Remember me
▼ Content

The echo chamber



Page 1 of 212>
The echo chamber23-01-2020 07:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
I've noticed we hold to the position we are happiest with, no one is unhappy with their angle here, and none of us, myself included, have budged.

And I mean it's what we WANT to be the truth, regardless of what the truth is.

To indict myself first I like the position of being a sage skeptic. Where yes yes there is truth to the global warming science but it's the scale of the threat that is overstated. I can smugly look down on both deniers and fanatics while I relax into the knowledge that all will be well.

ITN/IBD like the grand hoax position. Far more ambitious and vulnerable and they do pretty well with it considering the challenge it presents.

And I'm going to pick on Harry C (sorry Harry I actually appreciate your posts, always well written, but you're very transparently engaged in what we are all guilty of). Harry C likes the hoax position as well and is in the information gathering phase. I contradict his conclusion so he usually skips my posts.
Recently he posted this chastisement, 1-22-20:
Harry C wrote:
I've been reading a literal barrage of your posts (look at your average post count per day) since I got here. In spite of what you claim about them trying to shut down discourse, you are the one who is missing the mark from a level of intellectual discourse.

The internet allows you to cherry pic. You can confirm anything, including that there were never dinosaurs or that the Earth is flat, by engaging in the folly of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. Humans are good at finding patterns. When your theory is contradicted, you can simply ignore it as "not a find" in your pursuit of building your case.

I wonder if you're even aware of your selectivity Harry. Just a short list of you tuning me out:

new-and-1st-thoughts 9-15-20 ignored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...by what physical mechanism does CO2 gas warm the atmosphere?

The theory is this:

The Sun warms the earth with light in the 5000K range.
Some is reflected away but what isn't is absorbed by the ground and sea surface primarily. The Earth then radiates back out into space at a much colder infra red.

The atmosphere can have a huge impact on a planets ground level temp (see Venus and Mercury for comparison). The, let's call its "CO2 theory" is that CO2, along with water vapor, have the unique ability to absorb the infrared energy coming up off the earth (while oxygen and hydrogen do not). So they add more thermal energy transit time to that energy leaving the atmosphere.

Temperature is a measure of the thermal energy present (and not what is coming in or what is leaving). So you can absolutely increase temperature without increasing the input energy. Venus is proof.

Now the important bit by my estimation is that we know that an atmosphere results in a slowing down, evening out, and increase in temperature at the ground level of a planet just from conduction with the ground. This doesn't mean that the CO2 angle is correct.

in-general 10-9-19 ignored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...second is the second law of thermodynamics versus the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere....
I would suggest figuring out what you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is. You've found the one place where that is contested! Do you think textbooks are corrupted with a false 2nd LTD? Personally (I'm also a non scientist) I've found it more helpful to get the concepts be starting with the simplest examples first.

one-step-at-a-time 11-12-19 ignored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Is the [ground level] surface of the earth hotter or colder than it would be without its atmosphere.
I add "Ground" as I assume that's what you mean. The "surface" of an object would take it as a totality so for Earth the gases we call an atmosphere are also "Earth" and constitute part of it's "Surface". So we KNOW (yes we really do) that the ground level temperature on Earth differs from what we would have without an atmosphere in that the mean temperature, the average, is about 30 C hotter. Also the extremes are less severe, so it doesn't get as cold or as hot in it's highs and lows. We KNOW this from two sources: the math on how much energy we get from the sun would determine a mean temp of -18C, and we're at 15C, and we have actually been to the moon, same distance from the sun with no atmosphere, and it confirms the math with a mean temp of -23C with extreme highs and lows.

Harry C wrote:
Second question: What is it that makes the surface of the earth hotter or colder because of the atmosphere?
Thermal Energy moves through matter. Given more matter to move through an atmosphere "stores up" the thermal energy resulting from the suns radiance. There is a correlation between how massive an atmosphere is and the ground level temp. link

Harry C wrote:
Third question: If the answer is gas, excluding water vapor, how does it change the temperature on the surface of the earth? Name the gasses, their effect on temperature and the physical properties that cause the effect.
"Their effect on temperature"? You seem to be a bit confused about thermal energy and matter. All matter, as far as I know, has thermal energy and is capable of gaining more of it. So the gases of the atmosphere have thermal energy. When the sun pumps in more radiance, and some of it is absorbed and becomes thermal energy, the gases get some of it because they are there to receive it by absorbing radiance, conducting and convecting.
To address what I think it going wrong with your question:
There are TWO concepts that should be tackled one at a time:
1- Does an atmosphere result in a warmer ground level. Answer is not in real doubt: YES
2- Do certain gases, the composition of the atmosphere, result in a warmer ground level. As in would two equally massive atmospheres, with a different composition of gases, result in a different ground level temperature and precisely how. Answer: Wow that's pretty complicated and not a Yes or No question.

Don't pretend because the nuances of how different gasses play a roll being unclear in anyway makes it unclear that "An atmosphere", any atmosphere, makes the ground level warmer.

Question 2 is largely the topic that should be discussed here. Personally I'm very skeptical about the gospel on that one: do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right

Harry C wrote:
Fourth question: What effect does water vapor have, if any, on the warming or cooling of the surface of the earth?
Water vapor, CO2 and a few lesser players are known to be very good at absorbing infrared radiance. This means that they absorb more radiance, resulting in thermal energy, to a greater degree than other gases because other gases largely "miss out" on radiance as they are transparent to it.

Harry C wrote:
Fifth question: How does water vapor occur in the atmosphere? Would it be there without gas in the atmosphere?
It's simply when liquid water changes state to become a gas. Yes it would still evaporate into a gassless vaccum (and does when we create a vacuum with water in the chamber). A vaccuum is the same as totally dry air with 0% humidity.

demonstrating-ir-co2-reaction 12/31/19 ignored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong about Nitrogen and IR.
Amen, I'm wrong plenty. It's like a super power in a debate to give yourself permission to be wrong and move on.

Harry C wrote:
So, back to my question which you continue to avoid is why should we worry about CO2? What is it about CO2 that causes such angst?

