Remember me
▼ Content

Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?



Page 2 of 7<1234>>>
11-07-2019 02:58
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
@tmiddles, question for you. Should Mercury and Mars have about the same gravity?
This kind of goes into conservation of momentum and momentum is relative to mass. And mass is a property of gravity.
11-07-2019 03:41
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1177)
I really don't see how anyone could be so convinced, that human activity has much of anything to do with the course of this, or any other planet. Only about 20% of the earth's surface is land, and we don't inhabit a good portion of that. It's very large planet, much or what we do, only harms ourselves, and a few other lifeforms. Nothing we've done, has significantly changed the atmosphere, or the planet. We alter the landscape, but the land is still there. Warming/cooling happens everyday, some days more, some less. There is no set normal, for which to say there is a problem, or something needs to be done. What, as a species, have we actually accomplished on a global scale? Have we ever successfully altered any global natural process? Do we turn on/off the faucet in the sky, when we need rain, or decide we've had enough? Can we stop a volcano from erupting, earthquakes from shaking. Do we have any control over hurricanes or tornadoes? No we don't, and all of these things have been a problem, well since any recorded history. We don't even predict when these things are going to happen, until the have already started, and how much impact, until after. We've made some great achievements over the years, but nothing on a global scale, or dealing with the forces of nature.
11-07-2019 04:36
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I really don't see how anyone could be so convinced, that human activity has much of anything to do with the course of this, or any other planet. Only about 20% of the earth's surface is land, and we don't inhabit a good portion of that. It's very large planet, much or what we do, only harms ourselves, and a few other lifeforms. Nothing we've done, has significantly changed the atmosphere, or the planet. We alter the landscape, but the land is still there. Warming/cooling happens everyday, some days more, some less. There is no set normal, for which to say there is a problem, or something needs to be done. What, as a species, have we actually accomplished on a global scale? Have we ever successfully altered any global natural process? Do we turn on/off the faucet in the sky, when we need rain, or decide we've had enough? Can we stop a volcano from erupting, earthquakes from shaking. Do we have any control over hurricanes or tornadoes? No we don't, and all of these things have been a problem, well since any recorded history. We don't even predict when these things are going to happen, until the have already started, and how much impact, until after. We've made some great achievements over the years, but nothing on a global scale, or dealing with the forces of nature.



Thank you for enlightening us. Does anything have meaning? It doesn't. We're born then we die. Who cares?
11-07-2019 05:50
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1177)
It's not about caring, it's about being realistic. We aren't causing the calamities, some people are trying to scare all the little kids with. And we don't have the means to change or control the forces of nature, what the planet throws at us. We do very well at adapting, and surviving these events, which should be the focus of the research being done. We go through some hot spells, so what can we do to stay safe and comfortable, until it passes. Some folks up north of here go through some brutal cold in the winter, maybe some better ways of dealing with those unpleasant months. We don't have to suffer, or keep rebuilding after devastating natural events, if we came up with better ways to deal with them. I know past generations did better at building homes, plenty still standing in the same areas, that are over a hundred years old. We waste some much time and money on things we can't hope to change or control, while there is a lot we could be doing, to lessen the impact, of what going to come anyway. They keep focusing on the warming, but the warming eventually ends, and it gets cooler. They never tell you how hot it could get, before the cooling off, or how long the unpleasant warming will last, just imply it's forever.
11-07-2019 10:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
James___ wrote:
@tmiddles, question for you. Should Mercury and Mars have about the same gravity?
This kind of goes into conservation of momentum and momentum is relative to mass. And mass is a property of gravity.


Mercury is the smaller of the two. It has a mass of 3.3011 * 10^23 kg (about 1/20th of Earth). It's gravity (at the surface) is 3.7m/s^2. It has no moon. It has a very thin atmosphere (less than 0.5nPa, or about 0.000072 apsi at the surface).

Mars, on the other hand, has a mass of 6.4171 * 10^23 kg. (about 1/10th) of Earth). It's gravity at the surface is 3.72072 m/s^2. It has two moons, Phobos and Deimos. It has a thicker atmosphere too, about 636Pa, or about 10apsi at the surface.

Earth's mass (for comparison) is 5.97232 * 10^24 kg, producing a gravity of 9.807 m/s^2 (about 32 ft/s^2) at the surface. It's atmosphere is much thicker than Mars, coming in at 1013.82hPa or 14.7apsi at the surface. It has some 16,000 moons, all of them man made except one, which is simply called The Moon.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-07-2019 10:27
11-07-2019 11:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann wrote:At the very top of Venus' atmosphere on the side facing away from the sun, it is cold.


On what is that statement based?

And temperature is not apples and oranges. It's a quantitative value. Numbers and Numbers.

HarveyH55 wrote:we are all going to die, if CO2 reaches 570 ppm.....that human activity has much of anything to do with ...very large planet,...Have we ever successfully altered any global natural process?


The concern with CO2 levels is a shift of just a few degrees but relatively quickly. In 100 years you'd have a shift that would normally take 100,000. Ecosystems need time to adapt and we may not give them enough.

I like it warm! And plants like CO2. That doesn't mean the above isn't a legitimate concern.

As for the can small humans possibly effect a large planet argument, we know that we have increased CO2 ppm dramatically.

You would agree Volcanoes change the climate I assume? What's the difference between a Volcano suddenly erupting and the combination of lots and lots of burning, every day.

I'd agree the concept that we could alter the weather seems so wild but the theory is reasonable.

Into the Night wrote:Do you believe a sweater put over a rock can keep it warm?


If it's a warm rock it will stay warm longer yes.

James___ wrote:Venus 864/462 same 67.24 8.87 m/s^2...Should Mercury and Mars have about the same gravity?


VENUS has a constant temperature, no low temp: 864 °F (462 °C)

I confess I have no clue about the gravity of planets. I do trust the scientific community on that.

IBdaMann wrote:So, how does your theory hold up if it turns out to be the case that those events actually did not happen?


So the Copernicus facing off against the church was bound to win because the Sun was the center of the solar system. The truth will win out. If you're right the evidence should already be there and will continue to be.

You sound as though you're giving up on science.
11-07-2019 16:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:The concern with CO2 levels is a shift of just a few degrees but relatively quickly.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have nothing to do with the earth's average global temperature.

You should try science instead of religious gibber-babble. I notice that you avoid science. Is there any particular reason?

tmiddles wrote: In 100 years you'd have a shift that would normally take 100,000.

There is no subjunctive in science, only in religion. I don't suppose you have any science to support your religious assertion, do you?

tmiddles wrote: That doesn't mean the above isn't a legitimate concern.

Without science, your assertions are not legitimate concerns.

tmiddles wrote: As for the can small humans possibly effect a large planet argument, we know that we have increased CO2 ppm dramatically.

We do not know this. There's a reason you don't have any valid data on the matter.

tmiddles wrote: You would agree Volcanoes change the climate I assume?

You would agree that you absolutely need to unambiguously define "Climate" in order to answer that question I assume?

Nobody in the history of humanity has unambiguously defined "Climate."

tmiddles wrote: What's the difference between a Volcano suddenly erupting and the combination of lots and lots of burning, every day.

