as flight speed increases.



No. The SR-71 is a supersonic aircraft. Vortex generators won't survive supersonic speeds. Further, air is compressed by the aircraft at supersonic speeds, and vortex generators (even if they did survive!) would be quite useless. Any vortices would be disrupted by the compressed air.

The SR-71 is not trying to be efficient. It is just trying to go as fast as a bat out of hell can. A radar invisible bat out of hell.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-07-2019 00:19
17-07-2019 00:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Venus is exactly as hot as it should be. ...Go read up.

And:
Into the Night wrote: you keep asking the same thing, ignoring the answers, don't be surprised that people get angry at you for wasting their time.


I presume you mean look at what comes up on the internet?

I'm asking you IBdaMann and Into the Night: Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury. Mercury being much closer to the Sun. That's a very clear question.

NONE of you have answered it.
It has been answered several times. Do not ask again.
tmiddles wrote:
Though actually this is the Tangiers Island thread so I'll post a fresh one. Respond there if you choose to.

Fine. We have both already responded, so don't expect us to answer again in there either.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2019 00:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:
We have both already responded, so don't expect us to answer again in there either.


No you didn't, either of you.

You had no answer at all to that question.

In the time you just took to reply you could have quoted it.
Edited on 17-07-2019 00:27
17-07-2019 01:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We have both already responded, so don't expect us to answer again in there either.


No you didn't, either of you.


Into the Night is correct. Not only did we answer several times each, you never bother to read any of the science to which I directed your attention.


tmiddles wrote: I'm asking you IBdaMann and Into the Night: Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury. Mercury being much closer to the Sun. That's a very clear question.

I have a better idea. YOU answer some preliminary questions first:

What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe it?

What do you claim is the temperature of Mercury and why do you believe it?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-07-2019 01:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
What do you claim is the temperature of Venus and why do you believe it?

What do you claim is the temperature of Mercury and why do you believe it?


First of all what was your explanation? I still don't see where there was one.
New thread:
venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

I'm just asking a question. If you can, answer it.

I don't take my own scientific measurements and I'm not a scientist. I'm just interested in this topic.
Edited on 17-07-2019 01:12
Page 4 of 7<<<23456>>>





Join the debate Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How climate change is sinking an Indian island.317-03-2019 21:17
Stream of thought poem re: London snow storms/Garbage Island002-02-2019 13:41
COP21 - Political Fantasy Island206-12-2015 02:11
▲ 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