Didn't avoid it I gave you a short answer:
tmiddles wrote:
Water vapor varies a lot. So do clouds in the sky. They do so regardless of human activity. Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

Here's a longer answer: on a day to day basis cloud cover and humidity are erratic. But over a week/month/year/decade they are more and more predictable. Humidity is just as likely to go up as down as weather fluctuates. There is no theory that humidity/water vapor is "trending" higher or lower for any reason. If temperature increases it gets more humid of course but thats about it.
CO2 is the boogie man because it is trending higher. Fluctuations in humidity do nothing to erase that influence, if there is one, in the long run.
Here is the math wikipedia/cunsensus uses as I understand it from this thread I posted: Do I have the CO2 calamity math right?
"...the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F "

Now that uses 2.5% humidity arbitrarily. In a given place and time it might be more or less but the contribution of CO2 would remain.

I dont think my attempt at sumurizing that theory with that math is very good and I question the theory (doesnt explain in my mind why MARS isnt hotter)

But that is my answer to you excellent question why is CO2 of such concern.

IF that calculation were correct we would shift the temperature of the earth by several degrees very quickly.

default-value 1/3/20 ignored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?

The key factor in how much radiance a body in our solar system gets it distance from the sun. The best way of see what Earth would be like without an atmosphere is to look at the moon.

Proof 1, temperatures don't drop enough at night:
So simple question I consider a definitive proof that the Earth's atmosphere retains thermal energy:
The moon at night -150C vs. The Earth at night ~10C

What explanation is there for the Earth at night being so very warm than that the atmosphere is retaining thermal energy?

Proof 2, the mean temp is far too high:
This goes back to Fourier and the realization by scientists that Earth is a lot warmer on average then it should be if you simply calculate the energy we receive from the sun. Now I personally agree that the confidence shown in predicting the average/mean temp of Earth to the fraction of a degree is BS, however I have no doubt it's accurate to within several degrees and for the purposes of this proof a 10 degree margin of error works because Earth is a full 30 degrees warmer than a calculation using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation would give you for an Earth that was a perfect black body, which it's not. See here

there-are-some-paid-climate-deniers...1-18-20 ingored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:... what is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and where my I find it?

Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)
How about we actually discuss it Harry and not go through this cycle of you asking, me answering, and then you moving on to ask again.

there is no theory...thread 1-20-20 ignored posts

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...a traffic engineer and you are performing traffic counts on a roadway exchange by a mall. If you rely on data exclusively around Christmas ....
Excellent example!

Two questions for you:
1- Do you think the traffic engineer could do it right? That the traffic count could be known and useful to the city in it's planning?
2- Do you think this same process of analysis and diagnosis of what went wrong can be applied to work done on Earth's temperature and other areas relevant tot his topic? That someone could identify the errors?

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:The worst thing out there are those simplified illustrations showing sun rays hitting the earth and bouncing off because it appears as if it is creating energy.
Why don't we drill down on that and look at one you find troubling. They seem clear to me as not creating any energy.

Now I don't expect a positive response to this of course but I think, in truth, this topic is THE topic here. It's the crazy elephant in the room and it's not unique to this issue. I think this grows on the internet like cancer. I know I'm guilty too because there is no way things just happen to be what I hoped they would be on this issue.
23-01-2020 19:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote:I've noticed we hold to the position we are happiest with,


Wrong word. You used "we" and you should have used "I." Maybe it was a typo.

You don't even know my position. I bet you couldn't accurately state it. You haven't been able to yet. You have only assigned bogus positions to me.

You should have written "I've noticed that I preach the religion that makes me happiest." That would have been accurate. You could have also written "I've noticed that I NEED to disrupt all conversations that I find abrasive to my religious preaching." That would be accurate as well.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-01-2020 21:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
I've noticed we hold to the position we are happiest with, no one is unhappy with their angle here, and none of us, myself included, have budged.

And I mean it's what we WANT to be the truth, regardless of what the truth is.

You are not interested in any truth. All you want to do is preach your religion.
tmiddles wrote:
To indict myself first I like the position of being a sage skeptic.

You are not a sage or a skeptic.
tmiddles wrote:
Where yes yes there is truth to the global warming science

There is no such thing as 'global warming' science. Define 'global warming'. There is no science based on undefined buzzwords.
tmiddles wrote:
but it's the scale of the threat that is overstated.

What threat? Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
I can smugly look down on both deniers and fanatics while I relax into the knowledge that all will be well.

You are certainly smug in your religion. Most fundamentalists are.
tmiddles wrote:
The theory is this:

The Sun warms the earth with light in the 5000K range.

Light does not have a temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
Some is reflected away but what isn't is absorbed by the ground and sea surface primarily. The Earth then radiates back out into space at a much colder infra red.

Light does not have a temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
The atmosphere can have a huge impact on a planets ground level temp (see Venus and Mercury for comparison). The, let's call its "CO2 theory" is that CO2, along with water vapor, have the unique ability to absorb the infrared energy coming up off the earth (while oxygen and hydrogen do not).

Oxygen and hydrogen absorb infrared light and convert it to thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
So they add more thermal energy transit time to that energy leaving the atmosphere.

You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
tmiddles wrote:
Temperature is a measure of the thermal energy present (and not what is coming in or what is leaving). So you can absolutely increase temperature without increasing the input energy. Venus is proof.

You cannot increase temperature without energy. Venus is not a proof of your denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
Now the important bit by my estimation is that we know that an atmosphere results in a slowing down, evening out, and increase in temperature at the ground level of a planet just from conduction with the ground.

You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You cannot reduce the radiance of any planet and increase its temperature at the same time.
tmiddles wrote:
This doesn't mean that the CO2 angle is correct.

CO2 doesn't have an angle.
tmiddles wrote:
I would suggest figuring out what you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is.

e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time.
tmiddles wrote:
You've found the one place where that is contested! Do you think textbooks are corrupted with a false 2nd LTD? Personally (I'm also a non scientist) I've found it more helpful to get the concepts be starting with the simplest examples first.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has not been falsified. You are just denying it as well. False authority fallacy. You cannot use any book to falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
I add "Ground" as I assume that's what you mean. The "surface" of an object would take it as a totality so for Earth the gases we call an atmosphere are also "Earth" and constitute part of it's "Surface". So we KNOW (yes we really do) that the ground level temperature on Earth differs from what we would have without an atmosphere in that the mean temperature, the average, is about 30 C hotter.

There is no temperature Earth 'should be'. 'Should be' is not used in science. Nothing in the atmosphere is capable of destroying energy. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm or cool anything.
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot destroy energy into nothing.
First law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) + U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.
You are denying this law as well. The presence of an atmosphere is not work.
tmiddles wrote:
Also the extremes are less severe, so it doesn't get as cold or as hot in it's highs and lows.