The work performed.

(You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?)

tmiddles wrote: I'd agree the concept that we could alter the weather seems so wild but the theory is reasonable.

There is no theory.

tmiddles wrote: If it's a warm rock it will stay warm longer yes.

When does the blanket increase the rock's temperature?

tmiddles wrote: VENUS has a constant temperature, no low temp: 864 °F (462 °C)

At all altitudes? In Perú they would call you "cojudo."

tmiddles wrote: I confess I have no clue about the gravity of planets. I do trust the scientific community on that.

Who would that be? Engineers at Lockheed Martin or "Climatologists" appearing on CNN?

tmiddles wrote: So the Copernicus facing off against the church was bound to win because the Sun was the center of the solar system. The truth will win out.

The absolute truth is never known, just like we will never know what exactly happened in the past until time machines are invented.

Ergo, you don't know what happened either. You are merely speculating. Actually, that would imply that you are putting some independent analysis into your assertions. You are, in fact, just regurgitating the speculations of others that you were ordered to believe. You obeyed and never questioned.

tmiddles wrote: If you're right the evidence should already be there and will continue to be.

If I am right about what? I have made no claims. I need zero evidence for my zero assertions.

tmiddles wrote:You sound as though you're giving up on science.

Science is all I use. Well, actually science, math, formal logic and my experience. I normally reject religious preachings, like yours, out of hand.

You aren't going to fare any better until you start accepting science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-07-2019 18:04
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1177)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:At the very top of Venus' atmosphere on the side facing away from the sun, it is cold.


On what is that statement based?

And temperature is not apples and oranges. It's a quantitative value. Numbers and Numbers.

HarveyH55 wrote:we are all going to die, if CO2 reaches 570 ppm.....that human activity has much of anything to do with ...very large planet,...Have we ever successfully altered any global natural process?


The concern with CO2 levels is a shift of just a few degrees but relatively quickly. In 100 years you'd have a shift that would normally take 100,000. Ecosystems need time to adapt and we may not give them enough.

I like it warm! And plants like CO2. That doesn't mean the above isn't a legitimate concern.


We have no way of knowing how quickly CO2 shifts take to effect anything, haven't been around long enough to observe such things. Obviously not 100,000 years anyway. There are many natural sources of CO2, not just man-made. Plants have the potential of using quite a bit, if given a chance. The higher the concentration, the more the grow, requiring more CO2. If you read the IPCC reports, they are the ultimate 'experts', even they lack confidence in how much the temperature might rise, over how long. The only certainty they seem to have, is that man-made CO2, is causing global warming. Temperature and CO2 readings jump around quite a bit, and require a lot of mathematical-magic, to illustrate the warming effect. None of their estimates, approximations, or predictions have actually tracked with the raw readings, but they have a huge amount of natural variance to play around in, very large margin of error.


As for the can small humans possibly effect a large planet argument, we know that we have increased CO2 ppm dramatically.

You would agree Volcanoes change the climate I assume? What's the difference between a Volcano suddenly erupting and the combination of lots and lots of burning, every day.

I'd agree the concept that we could alter the weather seems so wild but the theory is reasonable.


I don't know that volcanoes and wild fires change climate at all. I lived out west, in Oregon, during the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, the ash messed up the environment quite a bit for a while, but don't recall any change in the climate, same weather patterns. Same goes for wild fires, usually hot and dry when the breakout, that doesn't often change the climate, it's tends to stay hot and dry. Man-made CO2 is estimated from what fossil fuels are bought and sold, doesn't mean they get burned immediately, both can be store and stockpiled a good while. Both GW Bush and Obama tapped the national reserves, to reduce price at the pump.

People have tried to manipulate the weather, basically forever, and never be able to consistently. Cloud seeding was as close as anyone ever came, but it didn't work all that often. Basically, it could have rained anyway, had they done nothing. There were also many failures, couldn't squeeze a drop.

How do you know that manipulating CO2 has any effect, or will work?


Into the Night wrote:Do you believe a sweater put over a rock can keep it warm?


If it's a warm rock it will stay warm longer yes.

James___ wrote:Venus 864/462 same 67.24 8.87 m/s^2...Should Mercury and Mars have about the same gravity?


VENUS has a constant temperature, no low temp: 864 °F (462 °C)

I confess I have no clue about the gravity of planets. I do trust the scientific community on that.

IBdaMann wrote:So, how does your theory hold up if it turns out to be the case that those events actually did not happen?


So the Copernicus facing off against the church was bound to win because the Sun was the center of the solar system. The truth will win out. If you're right the evidence should already be there and will continue to be.

You sound as though you're giving up on science.
11-07-2019 19:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:At the very top of Venus' atmosphere on the side facing away from the sun, it is cold.


On what is that statement based?

On observations from probes, and the ideal gas law.
tmiddles wrote:
And temperature is not apples and oranges. It's a quantitative value. Numbers and Numbers.

I have a thermometer embedded in an ice cube. It reads 20 deg F. I have another in an oven. It reads 400 deg F. Therefore the average temperature in the room is 190 deg F, yet there is nowhere on Earth that 190 deg F has ever been recorded by a weather station. What's wrong? Are you really this stupid?
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:we are all going to die, if CO2 reaches 570 ppm.....that human activity has much of anything to do with ...very large planet,...Have we ever successfully altered any global natural process?


The concern with CO2 levels is a shift of just a few degrees but relatively quickly. In 100 years you'd have a shift that would normally take 100,000. Ecosystems need time to adapt and we may not give them enough.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. CO2 has absolutely NO capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does. You are AGAIN ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, as well as observations.

In Seattle, KSEA once 20 deg F. That was just six months ago. Today, KSEA is seeing temperatures as high as 95 deg F. Seattle has warmed 75 deg F in just six days! Should we be alarmed? Why do your 'few degrees' mean anything? How are you even measuring it?
tmiddles wrote:
I like it warm! And plants like CO2. That doesn't mean the above isn't a legitimate concern.

CO2 is not a concern. It has absolutely NO capability to warm the Earth. It's not even possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. It is not evenly distributed in the atmosphere and we do not have enough stations capable of measuring atmospheric CO2.

Mauna Loa itself is cooking it's data. It is useless.
tmiddles wrote:
As for the can small humans possibly effect a large planet argument, we know that we have increased CO2 ppm dramatically.

No, we don't. It is not possible to measure global atmospheric CO2.
tmiddles wrote:
You would agree Volcanoes change the climate I assume? What's the difference between a Volcano suddenly erupting and the combination of lots and lots of burning, every day.

An academic question. CO2 has absolutely NO capability to warm the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
I'd agree the concept that we could alter the weather seems so wild but the theory is reasonable.

CO2 has absolutely NO capability to modify the weather.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Do you believe a sweater put over a rock can keep it warm?

If it's a warm rock it will stay warm longer yes.

If it's a cold rock it will stay cold longer too. How do you consider a sweater capable of warming a rock?
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Venus 864/462 same 67.24 8.87 m/s^2...Should Mercury and Mars have about the same gravity?