About all an atmosphere does.
tmiddles wrote:
We KNOW this from two sources: the math on how much energy we get from the sun would determine a mean temp of -18C, and we're at 15C, and we have actually been to the moon, same distance from the sun with no atmosphere, and it confirms the math with a mean temp

Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to present raw data. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
Thermal Energy moves through matter. Given more matter to move through an atmosphere "stores up" the thermal energy resulting from the suns radiance.

Heat by conductance is not 'storage'.
tmiddles wrote:
There is a correlation between how massive an atmosphere is and the ground level temp.
"Their effect on temperature"? You seem to be a bit confused about thermal energy and matter. All matter, as far as I know, has thermal energy and is capable of gaining more of it. So the gases of the atmosphere have thermal energy. When the sun pumps in more radiance, and some of it is absorbed and becomes thermal energy, the gases get some of it because they are there to receive it by absorbing radiance, conducting and convecting.

Radiance isn't 'pumped'. Not all the light from the Sun is absorbed. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
To address what I think it going wrong with your question:
There are TWO concepts that should be tackled one at a time:
1- Does an atmosphere result in a warmer ground level. Answer is not in real doubt: YES

No. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm anything.
tmiddles wrote:
2- Do certain gases, the composition of the atmosphere, result in a warmer ground level.

No. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm anything.
tmiddles wrote:
As in would two equally massive atmospheres, with a different composition of gases, result in a different ground level temperature and precisely how. Answer: Wow that's pretty complicated and not a Yes or No question.

A yes/no question in both cases. The answer is 'NO' to both questions.
tmiddles wrote:
Don't pretend because the nuances of how different gasses play a roll being unclear in anyway makes it unclear that "An atmosphere", any atmosphere, makes the ground level warmer.

No physically possible.
tmiddles wrote:
Water vapor, CO2 and a few lesser players are known to be very good at absorbing infrared radiance.

All gases, solids, and liquids absorb infrared light and convert it to thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
This means that they absorb more radiance,

Radiance isn't absorbed. Light is absorbed. Radiance is not light.
tmiddles wrote:
resulting in thermal energy, to a greater degree than other gases because other gases largely "miss out" on radiance as they are transparent to it.

All gases, liquids, or solids absorb infrared light.
tmiddles wrote:
But that is my answer to you excellent question why is CO2 of such concern.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
The key factor in how much radiance a body in our solar system gets it distance from the sun. The best way of see what Earth would be like without an atmosphere is to look at the moon.

The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. There is no reason the Earth has the same emissivity as the Moon. If it did, the mean temperature of the Moon would be the same as Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
Proof 1, temperatures don't drop enough at night:
So simple question I consider a definitive proof that the Earth's atmosphere retains thermal energy:
The moon at night -150C vs. The Earth at night ~10C

What explanation is there for the Earth at night being so very warm than that the atmosphere is retaining thermal energy?

Did you forget that during the daytime, temperatures on Earth are much COLDER than the Moon?
tmiddles wrote:
Proof 2, the mean temp is far too high:
This goes back to Fourier and the realization by scientists that Earth is a lot warmer on average then it should be if you simply calculate the energy we receive from the sun.

Math error. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Not all sunlight is absorbed.
tmiddles wrote:
Now I personally agree that the confidence shown in predicting the average/mean temp of Earth to the fraction of a degree is BS,

Lie. You have used such precision in your 'predictions'.
tmiddles wrote:
however I have no doubt it's accurate to within several degrees

The temperature of the Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
and for the purposes of this proof a 10 degree margin of error works because Earth is a full 30 degrees warmer than a calculation using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation would give you for an Earth that was a perfect black body, which it's not.

The temperature of the Earth is unknown. Math error. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. You are again denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and using random values as 'data'.


The Parrot Killer
23-01-2020 23:55
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
tmiddles wrote:
I've noticed we hold to the position we are happiest with, no one is unhappy with their angle here, and none of us, myself included, have budged.

And I mean it's what we WANT to be the truth, regardless of what the truth is.

To indict myself first I like the position of being a sage skeptic. Where yes yes there is truth to the global warming science but it's the scale of the threat that is overstated. I can smugly look down on both deniers and fanatics while I relax into the knowledge that all will be well.

ITN/IBD like the grand hoax position. Far more ambitious and vulnerable and they do pretty well with it considering the challenge it presents.

And I'm going to pick on Harry C (sorry Harry I actually appreciate your posts, always well written, but you're very transparently engaged in what we are all guilty of). Harry C likes the hoax position as well and is in the information gathering phase. I contradict his conclusion so he usually skips my posts.
Recently he posted this chastisement, 1-22-20:
Harry C wrote:
I've been reading a literal barrage of your posts (look at your average post count per day) since I got here. In spite of what you claim about them trying to shut down discourse, you are the one who is missing the mark from a level of intellectual discourse.

The internet allows you to cherry pic. You can confirm anything, including that there were never dinosaurs or that the Earth is flat, by engaging in the folly of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. Humans are good at finding patterns. When your theory is contradicted, you can simply ignore it as "not a find" in your pursuit of building your case.

I wonder if you're even aware of your selectivity Harry. Just a short list of you tuning me out:

new-and-1st-thoughts 9-15-20 ignored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...by what physical mechanism does CO2 gas warm the atmosphere?

The theory is this:

The Sun warms the earth with light in the 5000K range.
Some is reflected away but what isn't is absorbed by the ground and sea surface primarily. The Earth then radiates back out into space at a much colder infra red.

The atmosphere can have a huge impact on a planets ground level temp (see Venus and Mercury for comparison). The, let's call its "CO2 theory" is that CO2, along with water vapor, have the unique ability to absorb the infrared energy coming up off the earth (while oxygen and hydrogen do not). So they add more thermal energy transit time to that energy leaving the atmosphere.

Temperature is a measure of the thermal energy present (and not what is coming in or what is leaving). So you can absolutely increase temperature without increasing the input energy. Venus is proof.

Now the important bit by my estimation is that we know that an atmosphere results in a slowing down, evening out, and increase in temperature at the ground level of a planet just from conduction with the ground. This doesn't mean that the CO2 angle is correct.

in-general 10-9-19 ignored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...second is the second law of thermodynamics versus the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere....
I would suggest figuring out what you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is. You've found the one place where that is contested! Do you think textbooks are corrupted with a false 2nd LTD? Personally (I'm also a non scientist) I've found it more helpful to get the concepts be starting with the simplest examples first.

one-step-at-a-time 11-12-19 ignored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Is the [ground level] surface of the earth hotter or colder than it would be without its atmosphere.
I add "Ground" as I assume that's what you mean. The "surface" of an object would take it as a totality so for Earth the gases we call an atmosphere are also "Earth" and constitute part of it's "Surface". So we KNOW (yes we really do) that the ground level temperature on Earth differs from what we would have without an atmosphere in that the mean temperature, the average, is about 30 C hotter. Also the extremes are less severe, so it doesn't get as cold or as hot in it's highs and lows. We KNOW this from two sources: the math on how much energy we get from the sun would determine a mean temp of -18C, and we're at 15C, and we have actually been to the moon, same distance from the sun with no atmosphere, and it confirms the math with a mean temp of -23C with extreme highs and lows.

Harry C wrote:
Second question: What is it that makes the surface of the earth hotter or colder because of the atmosphere?
Thermal Energy moves through matter. Given more matter to move through an atmosphere "stores up" the thermal energy resulting from the suns radiance. There is a correlation between how massive an atmosphere is and the ground level temp. link

Harry C wrote:
Third question: If the answer is gas, excluding water vapor, how does it change the temperature on the surface of the earth? Name the gasses, their effect on temperature and the physical properties that cause the effect.
"Their effect on temperature"? You seem to be a bit confused about thermal energy and matter. All matter, as far as I know, has thermal energy and is capable of gaining more of it. So the gases of the atmosphere have thermal energy. When the sun pumps in more radiance, and some of it is absorbed and becomes thermal energy, the gases get some of it because they are there to receive it by absorbing radiance, conducting and convecting.
To address what I think it going wrong with your question:
There are TWO concepts that should be tackled one at a time:
1- Does an atmosphere result in a warmer ground level. Answer is not in real doubt: YES
2- Do certain gases, the composition of the atmosphere, result in a warmer ground level. As in would two equally massive atmospheres, with a different composition of gases, result in a different ground level temperature and precisely how. Answer: Wow that's pretty complicated and not a Yes or No question.

Don't pretend because the nuances of how different gasses play a roll being unclear in anyway makes it unclear that "An atmosphere", any atmosphere, makes the ground level warmer.

Question 2 is largely the topic that should be discussed here. Personally I'm very skeptical about the gospel on that one: do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right

Harry C wrote:
Fourth question: What effect does water vapor have, if any, on the warming or cooling of the surface of the earth?
Water vapor, CO2 and a few lesser players are known to be very good at absorbing infrared radiance. This means that they absorb more radiance, resulting in thermal energy, to a greater degree than other gases because other gases largely "miss out" on radiance as they are transparent to it.

Harry C wrote:
Fifth question: How does water vapor occur in the atmosphere? Would it be there without gas in the atmosphere?
It's simply when liquid water changes state to become a gas. Yes it would still evaporate into a gassless vaccum (and does when we create a vacuum with water in the chamber). A vaccuum is the same as totally dry air with 0% humidity.

demonstrating-ir-co2-reaction 12/31/19 ignored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong about Nitrogen and IR.
Amen, I'm wrong plenty. It's like a super power in a debate to give yourself permission to be wrong and move on.

Harry C wrote:
So, back to my question which you continue to avoid is why should we worry about CO2? What is it about CO2 that causes such angst?

Didn't avoid it I gave you a short answer:
tmiddles wrote:
Water vapor varies a lot. So do clouds in the sky. They do so regardless of human activity. Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

Here's a longer answer: on a day to day basis cloud cover and humidity are erratic. But over a week/month/year/decade they are more and more predictable. Humidity is just as likely to go up as down as weather fluctuates. There is no theory that humidity/water vapor is "trending" higher or lower for any reason. If temperature increases it gets more humid of course but thats about it.
CO2 is the boogie man because it is trending higher. Fluctuations in humidity do nothing to erase that influence, if there is one, in the long run.
Here is the math wikipedia/cunsensus uses as I understand it from this thread I posted: Do I have the CO2 calamity math right?
"...the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F "

Now that uses 2.5% humidity arbitrarily. In a given place and time it might be more or less but the contribution of CO2 would remain.

I dont think my attempt at sumurizing that theory with that math is very good and I question the theory (doesnt explain in my mind why MARS isnt hotter)

But that is my answer to you excellent question why is CO2 of such concern.

IF that calculation were correct we would shift the temperature of the earth by several degrees very quickly.

default-value 1/3/20 ignored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere?

The key factor in how much radiance a body in our solar system gets it distance from the sun. The best way of see what Earth would be like without an atmosphere is to look at the moon.

Proof 1, temperatures don't drop enough at night:
So simple question I consider a definitive proof that the Earth's atmosphere retains thermal energy:
The moon at night -150C vs. The Earth at night ~10C

What explanation is there for the Earth at night being so very warm than that the atmosphere is retaining thermal energy?

Proof 2, the mean temp is far too high:
This goes back to Fourier and the realization by scientists that Earth is a lot warmer on average then it should be if you simply calculate the energy we receive from the sun. Now I personally agree that the confidence shown in predicting the average/mean temp of Earth to the fraction of a degree is BS, however I have no doubt it's accurate to within several degrees and for the purposes of this proof a 10 degree margin of error works because Earth is a full 30 degrees warmer than a calculation using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation would give you for an Earth that was a perfect black body, which it's not. See here

there-are-some-paid-climate-deniers...1-18-20 ingored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:... what is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and where my I find it?

Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)
How about we actually discuss it Harry and not go through this cycle of you asking, me answering, and then you moving on to ask again.

there is no theory...thread 1-20-20 ignored posts

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...a traffic engineer and you are performing traffic counts on a roadway exchange by a mall. If you rely on data exclusively around Christmas ....
Excellent example!

Two questions for you:
1- Do you think the traffic engineer could do it right? That the traffic count could be known and useful to the city in it's planning?
2- Do you think this same process of analysis and diagnosis of what went wrong can be applied to work done on Earth's temperature and other areas relevant tot his topic? That someone could identify the errors?

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:The worst thing out there are those simplified illustrations showing sun rays hitting the earth and bouncing off because it appears as if it is creating energy.
Why don't we drill down on that and look at one you find troubling. They seem clear to me as not creating any energy.