VENUS has a constant temperature, no low temp: 864 °F (462 °C)
The temperature of Venus is unknown. We have taken five samples of temperature at different times at different locations. Nighttime and daytime temperatures are close, but not the same. The thick atmosphere is an effective fluid carrying thermal energy around the planet.
tmiddles wrote:
I confess I have no clue about the gravity of planets.

It really is pretty simple. The more mass, the higher the gravity.
tmiddles wrote:
I do trust the scientific community on that.

It's a package deal, dude. You trust ALL of science or not at all.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:So, how does your theory hold up if it turns out to be the case that those events actually did not happen?


So the Copernicus facing off against the church was bound to win because the Sun was the center of the solar system.

No, it isn't. The Sun is NOT at the center of our solar system. It wobbles around the actual center.
tmiddles wrote:
The truth will win out.
It did. The wobble has been measured and is predictable. In other words, there is an equation (a long one, involving the orbits of each planet and their mass) for it.
tmiddles wrote:
If you're right the evidence should already be there and will continue to be.
It is.
tmiddles wrote:
You sound as though you're giving up on science.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the ideal gas law.

You are also denying mathematics, specifically statistical mathematics and algebra.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2019 02:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann:

Question: Do believe that the gasses of any planet's atmosphere can cause the surface temperature to be higher than if there were a different composition of gases or no atmosphere at all?

Oh and I can help you with "Climate", it's defined as the weather, which is the temperature, precipitation/humidity, and wind. So now you know!
Of course we're mainly talking about the temperature as people usually are when discussing the weather. But come on man. I didn't even need a dictionary for that.

HarveyH55:

Do you believe scientists can analyze sediment, trapped air bubble is ice ect. to determine the conditions on earth long ago?

Into the Night:

Temperature of a place always means surface temperature unless otherwise stated.

Science can measure things very competently. They are really doing amazing work. Look at all the incredible technology we have! Science is not as pathetic and useless as you seem to make it out to be.

Yes they can measure gas concentrations. Easier than a paternity test!
Is a conspiracy to falsify data possible? Sure. Would a global warming conspiracy manage to falsely claim that Venus was a lot hotter than Mercury when it's not? No

Do we know that Venus is a lot hotter than Mercury?
Yes we do. There is no REASONABLE doubt about that. If there is back it up with ANYTHING please.

You all seem hell bent on not allowing ANY facts to be put on the table. This is the sign of zealot.
12-07-2019 04:53
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1177)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann:

Question: Do believe that the gasses of any planet's atmosphere can cause the surface temperature to be higher than if there were a different composition of gases or no atmosphere at all?

Oh and I can help you with "Climate", it's defined as the weather, which is the temperature, precipitation/humidity, and wind. So now you know!
Of course we're mainly talking about the temperature as people usually are when discussing the weather. But come on man. I didn't even need a dictionary for that.

HarveyH55:

Do you believe scientists can analyze sediment, trapped air bubble is ice ect. to determine the conditions on earth long ago?

Into the Night:

Temperature of a place always means surface temperature unless otherwise stated.

Science can measure things very competently. They are really doing amazing work. Look at all the incredible technology we have! Science is not as pathetic and useless as you seem to make it out to be.

Yes they can measure gas concentrations. Easier than a paternity test!
Is a conspiracy to falsify data possible? Sure. Would a global warming conspiracy manage to falsely claim that Venus was a lot hotter than Mercury when it's not? No

Do we know that Venus is a lot hotter than Mercury?
Yes we do. There is no REASONABLE doubt about that. If there is back it up with ANYTHING please.

You all seem hell bent on not allowing ANY facts to be put on the table. This is the sign of zealot.


No, I don't believe ice core samples hold a lot of value, some gasses pass through ice, like CO2... We also have no idea when the ice was formed, since sometimes ice melts, at an alarming rate... Sediment suffers a similar flaw, could have lost a few hundred layers do to flood waters, or some other event. Could have missed a few centuries do to a long dry spell. Who knows, nobody was around to observe and record the formation. It's only acceptable, do to there isn't anything else to work with, but most would keep in mind that it isn't strong.

If climate is simply weather, then climate change is a non-issue, since weather changes pretty much everyday. Changes a lot with the seasons. We just had global warming last month, few days made it over a hundred degrees (barely, briefly), but this month our climate changed again, low to mid 90s. 79 degrees right now. Basically, we already saw the predicted 5-7 F degree increase, predicted for 2050, and it already passed. Guess by you definition, the crisis is over...
12-07-2019 05:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
HarveyH55 wrote:We also have no idea when the ice was formed...


It seems you're just saying science can't figure out what has or is happening. You're very wrong and the proof of it is the success of the human race in figuring so much out using science.

We DO know a lot about what happened on earth long ago. We can measure things.

And since the dawn of humanity the weather has been the thing we are the most concerned with. The biggest deal there was and a big deal still.

Yes it's "Just the weather" you're right. No one has said anything different in the global warming crisis camp (of which I'm not a member)
12-07-2019 06:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
Science is about the truth/reality even if it doesn't always nail it.

So using science against a misrepresentation of science is an excellent approach.

I was just very annoyed watching the HBO Chernobyl series as the distortions in science it perpetuated. Namely not describing that radiation is all around us and an unavoidable part of being in the universe.

Comparing the amount of radiation to what is in a banana has been a favorite tool for pro nuclear environmental folks (of which I definitely am):
radiation scale chart, 2 = a banana

Demonstrating insignificance and scale is helpful. Denying that science works is not.
12-07-2019 07:18
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:We also have no idea when the ice was formed...


It seems you're just saying science can't figure out what has or is happening. You're very wrong and the proof of it is the success of the human race in figuring so much out using science.

We DO know a lot about what happened on earth long ago. We can measure things.

And since the dawn of humanity the weather has been the thing we are the most concerned with. The biggest deal there was and a big deal still.

Yes it's "Just the weather" you're right. No one has said anything different in the global warming crisis camp (of which I'm not a member)



CO2 doesn't pass through ice.
12-07-2019 16:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote: Question: Do believe that the gasses of any planet's atmosphere can cause the surface temperature to be higher than if there were a different composition of gases or no atmosphere at all?

Do I "believe"? This is not religion. What does science say?

The science I have, specifically Stefan-Boltzmann, tells me that you are suggesting something that is physically impossible but that is an absolute central core belief in your religion, like a man dead for three days coming back to life, or a planet's radiance decreasing while the planet's average temperature increases.

What science do believe you have to support your religious beliefs? [hint: you well know that you have none. ]

tmiddles wrote: Oh and I can help you with "Climate", it's defined as the weather, which is the temperature, precipitation/humidity, and wind. So now you know!

Then the answer is no, CO2 does not have any magickal superpower to control the weather.

tmiddles wrote: Of course we're mainly talking about the temperature as people usually are when discussing the weather.

When people talk about the weather, they are usually talking about the weather. When they want to talk about the temperature specifically, they usually use the word "temperature" specifically.

tmiddles wrote: But come on man. I didn't even need a dictionary for that.

No, you needed someone to ream misinformation into you.

tmiddles wrote: Do you believe scientists can analyze sediment, trapped air bubble is ice ect. to determine the conditions on earth long ago?