Now I don't expect a positive response to this of course but I think, in truth, this topic is THE topic here. It's the crazy elephant in the room and it's not unique to this issue. I think this grows on the internet like cancer. I know I'm guilty too because there is no way things just happen to be what I hoped they would be on this issue.


I'll plead guilty to wanting to debate the merits of the threat of CO2 creating long term global increase in temperature based upon scientific fact. I'll plead guilty of not having enough information to be comfortable asserting or responding to some topics. I'll plead guilty of ignoring information that is not in my interest area (anecdotal evidence). I will NOT plead guilty to ignoring someone out of vanity. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.

As to your two followup questions on my traffic study example.
1. No. Yes. No.
2. No. No.

Cheers.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
24-01-2020 00:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Harry C wrote:
I'll plead guilty to wanting to debate the merits of the threat of CO2 creating long term global increase in temperature based upon scientific fact. I'll plead guilty of not having enough information to be comfortable asserting or responding to some topics. I'll plead guilty of ignoring information that is not in my interest area (anecdotal evidence). I will NOT plead guilty to ignoring someone out of vanity. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.

As to your two followup questions on my traffic study example.
1. No. Yes. No.
2. No. No.

Cheers.
Harry you're clearly not interested in talking to me. You ask questions, I respond to them, you ignore the responses. I think it's because I'm not moving the discussion to where you'd like it. And it is a discussion at that point, not a debate. You can't debate until after two positions have been presented.

You do however engage those, like IBD, who move the discussion where you want it to go.

The bias in your learning, information gathering is very clear. You've had long back and forths with IBD on these subjects and tuned me out almost entirely.

You're free to do that.

If you ever actually want to discuss these topics with me I'm happy to do that.

I take "1. No. Yes. No. 2. No. No." in response to everything you ignored above, which is almost exclusively focused on the issue of CO2 and global warming, to be your indication you're not interested in talking with me.

I think you, me and everyone who comes across this topic should think hard about how we all may warp our own perception of the world around us to suit our preference for what we'd like the facts to be.

As far as I can tell you have so far, in about 4 months of being on this board, entirely avoided the basic, consensus theory of global warming and are still holding on to one you've made up (as in you are still pretending to yourself that the Al Gore's and Bill Nye's of the world believe something entirely different from what that do). You are pretending.'

there-are-some-paid-climate-deniers...1-18-20 ingored post

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:... what is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and where my I find it?

Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)
How about we actually discuss it Harry and not go through this cycle of you asking, me answering, and then you moving on to ask again.


But you engage with what you wanted to find:
Harry C wrote:
ITN and IBDM have expanded my comprehension of the issue.
link

My point of this thread is also that I think I probably am too. Not out of vanity but out of a failure to apply the scientific method to a scientific question.
Edited on 24-01-2020 01:08
24-01-2020 00:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I've noticed we hold to the position we are happiest with,


Wrong word. You used "we" and you should have used "I."
No, I am accusing us all of a psychological and social error here. You and me both IBD. You can see that clearly from my post so move on to a real point of debate if you'd like to.

Your position has a different emphasis for me that it does for you. What I notice about it is the "Grand Hoax". That governments and professionals are engaged in a deliberate campaign to lie to the public about the issues of this board, which includes falsifying data and outright fraud. More to it than that but that's the "Grand Hoax" portion.
Edited on 24-01-2020 00:54
24-01-2020 00:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Into the Night wrote:...You cannot trap light...
Sometimes you really seem like a bot ITN.

No response at all to the subject of the post I guess.

How about trying to look at it with respect to Flat Earthers? They do the echo chamber thing too.

Let's see if you're capable of addressing that.
24-01-2020 01:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I'll plead guilty to wanting to debate the merits of the threat of CO2 creating long term global increase in temperature based upon scientific fact. I'll plead guilty of not having enough information to be comfortable asserting or responding to some topics. I'll plead guilty of ignoring information that is not in my interest area (anecdotal evidence). I will NOT plead guilty to ignoring someone out of vanity. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.

As to your two followup questions on my traffic study example.
1. No. Yes. No.
2. No. No.

Cheers.
Harry you're clearly not interested in talking to me. You ask questions, I respond to them, you ignore the responses.

I think it's because I'm not moving the discussion to where you'd like it.

You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
And it is a discussion at that point, not a debate. You can't debate until after two positions have been presented.

You want to quibble over the meaning of 'debate' now?
tmiddles wrote:
You do however engage those, like IBD, who move the discussion where you want it to go.

The bias in your learning, information gathering is very clear.

Guilty as charged. I am biased to theories of science and the use of mathematics; two things YOU deny.
tmiddles wrote:
You've had long back and forths with IBD on these subjects and tuned me out almost entirely.

You're free to do that.

If you ever actually want to discuss these topics with me I'm happy to do that.

It is YOU that does not want to discuss anything. You only want to preach.
tmiddles wrote:
I take "1. No. Yes. No. 2. No. No." in response to everything you ignored above, which is almost exclusively focused on the issue of CO2 and global warming, to be your indication you're not interested in talking with me.

Stop preaching.
tmiddles wrote:
I think you, me and everyone who comes across this topic should think hard about how we all may warp our own perception of the world around us to suit our preference for what we'd like the facts to be.

Again, you describe yourself. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
As far as I can tell you have so far, in about 4 months of being on this board, entirely avoided the basic, consensus theory of global warming

Theory is not consensus. Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
and are still holding on to one you've made up (as in you are still pretending to yourself that the Al Gore's and Bill Nye's of the world believe something entirely different from what that do).

Both deny Al Gore and Bill Nye deny science and mathematics, just as you do.
tmiddles wrote:
How about we actually discuss it Harry and not go through this cycle of you asking, me answering, and then you moving on to ask again.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2020 01:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I've noticed we hold to the position we are happiest with,


Wrong word. You used "we" and you should have used "I."
No, I am accusing us all of a psychological and social error here.

Homunculus fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Your position has a different emphasis for me that it does for you. What I notice about it is the "Grand Hoax". That governments and professionals are engaged in a deliberate campaign to lie to the public about the issues of this board, which includes falsifying data and outright fraud.

The government has been CREATING random numbers and using them as 'data' as an outright fraud. It is deliberately lying to the public to further government agenda as set by the Democrats.
tmiddles wrote:
More to it than that but that's the "Grand Hoax" portion.

Nope. That's all there is to it.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2020 01:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...You cannot trap light...
Sometimes you really seem like a bot ITN.
You just failed the Turing test.
tmiddles wrote:
No response at all to the subject of the post I guess.
I responded to your post, liar.
tmiddles wrote:
How about trying to look at it with respect to Flat Earthers? They do the echo chamber thing too.
Irrelevant. Redirection fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Let's see if you're capable of addressing that.

YALIFNAP.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2020 02:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Into the Night wrote:
YALIFNAP.

You sure do spout off a lot for someone not interested in talking.
24-01-2020 02:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
YALIFNAP.

You sure do spout off a lot for someone not interested in talking.

YALIFNAP


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2020 03:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
YALIFNAP.

You sure do spout off a lot for someone not interested in talking.

YALIFNAP

You sure do spout off a lot for someone not interested in talking.
24-01-2020 18:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote: The internet allows you to cherry pic. You can confirm anything, including that there were never dinosaurs or that the Earth is flat, by engaging in the folly of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.


You cannot use the internet to confirm unambiguous definitions for the Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect or for the global climate.

You cannot use the internet to confirm science of the aforementioned concepts.


tmiddles wrote: Humans are good at finding patterns.

... even when there is no pattern, e.g. among random events like weather.

tmiddles wrote: I wonder if you're even aware of your selectivity Harry. Just a short list of you tuning me out:

Irony abounds.

tmiddles wrote: The atmosphere can have a huge impact on a planets ground level temp (see Venus and Mercury for comparison).

I don't recall anyone claiming that an atmosphere somehow isn't necessary to have a bottom of the atmosphere. Your statement that an atmosphere can have a huge impact on temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere is stupid. It's like saying that a house can have a huge impact on temperatures inside a house. Duuuuh.

tmiddles wrote: The, let's call its "CO2 theory" is that CO2, along with water vapor, have the unique ability to absorb the infrared energy coming up off the earth (while oxygen and hydrogen do not).
This is claimed because of that parlor trick that is never performed in actual sunlight. This is claimed while ignoring how hot the oxygen and nitrogen get in Death Valley in the summer.


[quote]tmiddles wrote: Temperature is a measure of the thermal energy present (and not what is coming in or what is leaving). So you can absolutely increase temperature without increasing the input energy.

Incorrect. Egregiously incorrect.

Perhaps you can give us a repeatable example of something that spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy.

tmiddles wrote: Venus is proof.

Nope. It is nothing of the sort.

tmiddles wrote: Now the important bit by my estimation is that we know that an atmosphere results in a slowing down, evening out, and increase in temperature at the ground level of a planet just from conduction with the ground.

So you're saying that the bottom of the atmosphere is warmed via conduction with the planet? ... and that the bottom of the atmosphere would not have been warmed if there were no atmosphere?

That's absolutely profound.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2020 22:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...You can confirm anything, including that there were never dinosaurs or that the Earth is flat, by engaging in the folly of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.

You cannot use the internet to confirm science of the aforementioned concepts.
But what you should know very well IBD is that discrediting the abundant science that disproves ridiculous ideas is enough! Or, in the language of the person doing that I should say "alleged" science : )

See this meeting of 3 seemingly sane believers in Flat Earth meeting with 3 professional scientists. They emerge from the discussion unscathed, as convinced as they were before that the Earth is flat. The are rooted in an online support for it:
https://youtu.be/Q7yvvq-9ytE

Are you willing to venture away from the topic of Global Warming here IBD? To discuss the form, the method, of self deception?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I wonder if you're even aware of your selectivity Harry. Just a short list of you tuning me out:
Irony abounds.

You seem to have missed my self deprecation:
tmiddles wrote:To indict myself first ...what we are all guilty of...I know I'm guilty too...
25-01-2020 00:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...You can confirm anything, including that there were never dinosaurs or that the Earth is flat, by engaging in the folly of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.

You cannot use the internet to confirm science of the aforementioned concepts.
But what you should know very well IBD is that discrediting the abundant science that disproves ridiculous ideas is enough! Or, in the language of the person doing that I should say "alleged" science : )
...deleted unrelated material...

He has not denied any theory of science. YOU have though. You still continue to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2020 01:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Into the Night wrote:...Stefan-Boltzmann law. Inversion fallacy.


I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you're a bot ITN.

Let's talk about how people can convince themselves the world if flat. Can you do that with me?
Edited on 25-01-2020 01:17
25-01-2020 01:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...Stefan-Boltzmann law. Inversion fallacy.


I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you're a bot ITN.

You already failed the Turing test. You must failed it again.
tmiddles wrote:
Let's talk about how people can convince themselves the world if flat. Can you do that with me?

Religion.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2020 01:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Let's talk about how people can convince themselves the world if flat. Can you do that with me?

Religion.


I'll ask again if you're willing to discuss HOW these people fool themselves. If not so be it I can't make you.
25-01-2020 05:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Let's talk about how people can convince themselves the world if flat. Can you do that with me?

Religion.


I'll ask again if you're willing to discuss HOW these people fool themselves. If not so be it I can't make you.



I'd like to repost your post. It is incredibly stupid. Into the Night gave you a direct and concise answer and you immediately made a post announcing how you were ignoring his response.

What would any rational person's response be to you?

[Answer: "I'm not going to waste my time trying to engage in a conversation with you if you are going to make it a point to ignore me."]

Are you under the impression that people come to this site for your preaching?

[hint: not on your life]


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-01-2020 06:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:...I'm not going to waste my time trying to engage in a conversation with you if you are going to make it a point to ignore me...

Not at all. I saw the one word "religion" and I'm asking you both if you actually want to talk about this.

I'm inviting more than a one word response.

I have no clue what ITN means by "religion" particularly as you're both fond of unique, personal, and revolutionary definitions for words not shared by anyone else, except maybe each other.

With you guys the dictionary, textbook, and all prior human knowledge is of no assistance in parsing what you mean when you say anything.
25-01-2020 06:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote:I have no clue what ITN means by "religion" particularly as you're both fond of unique, personal, and revolutionary definitions for words not shared by anyone else, except maybe each other.

You are fond of characterizing terms of which you are unfamiliar, which are MANY, as unique, personal and revolutionary. You seem to think that anything you don't know must be fabricated because you are, after all, omniscient.