They cannot. We don't have time machines.

tmiddles wrote: Temperature of a place always means surface temperature unless otherwise stated.

This is stupid.

What is the earth's surface temperature?

Science deals with a body's average temperature.

tmiddles wrote: Science can measure things very competently.

Science cannot measure anything.

tmiddles wrote: They are really doing amazing work.

Give me their names.

Now, tell me how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

tmiddles wrote: Look at all the incredible technology we have!

Now tell me how this is relevant.

tmiddles wrote: Science is not as pathetic and useless as you seem to make it out to be.

I understand what science is, and I use it exclusively but science is not a religion to be worshiped as you seem to think. This leads me to ask why you praise science to the extent that you do but then avoid it completely. Do you have a good explanation?

tmiddles wrote: Yes they can measure gas concentrations.

That is not what Into the Night wrote. Your misrepresentation of his position seems almost intentional ... perhaps because you don't know what you're talking about ... because you are scientifically illiterate.

The assertion before you is that no one can determine planet earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration to a usable margin of error.

tmiddles wrote: Is a conspiracy to falsify data possible? Sure.

Is a conspiracy to fabricate data absolutely certain? Sure is.

tmiddles wrote: Would a global warming conspiracy manage to falsely claim that Venus was a lot hotter than Mercury when it's not? No

They sure fooled you.

tmiddles wrote: Do we know that Venus is a lot hotter than Mercury?

No, we don't know ... which means you don't know.

Some of us might speculate that the daytime surface of Venus might be typically hotter than the daytime surface of Mercury ... but it is speculation.

tmiddles wrote: Yes we do. There is no REASONABLE doubt about that. If there is back it up with ANYTHING please.

Christians claim that there is no doubt about the existence of God ... and they certainly have no doubt. Religion is all about unquestioning faith without the scientific method.

tmiddles wrote: You all seem hell bent on not allowing ANY facts to be put on the table.

You are clearly hell bent on imposing your religious beliefs onto others.

I'll stick with science, thank you very much.

tmiddles wrote: This is the sign of zealot.

You certainly are.

So this is where we stand: You are going to dig up the science that shows how planetary surface temperatures are altered via changing atmospheric levels of CO2. Then you are going to post here in this thread the valid dataset from which we can all calculate the earth's atmospehric CO2 level to a usable margin of error.

Until then, you are simply wrong on all counts and your arguments are summarily dismissed.

Good luck.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-07-2019 17:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote: Science is about the truth/reality even if it doesn't always nail it.

Incorrect. Egregiously incorrect.

Religion is about "Truth" even if it doesn't always nail it.

Science is about nature; it is not about what's "true" and science cannot "confirm" anything. Science is merely that which is falsifiable but that which has not yet been shown to be false.

tmiddles wrote: So using science against a misrepresentation of science is an excellent approach.

That's why science so effectively debunks "Greenhouse Effect."

tmiddles wrote: I was just very annoyed watching the HBO Chernobyl series as the distortions in science it perpetuated. Namely not describing that radiation is all around us and an unavoidable part of being in the universe.

Then turn off the HBO, drink a little rum and crank up the Rammstein ... and let the power of the dark side flow through you. You might just muster enough gumption to start questioning your trusted church leaders who have you bent over furniture and who are reaming the Global Warming fanaticism into you while you beg for more.

You really need to stop avoiding science and start questioning those you currently "trust" who are taking advantage your trust to manipulate you into being a political pawn.

tmiddles wrote: radiation scale chart, 2 = a banana

Wikipedia is summarily dismissed. It is not an authoritative source. In fact, it is awash in errors. Wikipeida is the lube that is being used in your reaming.

tmiddles wrote:Demonstrating insignificance and scale is helpful. Denying that science works is not.

Good. Very good. I'll expect you to join me on the science side of the fence.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-07-2019 17:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
tmiddles wrote:We DO know a lot about what happened on earth long ago. We can measure things.

Proxy data is not considered valid in science. Proxy data is discarded. All of it.

Ergo, since we don't have time machines, the scientific method cannot be applied to speculation about the past.

We know absolutely nothing about the (relatively distant) past beyond our speculation. What a bitter pill to swallow, eh?

tmiddles wrote: And since the dawn of humanity the weather has been the thing we are the most concerned with.

Humanity's obsession with sex has totally dwarfed concerns about the weather. Survival has always been another huge concern. Food is pretty high up on the list. War/fighting/weapons/physical defense/etc... has always been a top concern as well. Personal wealth and acquisition of resources is also up there.

No, I don't think weather ever made the top ten.

tmiddles wrote: Yes it's "Just the weather" you're right. No one has said anything different in the global warming crisis camp (of which I'm not a member)

Yes, they have said differently. Many have said many different things. You may pretend that you somehow speak for countless others but you get to speak only for yourself.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-07-2019 17:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
James___ wrote: CO2 doesn't pass through ice.

Correct. Gases don't generally succeed in passing through solids.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-07-2019 18:19
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1177)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:We also have no idea when the ice was formed...


It seems you're just saying science can't figure out what has or is happening. You're very wrong and the proof of it is the success of the human race in figuring so much out using science.

We DO know a lot about what happened on earth long ago. We can measure things.

And since the dawn of humanity the weather has been the thing we are the most concerned with. The biggest deal there was and a big deal still.

Yes it's "Just the weather" you're right. No one has said anything different in the global warming crisis camp (of which I'm not a member)


Looking into the distant past, before anyone was there to observe and record, isn't science, it speculation. It's not repeatable, it already happened, the why and the how are lost. Not everyone will agree with the consensus, which is what is the accepted, most likely explanation. Climatology uses consensus to sell a product. There consensus was a couple thousand scientists, out of hundreds of thousands.

We can't predict future events, it's speculation, not science. Read the IPCC Assessment Reports, even they don't firmly cross that line, though play it pretty close. The use a lot of words like 'may', 'could', 'can', but not 'will', 'does', 'has'. Even the IPCC is so sure of their predictions/prophecies, no confidence or conviction. Surprises me that so many have faith in it.

Learn from the distant past... We know from fossil remains, that there were a lot of huge critters roaming the planet at some point in time. These giants would have had a massive appetite, huge daily feed bill. That food would have been primarily plants, since we know of no other living thing that eats dirt for food. So, I tend look at what plants need to grow quickly, to provide the needed food, for those massive animals. They need a consistently warm climate, and lots of CO2. CO2 is key, because it's the carbon used in the building blocks of every living thing on the planet.

This is one of the points that really confuses me. CO2 is an essential molecule for life, of all kinds. Plants had to be faster growing, in the past, with more CO2 available. Climate Change dictates that we must reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. The warming predicted, doesn't really exceed the requirements of plants, least not the food plants. There is no question that the population, not just human, has greatly increased over the past 300 years (since the industrial burning began), and continues to rise. Cutting CO2, will reduce the environmental carbon, and the available food. Some might find a warmer climate uncomfortable, but it's much worse to not have food.