The bottom line is that you are the uneducated, scientifically illiterate WACKO in the equation whose delusion of omniscience prevents him from learning anything. After MONTHS you still haven't been able to grasp the concept that a material/substance is not itself a body. Your omniscience delusion tells you that it is, because you have declared it as such. Wikipedia's errant conflation is all the proof you need to know that you are RIGHT!

I feel your pain.


tmiddles wrote:With you guys the dictionary, textbook, and all prior human knowledge is of no assistance in parsing what you mean when you say anything.

Thank you! Two bogus position assignments in one day! I'm touched.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-01-2020 13:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:With you guys the dictionary, textbook, and all prior human knowledge is of no assistance in parsing what you mean when you say anything.

Thank you! Two bogus position assignments in one day! I'm touched.
No IBD I'm saying I am not able to use them to know what you mean. I can't because you make up your own definitions for words. You have both stated many times that you don't follow dictionary, wikipedia, or any consensus view on the meaning of a word or reference.

Now I would argue that this is simply an attack on a functional use of language. That is consistent with your attacks on functionality as a whole.

I have not trouble looking things up otherwise. Google, wikipedia, the dictionary, all work really well.
25-01-2020 19:13
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
tmiddles, you spent a great deal of energy to rake me over the coals over my lack of interaction with you. All I can say in response is you are spending so much energy trying to look things up, distinguish yourself as an authority and provide distractions that I can't take you seriously. And if I can't, the people with far more science background than I have must just be toying with you for amusement.

It's just my suggestion, and my practice, to humble yourself to the information and provider. Go back and evaluate what you can synthesize. When you get stuck, come back and ask for assistance.

The personality you have created for your user name is that of just an argumentative fool. I'm sure there is a lot more to you than what we are seeing. For your sake, I'd like to see you use your energy to move the argument forward. Good luck!
25-01-2020 19:37
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1642)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles, you spent a great deal of energy to rake me over the coals over my lack of interaction with you. All I can say in response is you are spending so much energy trying to look things up, distinguish yourself as an authority and provide distractions that I can't take you seriously. And if I can't, the people with far more science background than I have must just be toying with you for amusement.

It's just my suggestion, and my practice, to humble yourself to the information and provider. Go back and evaluate what you can synthesize. When you get stuck, come back and ask for assistance.

The personality you have created for your user name is that of just an argumentative fool. I'm sure there is a lot more to you than what we are seeing. For your sake, I'd like to see you use your energy to move the argument forward. Good luck!


I've come to the conclusion, that he's a retired, troll, with too much time on his hands, since he has nobody else to play with anymore. This is just a playground, where he hasn't gotten kick off yet, and still a few people show up to play. He'll either get kick off here too, or the site will get shut down, for lack of use. Which, he isn't smart enough to realize, is probably one of the last few sites, to tolerate the foolishness. He hasn't really contributed anything to the site, just tear down, destroy, distract. Can't get any attention, any other way, or any other place.
25-01-2020 19:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Let's talk about how people can convince themselves the world if flat. Can you do that with me?

Religion.


I'll ask again if you're willing to discuss HOW these people fool themselves. If not so be it I can't make you.


Religion. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2020 19:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...I'm not going to waste my time trying to engage in a conversation with you if you are going to make it a point to ignore me...

Not at all. I saw the one word "religion" and I'm asking you both if you actually want to talk about this.

Just did.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm inviting more than a one word response.

Okay. Fundamentalist religion.
tmiddles wrote:
I have no clue what ITN means by "religion"

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
particularly as you're both fond of unique, personal, and revolutionary definitions for words not shared by anyone else, except maybe each other.

Lie. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
With you guys the dictionary, textbook, and all prior human knowledge is of no assistance in parsing what you mean when you say anything.

No dictionary or textbook defines any word. False authority fallacy .
No dictionary or textbook contains all prior human knowledge. False authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2020 19:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:With you guys the dictionary, textbook, and all prior human knowledge is of no assistance in parsing what you mean when you say anything.

Thank you! Two bogus position assignments in one day! I'm touched.
No IBD I'm saying I am not able to use them to know what you mean.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is trying to change words here. It is YOU that constantly quibbling over words here. Repetitious Redefinition Fallacy (RRF). Repetitious False Authority Fallacy (RFAF).
tmiddles wrote:
I can't because you make up your own definitions for words.

Lie. RRFRFAF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You have both stated many times that you don't follow dictionary, wikipedia, or any consensus view on the meaning of a word or reference.

RFAF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Now I would argue that this is simply an attack on a functional use of language.

You don't get to deny the English language. You don't get to call the Liberal language English. I'm sorry that you do not know English.
tmiddles wrote:
That is consistent with your attacks on functionality as a whole.

Composional error fallacy. RDCF. RRFRFAF.
tmiddles wrote:
I have not trouble looking things up otherwise.

RFAF.
tmiddles wrote:
Google, wikipedia, the dictionary, all work really well.

RFAF.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2020 20:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote: I can't because you make up your own definitions for words.

Incorrect. I use the definitions and semantics as I learned them, and now you are an expert on how I and others learn things.

You, on the other hand, intentionally distort meanings and semantics, especially those of others, as a dishonest way of preaching your religion. Since you cannot win in the forum of ideas you seek to sabotage and silence the ideas of others.

tmiddles wrote:You have both stated many times that you don't follow dictionary, wikipedia, or any consensus view on the meaning of a word or reference.

Follow? How does one "follow" a dictionary? Yes, I summarily dismiss Wikipedia and other warmizombie church material; I don't know how that relates to "following" unless you mean in the sense that you are a follower of Wikipedia's teachings. Of course, science does not use any consensus; science is not determined by democratic vote and no institution's approval or permission is required for science to be created or falsified.

So, yes, if a dictionary is in error, and I notice it, I will certainly advise you. Otherwise dictionaries are references for SPELLING.

Additionally, *I* get to determine what words *I* use in my arguments and what they mean. As long as I define my terms then there is no issue. No one gets to dismiss my arguments just because I don't use Wikipedia's terminology, for example, or that Google doesn't return results supporting my terms. Google does not own English and Google does not own science.

Similarly, as long as you do not define your terms, e.g. the global climate, Greenhouse Effect, etc., or define your margin of error, you are in error and your argument is summarily dismissed.