Fortunately, I don't think climate change is happening as the propaganda implies. Weather patterns will shift some occasionally, as they tend to do, but the whole planet isn't going to burn up. I do believe that increasing CO2 would be a greater benefit. Reducing CO2 is a major threat to all life. I'm not sure if there are many who share these views, but certainly it should have been considered.
12-07-2019 19:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann:

Question: Do believe that the gasses of any planet's atmosphere can cause the surface temperature to be higher than if there were a different composition of gases or no atmosphere at all?

No. The Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny, does not specify composition. It specifically shows the law applies the same way regardless of composition.
tmiddles wrote:
Oh and I can help you with "Climate", it's defined as the weather, which is the temperature, precipitation/humidity, and wind. So now you know!

So...weather and climate mean exactly the same thing???
tmiddles wrote:
Of course we're mainly talking about the temperature as people usually are when discussing the weather. But come on man. I didn't even need a dictionary for that.

Doesn't matter anyhow. Dictionaries do not define words. So now the only thing important about climate is the temperature???
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55:

Do you believe scientists can analyze sediment, trapped air bubble is ice ect. to determine the conditions on earth long ago?

No. Science does not use proxy data.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night:

Temperature of a place always means surface temperature unless otherwise stated.

The temperature of a planet is not the surface temperature. You are still trying to compare two completely different things.
tmiddles wrote:
Science can measure things very competently.

Science isn't measurement. Science isn't data. Science isn't observations. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
tmiddles wrote:
They are really doing amazing work.

You are attempting a math error again.
tmiddles wrote:
Look at all the incredible technology we have!

Science isn't engineering. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
tmiddles wrote:
Science is not as pathetic and useless as you seem to make it out to be.

I'm not making it out to be useless or pathetic. You are simply denying it.
tmiddles wrote:
Yes they can measure gas concentrations.
Easier than a paternity test!

In a sealed chamber, at a station, using an instrument designed for the purpose. A few dozen stations is not enough to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. The Mauna Loa station is not valid data since they are cooking it.

CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. You cannot use cooked data in statistical summaries.
tmiddles wrote:
Is a conspiracy to falsify data possible? Sure. Would a global warming conspiracy manage to falsely claim that Venus was a lot hotter than Mercury when it's not? No

Neither the temperature of Venus nor Mercury are known.
tmiddles wrote:
Do we know that Venus is a lot hotter than Mercury?

No.
tmiddles wrote:
Yes we do.

No, we don't.
tmiddles wrote:
There is no REASONABLE doubt about that.

Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to show raw data. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare and justify variance source.
tmiddles wrote:
If there is back it up with ANYTHING please.

Just did.
tmiddles wrote:
You all seem hell bent on not allowing ANY facts to be put on the table.

I have put quite a few facts on the table:

The 1st law of thermodynamics.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The Ideal Gas law.
Statistical mathematics.
Probability mathematics.
Random number mathematics.

tmiddles wrote:
This is the sign of zealot.

YALIF. You are just denying all of what I and IBdaMann has put on the table. You are denying science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2019 19:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:We also have no idea when the ice was formed...


It seems you're just saying science can't figure out
Science doesn't 'figure out' anything. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument.
tmiddles wrote:
what has
Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.
tmiddles wrote:
or is happening.

Science has no power of prediction. It is an open functional system. It must turn to a closed functional system, such as mathematics, to gain that power. The power of prediction comes with the power of the formal proof. That process is called 'formalizing' a theory. The resulting equation is called a 'law'.

What is the equation for 'global warming'? What is the equation for 'climate change'? Oh...wait...you haven't yet even DEFINED 'global warming' nor 'climate change'.

You can't have a theory of any kind about what you can't define, dude.

tmiddles wrote:
You're very wrong and the proof of it is the success of the human race in figuring so much out using science.
Science doesn't figure anything out. It simply explains.
tmiddles wrote:
We DO know a lot about what happened on earth long ago.
No, we don't.
tmiddles wrote:
We can measure things.
Speculation. Proxy data doesn't tell us anything. It depends on conclusions and circular arguments: religion.
tmiddles wrote:
And since the dawn of humanity the weather has been the thing we are the most concerned with.

How do you know? Were you there?
tmiddles wrote:
The biggest deal there was and a big deal still.
How do you know? Were you there?
tmiddles wrote:
Yes it's "Just the weather" you're right. No one has said anything different in the global warming crisis camp (of which I'm not a member)

You are a member of the Church of Global Warming. Don't lie.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2019 19:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
Science is about the truth/reality even if it doesn't always nail it.

No. Philosophy is about truth/reality. It always nails it. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. No theory is ever proven True. A falsifiable theory may be shown to be False.
tmiddles wrote:
So using science against a misrepresentation of science is an excellent approach.

Not possible. No two theories of science can conflict with each other. One or both MUST be falsified. This is known as the External Consistency check.

There is also a thing called the Internal Consistency check. A theory, any theory, whether a scientific one or not, cannot be based on a fallacy.

You have not yet defined 'global warming' or 'climate change'. You are making a void argument fallacy. Until you define these words, you cannot have any theories about them, whether scientific ones or not.
tmiddles wrote:
I was just very annoyed watching the HBO Chernobyl series as the distortions in science it perpetuated. Namely not describing that radiation is all around us and an unavoidable part of being in the universe.

Oh! So you want to suddenly talk about the idiots at the Chernobyl reactor? Or do you want to talk about background radiation?
tmiddles wrote:
Comparing the amount of radiation to what is in a banana has been a favorite tool for pro nuclear environmental folks (of which I definitely am):
radiation scale chart, 2 = a banana

I see. You want to suddenly talk about bananas now.
tmiddles wrote:
Demonstrating insignificance and scale is helpful. Denying that science works is not.

Significance and scale have nothing to do with science. Non-sequitur fallacy. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has nothing to do with measurement (observation), or data.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2019 19:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:We also have no idea when the ice was formed...


It seems you're just saying science can't figure out what has or is happening. You're very wrong and the proof of it is the success of the human race in figuring so much out using science.

We DO know a lot about what happened on earth long ago. We can measure things.

And since the dawn of humanity the weather has been the thing we are the most concerned with. The biggest deal there was and a big deal still.

Yes it's "Just the weather" you're right. No one has said anything different in the global warming crisis camp (of which I'm not a member)



CO2 doesn't pass through ice.

But it does. Ice is permeable to CO2.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2019 19:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
HarveyH55 wrote: We can't predict future events, it's speculation, not science.

Actually yes, we can. Science is predicting nature.

If you cannot predict something then you don't have science for it.

For example, if you hold a golfball in your hand, extend your arm and let go ... using science I can predict that the golfball will accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 in the direction of the earth's center of mass.

I can definitely predict that specific event in nature ... precisely because I have science. Science = Predict Nature. Technology = Control Nature.

Climate Change cannot be predicted because it is a religion and thus has no science supporting it. If you ask for Climate Change predictions, you are asking for Climate Change science which is something that does not exist, therefore you can never get any Climate Change predictions that are anything more than guesses. This is why all the doom-n-gloom we have been hearing non-stop is always at least twelve years into the future ... and they are always modified during that time into different guesses that are, you guessed it, at least another twelve years into the future ... and the original guesses are not only forgotten, they are actively buried/erased as if they are Hillary Clinton's emails.

That's how religious prophecies work.

Science will specifically predict the what and the when.


There's no way to predict the past. That's a contradiction, hence science cannot tell us anything about the past. Science does not speculate. Science does not offer opinions. Science does not guess.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-07-2019 19:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: CO2 doesn't pass through ice.

Correct. Gases don't generally succeed in passing through solids.


Incorrect. Gases DO succeed in passing through solids.

While is correct to say that gases do not pass through solids freely, they DO pass through solids. This is called the permeability of that solid. It is why a balloon slowly deflates. Gas is leaking through the rubber of the balloon. Helium balloons leak faster due to the small size of the helium molecule.

CO2 does pass through ice. It takes awhile, but it DOES pass through ice.

(yes, I know 'permeability' also refers to how magnetic fields are affected by a solid as well.)

Ammonia gas will pass through ice as well. This was actually a problem with the ammonia refrigeration systems since a leak could be covered by ice and disperse, making it hard to locate. Ice rinks based on ammonia systems also had this problem.

Oxygen passes through an egg shell. If it didn't, the chick inside would die. The egg is self contained for nourishment, but the oxygen the developing chick needs comes from outside.

The problem is, of course, that a solid isn't completely solid. There are spaces between the atoms of any solid.

Ice is a crystal of water, with large gaps built right into the structure itself. It's why ice floats. Even a large molecule like CO2 can squeeze through it over time.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2019 19:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: We can't predict future events, it's speculation, not science.

Actually yes, we can. Science is predicting nature.


Only when it combined with a closed functional system, like mathematics. Without that, a theory can only explain, but it cannot predict. That is why theories are formalized into mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
12-07-2019 21:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: We can't predict future events, it's speculation, not science.

Actually yes, we can. Science is predicting nature.


Only when it combined with a closed functional system, like mathematics. Without that, a theory can only explain, but it cannot predict. That is why theories are formalized into mathematics.


Right. We've been over this several times. You and I agree semantically. We each use different words to express the same ideas because we each have separate emphases.

You wish to emphasize that prediction is only possible with formal, unambiguous expression. Absolutely correct. You often include mention that math is a closed system ... which is true, but is somewhat irrelevant, or perhaps redundant. The closed nature of mathematics stems from the fact that everything is unambiguously defined ... strangely even the undefined terms ... but that is a topic for another discussion. It is the fact that everything is unambiguously defined that allows for the application of logic which allows for "calculations" which become the "predictions" of nature. If you prefer to encapsulate all that under "it's a closed system" then I'm with you. If I had ever disagreed with you I would have jumped in to say something but you are completely correct, even if you aren't using my wording.

I, on the other hand, prefer to treat the formal, unambiguous expression of the ideas as just a necessary component of science. As such, using my wording, the science, which is necessarily expressed in math, is making the prediction. If an idea is not formally specified then it isn't science, regardless of how brilliant the idea may be. All of this is due to science requiring falsifiability which necessarily requires absolutely unambiguous specification lest the scientific method not be applicable. I don't believe you disagree.

The bottom line is that you offer valuable contributions on this topic and if someone wants to benefit from those contributions he or she needs to accept your wording. You get to decide how you express your ideas. Similarly when I discuss science, I prefer to semantically lock down the prediction aspect as making science what it is and why we have it. If you take away predictability, you no longer have science ... you have "description" and "specification."

Ergo, you are aboslutely correct. The mathematics produce the predictions. Rock on.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-07-2019 21:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
Into the Night wrote:Incorrect. Gases DO succeed in passing through solids.

Excellent! I accept the challenge!

I claim that gases do not go through solids. I cite the poly-exclusion principle. I claim that gases can, at best, pass through holes, however small they might be.

I claim that holes are not solids.

Bring it on, baby! I am turning up the Rammstein as I type this!


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-07-2019 00:29
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1177)
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


I read this dozens of times every day, sometime, just in one reply... Oddly enough, the repetition doesn't compel me to buy it. I'm not sure why, maybe it's that I seperate philosophy from science. Maybe philosophy in college was one of my least favorite classes, for many reasons. I don't deny that Karl Popper was a brilliant philosopher, I'm just not able to believe science was never defined, before then. Science had been around avery long time, before Karl Popper, and many other brilliant thinkers, making startling discoveries. Sort of insulting to them, implying they had no clue what science was, until Karl Popper was born. The scientific method, was developed before Popper.
13-07-2019 00:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Incorrect. Gases DO succeed in passing through solids.

Excellent! I accept the challenge!

I claim that gases do not go through solids. I cite the poly-exclusion principle. I claim that gases can, at best, pass through holes, however small they might be.

I claim that holes are not solids.

Bring it on, baby! I am turning up the Rammstein as I type this!


Okay. I'll go with holes are not solids.

Ice has holes.


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2019 01:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
oops
Edited on 13-07-2019 02:20
13-07-2019 01:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
I read this dozens of times every day, sometime, just in one reply... Oddly enough, the repetition doesn't compel me to buy it.

It's an absolutely correct statement and I'll be happy to help you realize the full meaning.

First, understand that science falls under philosophy which operates on formal logic (which is why Philosophy 101 is usually a course in formal logic). Philosophy was long ago partitioned into Physics (physical nature) and Metaphysics (beyond physical nature or the supernatural).

Science does, in fact, fall under philosophy. So does math.

Here's a definition and we'll work through it:

Science is a set of falsifiable models/theories that predict nature.


"models" = "theories" ... they are interchangeable.

Each of the words in that definition is critical.

Falsifiable = the model itself explains how the model can be shown to be false if it is, in fact, false. No one's opinion matters. Falsifiability is inherent in a model.

Model/theory = a proposed "cause -> effect" or relationship existing in nature.

Predicts = specifies what cause will have what effect

Nature = it has to be about the physical universe.

If you don't have falsifiability, you have mere opinion-based speculation and guesses.

If you don't have a model then it isn't anything useful to anyone.

If it doesn't predict, or aid in predicting, it's religious prophecy/dogma.

If it isn't about nature then you have, at best, a video game or something that only feeds imagination.

As an example, let's take the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Radiance = Kelvins^4 * Boltzmann * Emissivity

Is it about nature? Yes, specifically about thermal radiation of a body.
Does it predict nature? Yes, specifically the radiance of a body of a given emissivity at a given temperature.
Is it a model? Yes. It uses the black body model of thermal radiation established by Max Planck.
Is it falsifiable? Of course. All anyone needs to do to prove it false is to find just one example in nature where the above relationship does not hold. No one's opinion matters. Any eight-year-old with no credentials who finds such an example will have proven it false. Similarly, any PhD with every human credential in existence who claims the model to be false yet has no example of the model ever failing has not damaged the model in any way.

Let me know if any part of this remains fuzzy.

HarveyH55 wrote: I'm just not able to believe science was never defined, before then.

Actually, I'm certain that you are quite able to believe that philosophy has developed over the millenia, that different people have made contributions over time and that Popper made a pretty good one.

What do you believe I am missing?

HarveyH55 wrote:Science had been around avery long time, before Karl Popper, and many other brilliant thinkers, making startling discoveries. Sort of insulting to them, implying they had no clue what science was, until Karl Popper was born.

Let me know when you find someone who is making that claim.

HarveyH55 wrote: The scientific method, was developed before Popper.

What do you believe the scientific method is?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-07-2019 02:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
IBdaMann:

Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply to a planet with an atmosphere. Read here:
"... The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation. "
Saying it's impossible is grossly inaccurate. We know that the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't work quite right looking at other planets like Venus either. That there is some confusion about how this law is applied doesn't make Venus any cooler.

That's a "THEORETICAL" surface so it doesn't apply to the Earth, Venus or any planet with gases around it.

As for the definition of Climate I didn't even mention CO2. The definition is correct.

But substituting "temperature" for most places "Climate" is used on this topic would make sense to everyone.

Do you believe in Dinasours? We don't have time machines but yet, I do! I'm very convinced by what they found in the dirt. Because science works.

The earths surface temperature, right here right now, is 81 Ferenheit. What is it there? Easy to answer. If you ask a scientist what the temperature is "ON" venus they'll give you the surface temperature. Not the stratosphere or the molten core.

"Science cannot measure anything."

I think you like to play games with words. Waste of everyone's time.

The effectiveness of science is clear from how well it works in practice. Our tech is evidence to anyone who doubts the ability of human science to get real working answers.

Saying you cannot measure to a usable margin of error is the same as saying you cannot usefully or effectively measure something.

So you actually think Venus is not hotter than Mercury?? Really???? So let's set aside knowing, you don't think it most likely probably is?

At what point is ANYTHING not speculation. You don't know you're dreaming.

Even in a murder trial "REASONABLE" doubt is what matters. You have no REASONABLE information to cause you to doubt that Venus is a LOT hotter than Mercury.

I'm not even talking about CO2 right now I'm trying to talk to you about your approach.

Find ANY SCIENCE to back up what you're saying. ANYTHING please. And stop misquoting the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

And trust me humanity was obsessed with food long ago, far more than sex. The worlds oldest profession was gatherer, followed by hunter.
Edited on 13-07-2019 02:29
13-07-2019 02:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
HarveyH55:

"Looking into the distant past, before anyone was there to observe and record, isn't science, it speculation. "

Again you are choosing to say that science doesn't work. It does it does. Your statement implies that all scientific work on the past, from Archaeology to GeoChemistry is invalid.

Yet you say "We know ... huge critters raom[ed]" Why do you believe in fossils of bones on not other evidence?

CO2 is a good thing yes. Good parrallel example is an Algae bloom. Algae is great a fish will tell you. And algae will tell you that phosphorus is fantastic. But if you dump too much phosophorus into a body of water with algae and fish, the algea really prosper, so much so that they use up all the oxygen, kill all the fish, and whole lake dies, algea included, as the ecosystem, pushed past it's limits, collapses.
13-07-2019 03:01
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
In a greenhouse heat isn't trapped. The barrier acts as a prism changing the potential of e = hf.
The barrier of a greenhouse merely slows light as it is resistance measured in ohms. As the potential of e = hf increases so does it's ability to pass through a prism.
Because of this we know that a barrier can regulate the heat that pass through it.


A green house let's light in and keeps the warmed air from leaving.Gardening explanation of greenhouses, the non political kind


Granted it's not identical but "greenhouse effect" is a reasonable title for the atmosphere holding heat to the earth a bit longer. Glass dissipates heat too, just as our atmosphere radiates it out into space. Also it should be noted that the "Greenhouse effect" has always been "in effect" and is a normal part of the physics of the solar system for a planet with an atmosphere.


So this makes sense to me: explaining how the atmosphere keeps earth warm

Reading that article and thinking about how CO2 is just 0.04% of the atmosphere, but just a little while ago it was only 0.03% is a bit unsettling.



With the greenhouse effect, one wavelength might easily pass through it while the one it creates is reflected. Think of a one way mirror. You can see them but they can't see you. Light passes through that greenhouse in only one direction.


No. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



And now you understand how generalized data such as the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is lacking. There is nothing that states that the tropopause and the ozone layer cannot act like a barrier because they are a barrier.
I know, I know, barriers have to be solid like the sound barrier. Kind of why there are sonic booms. Isn't it interesting that a fast moving object in our atmosphere can compress sound waves?
What you fail to understand is that sometimes what is not said is more compelling. Have you ever read a report on how much denser our atmosphere becomes with more or less CO2 or oxygen? Stuff like that does not matter to you. It requires thought.
13-07-2019 03:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


I read this dozens of times every day, sometime, just in one reply... Oddly enough, the repetition doesn't compel me to buy it. I'm not sure why, maybe it's that I seperate philosophy from science. Maybe philosophy in college was one of my least favorite classes, for many reasons. I don't deny that Karl Popper was a brilliant philosopher, I'm just not able to believe science was never defined, before then. Science had been around avery long time, before Karl Popper, and many other brilliant thinkers, making startling discoveries. Sort of insulting to them, implying they had no clue what science was, until Karl Popper was born. The scientific method, was developed before Popper.


The nice thing about philosophy is that it transcends time. The arguments apply in the past, in the present, and in the future.

Yes, science existed before Popper. You must remember that science is defined by philosophy, for only in philosophy are you required to provide the reasoning for your argument.

There have been many philosophies defining what science is and what religion is. Karl Popper simply came up with the best one so far. Since then, I have refined a few arguments of his, and given my own reasoning for them here.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-07-2019 03:14
13-07-2019 03:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann:

Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply to a planet with an atmosphere. Read here:
"... The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation. "
Saying it's impossible is grossly inaccurate. We know that the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't work quite right looking at other planets like Venus either. That there is some confusion about how this law is applied doesn't make Venus any cooler.

That's a "THEORETICAL" surface so it doesn't apply to the Earth, Venus or any planet with gases around it.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law by attempting to eliminate the emissivity term from the equation. Sorry dude, you don't get to do that.
tmiddles wrote:
As for the definition of Climate I didn't even mention CO2. The definition is correct.

You defined 'climate' as 'weather'. To you they are synonyms???
tmiddles wrote:
But substituting "temperature" for most places "Climate" is used on this topic would make sense to everyone.

So you define 'weather' and 'temperature' as synonyms???
tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe in Dinasours?

No, but I have seen fossils of dinosaurs.
tmiddles wrote:
We don't have time machines but yet, I do! I'm very convinced by what they found in the dirt.

That is not science. That is an observation. Science is not an observation. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. You have never seen a dinosaur. The fossils of what we call dinosaurs is literally an assignment by us. We don't know what the fossils actually went to for sure.
tmiddles wrote:
Because science works.

Science isn't something that 'works' or fails to 'work. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less. A theory is an explanatory argument. Nothing more, nothing less.
tmiddles wrote:
The earths surface temperature, right here right now, is 81 Ferenheit.

At the thermometer. What about the temperature one mile away? Temperatures can easily vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile.
tmiddles wrote:
What is it there? Easy to answer. If you ask a scientist what the temperature is "ON" venus they'll give you the surface temperature.

They will give you one of the five surface temperature readings from spacecraft that actually landed on Venus with a functioning thermometer. All of those spacecraft were destroyed a short time later (just a few minutes).

Is a single thermometer in Seattle capable of describing Earth's temperature? No.
tmiddles wrote:
Not the stratosphere or the molten core.

Okay. Let's just talk about surface temperatures. Remember, they are taken under wildly different conditions, and have no relationship to each other other than the ideal gas law.
tmiddles wrote:
"Science cannot measure anything."

Science is not a measurement (which is an observation). It is not data (the result of an observation). Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. It is not part of any theory of science.
tmiddles wrote:
I think you like to play games with words. Waste of everyone's time.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is doing this.
tmiddles wrote:
The effectiveness of science is clear from how well it works in practice.

There is no 'practice'. There is just the set of falsifiable theories themselves.
tmiddles wrote:
Our tech is evidence to anyone who doubts the ability of human science to get real working answers.
Science is not engineering.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
Saying you cannot measure to a usable margin of error is the same as saying you cannot usefully or effectively measure something.

Essentially correct.
tmiddles wrote:
So you actually think Venus is not hotter than Mercury?? Really????

Really really. We don't know the temperature of either planet.
Now since you are so into surface temperatures:
Mercury has virtually no atmosphere. It's surface temperature varies widely from day to night. There is no measurement of all of the surface temperature as a valid statistic. It's emissivity is unknown.

Venus has a very thick atmosphere (900 times Earth's atmosphere). It's emissivity is unknown, but seems to be higher than Mercury. This allows Venus to absorb sunlight more effectively than Mercury. Further, the surface will be quite hot due to the ideal gas law. Higher pressure gas is hotter. Also, the thick atmosphere is great at conveying daytime thermal energy to the night side, leaving the night side quite warm despite the incredibly long days on Venus.
tmiddles wrote:
So let's set aside knowing, you don't think it most likely probably is?

Unknown. The surface temperature seems to be warmer than Mercury, but that is comparing a planet with almost no atmosphere at all to one that has a very thick atmosphere and the associated differences due to the ideal gas law.
tmiddles wrote:
At what point is ANYTHING not speculation.

Science.
tmiddles wrote:
You don't know you're dreaming.

Irrelevant. The arguments stand.
tmiddles wrote:
Even in a murder trial "REASONABLE" doubt is what matters.

You just stated the very thing that science relies on: the test of falsifiability.
tmiddles wrote:
You have no REASONABLE information to cause you to doubt that Venus is a LOT hotter than Mercury.

I'm not trying to make any such claim. I am not claiming one is hotter than the other at all. YOU are. YOU are the one that has the burden of proof. You can't do it with math errors.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm not even talking about CO2 right now I'm trying to talk to you about your approach.

I am not approaching it. YOU are.
tmiddles wrote:
Find ANY SCIENCE to back up what you're saying.

Already have shown you. Have you forgotten already?
tmiddles wrote:
And stop misquoting the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that attempted to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law by changing the equation, attempting to remove the emissivity term from the equation.
tmiddles wrote:
And trust me humanity was obsessed with food long ago, far more than sex. The worlds oldest profession was gatherer, followed by hunter.

How do you know? Were you there?


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2019 03:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55:

"Looking into the distant past, before anyone was there to observe and record, isn't science, it speculation. "

That's exactly what it is. Harvey has it dead right here.
tmiddles wrote:
Again you are choosing to say that science doesn't work. It does it does. Your statement implies that all scientific work on the past, from Archaeology to GeoChemistry is invalid.

Science is not 'work'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.
tmiddles wrote:
Yet you say "We know ... huge critters raom[ed]" Why do you believe in fossils of bones on not other evidence?

We really don't know WHAT roamed the land then. We speculate that they were animals we call dinosaurs. We draw pictures of them, we built skeletons in museums with bones we speculate might go together, and we make movies and stories about them. No one has ever seen one.
tmiddles wrote:
CO2 is a good thing yes. Good parrallel example is an Algae bloom. Algae is great a fish will tell you. And algae will tell you that phosphorus is fantastic. But if you dump too much phosophorus into a body of water with algae and fish, the algea really prosper, so much so that they use up all the oxygen, kill all the fish, and whole lake dies, algea included, as the ecosystem, pushed past it's limits, collapses.

False equivalence fallacy. No one is putting that level of CO2 into the atmosphere. Extreme argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2019 04:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
In a greenhouse heat isn't trapped. The barrier acts as a prism changing the potential of e = hf.
The barrier of a greenhouse merely slows light as it is resistance measured in ohms. As the potential of e = hf increases so does it's ability to pass through a prism.
Because of this we know that a barrier can regulate the heat that pass through it.


A green house let's light in and keeps the warmed air from leaving.Gardening explanation of greenhouses, the non political kind


Granted it's not identical but "greenhouse effect" is a reasonable title for the atmosphere holding heat to the earth a bit longer. Glass dissipates heat too, just as our atmosphere radiates it out into space. Also it should be noted that the "Greenhouse effect" has always been "in effect" and is a normal part of the physics of the solar system for a planet with an atmosphere.


So this makes sense to me: explaining how the atmosphere keeps earth warm

Reading that article and thinking about how CO2 is just 0.04% of the atmosphere, but just a little while ago it was only 0.03% is a bit unsettling.



With the greenhouse effect, one wavelength might easily pass through it while the one it creates is reflected. Think of a one way mirror. You can see them but they can't see you. Light passes through that greenhouse in only one direction.


No. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



And now you understand how generalized data such as the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is lacking.

There is no such thing as a Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The Boltzmann constant is not data.
James___ wrote:
There is nothing that states that the tropopause and the ozone layer cannot act like a barrier because they are a barrier.
They are not a barrier to thermal energy or infrared light.
James___ wrote:
I know, I know, barriers have to be solid like the sound barrier.
The sound barrier isn't a solid, liquid, or gas.
James___ wrote:
Kind of why there are sonic booms.
Not why there are sonic booms.
James___ wrote:
Isn't it interesting that a fast moving object in our atmosphere can compress sound waves?
Isn't it interesting that you can compress a gas?
James___ wrote:
What you fail to understand is that sometimes what is not said is more compelling. Have you ever read a report on how much denser our atmosphere becomes with more or less CO2 or oxygen? Stuff like that does not matter to you. It requires thought.

The barometers of the world disagree with you.


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2019 04:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1106)
Into the Night wrote:

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law by attempting to eliminate the emissivity term from the equation. [/b]


Yes I was inaccurate in how I put it. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law starts with a black body and you have to adjust it from there. You are wrong to assume it's the only thing at play because of course we know that it fails to explain the date if you don't use the greenhouse effect in the equation. Disagree? Why is Venus so hot then?

Into the Night wrote:
You defined 'climate' as 'weather'. To you they are synonyms???


To the English language they are synonyms:
Thesaurus

We're all trying to figure things out. I don't have any more of a burden of proof than you do.

Sitting back and saying we can't know anything and it's not certain is just a cop out.

And Into the Night:
I wasn't making an equivalency between global warming and an algae bloom. Just making the point that a good thing can cause a big problem.
Edited on 13-07-2019 04:14
Page 2 of 7<1234>>>





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