So, if you ever have an issue whereby I am not defining my terms then you have a case. If it's simply that you don't agree with the words I am using then you don't. You have to address my argument under my words and my semantics. You are similarly welcome to use your own preferred terms ... but when you try to add a frequency term to emissivity, just because you don't understand the science, then your argument itself is flawed and is dismissed on that basis.

tmiddles wrote: Now I would argue that this is simply an attack on a functional use of language.

... and you would be incorrect. The speaker gets to craft his own expression, as long as the semantics are unambiguously defined. When I first encountered Into the Night, there were several times in which I started to rake him over the coals ... only to discover that he was entirely correct, he was just using different words. He leans towards industry/marketing terminology and I use mostly purist science and math terminology. He and I both learned the same concepts but under different lingo. I had to dedicate posts to saying "OK, OK, I am backpedaling ... as long as you actually mean X when you write Y and as long as you mean P when you write Q, etc..."

He wasn't wrong. He gets to choose the words he uses to express what he wants to write. So do you. You just need to define what you mean by those words. If what you mean by those words is subsequently in error, you need to change what you are arguing. You can't simply fix logic errors in your argument by quibbling over a word usage disparity.

tmiddles wrote:I have not trouble looking things up otherwise. Google, wikipedia, the dictionary, all work really well.

You have no problem just treating all internet sources as inerrant and lazily absorbing and regurgitating all errors you encounter. That is when your citations are "false authorities". You appeal to erroneous sources that cannot be cross-examined, and you strangely become confused when they are not accepted and your arguments are summarily dismissed.

I realize the frustration you must feel. I don't know what to tell you other than you should break your addiction to false authorities and endure the withdrawal pains of just learning the material from authoritative sources the way humans learn.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-01-2020 07:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Harry C wrote:...rake me over the coals...an argumentative fool...
Well like I said I include myself in making this error. All I said was that you ignored my posts and that's clearly not much of an insult as you've announced you're doing that now.

You've had no response to what I've had to say in this topic either. That's your choice. It's clear what you're doing so carry on.

However I think my question here, and I don't have an answer yet, is a good one so I hope someone can help.

HarveyH55 wrote:...the foolishness. He hasn't really contributed anything to the site,....
I don't like you either Harvey. But you claim I'm committing offenses worthy of a ban. No examples of the foolishness Harvey?
But really what's interesting is how on topic you are in summing up everything I've posted, which contradicts what you want to be true, as nothing at all.

Someone intent on believing dinosaurs never existed is able to do that same thing.

But again I think I'm doing it too.

IBdaMann wrote:
You, on the other hand, intentionally distort ...
Why bother saying that and not giving an example? What words have I distorted the meaning of? How is that not easily corrected by stating the meaning in place of the word?

IBdaMann wrote:*I* get to determine what words *I* use in my arguments and what they mean.
And if someone doesn't know, and you're addressing them, isn't it appropriate to provide a method from them to discover that meaning?
IBdaMann wrote:...as long as the semantics are unambiguously defined.
is often something that needs to be addressed isn't it?

But hear me out here I think there is something to that:
I think one of the ways this insidious self satisfaction that masquerades as debate and research works is in the reader/hearer warping what the speaker is saying to turn it into something they prefer. Wouldn't you agree I do that with what you say?

IBdaMann wrote:When I first encountered Into the Night, there were several times in which I started to rake him over the coals ... only to discover that he was entirely correct, he was just using different words.
That's crystal clear and well said. I would add that another similar area of confusion arises when the subject matter being addressed is confused. As I said before when I was more hopeful about our discussions:
link to thread
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote: My post was about the topic of this thread.
I carefully looked over this long dead thread before reviving it. It suffered from a disorganized and scattered argument that never got anywhere. As I said elsewhere I see that ITN and IBdaMann don't want to let things go when they see errors. So we can just clear things up one by one, in an organized fashion. The breakdown with posters and ITN/IBdaMann on the board I think goes something like this:

DolphinHater: Look you have to recognize the dangers of fish like Dolphins
IBdaMann/ITN: Dolphins aren't fish at all
DolphinHater: Oh so you don't believe in Dolphins now! You are CRAZY
IBdaMann/ITN: Sea life misidentification fallacy
DolphinHater: Dolphins killed my whole family, here is a photo of them dying
IBdaMann/ITN: Sympathy fallacy and Sea Life misidentification fallacy

So far I think this has been very valuable. This isn't just about convincing anyone of anything it's about clearly organizing the information and ideas and clearing up things that are wrong.

Give it a chance.

I think that a good question to ask here is can a method be applied that would allow someone to see their own bias, their own blindness? And hopefully a way past it.

IBdaMann wrote:...you should break your addiction to false authorities...

One of the tools that has been used to "sober up" any group is laying a trap. It got Dan Rather fired when he used bad sources. I've seen attorney's in the news, like Gloria Allred for example, do the following: They open with only the accusation against a defendant and hold back the fact that they have real evidence. Doing this because she knows the defendant will craft a lie they think they can get away with. Once they have publicly she lets the other shoe drop, exposing them as a liar.

But I think what's called for is a better understand and application, on my part for one, of a scientific method. I went to art school so I got nothing yet.

But to reiterate: You all are 100 times crazier/blinder than me, easily, but I think I'm still crazy/blind.
26-01-2020 18:45
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...rake me over the coals...an argumentative fool...
Well like I said I include myself in making this error. All I said was that you ignored my posts and that's clearly not much of an insult as you've announced you're doing that now.

You've had no response to what I've had to say in this topic either. That's your choice. It's clear what you're doing so carry on.

However I think my question here, and I don't have an answer yet, is a good one so I hope someone can help.


There you go again, thinking that you are the arbiter of the universe. Look, you might not like what I wrote but it was not an insult. Part of your problem is you don't stretch your comprehension. From my reply you did not even derive that I was not answering your questions because I don't take you seriously. Then you go on to complain about it again. I'm not getting in to that trap with you. Something about Proverbs 26:4 comes to mind.

You wanted to be insulted and to bite back. It's clear by what you quoted, that it is not reflective of the tone and tenor of what I wrote. I was trying to give you space to take what I said and reflect upon it.

Humble yourself and turn off your self-appointed judgeship and it will help you a great deal. Continue to act like an acerbic ass and you will waste a lot of time and learn nothing. I'll bet you're not like this in person.

Cheers!


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
26-01-2020 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...rake me over the coals...an argumentative fool...
Well like I said I include myself in making this error. All I said was that you ignored my posts and that's clearly not much of an insult as you've announced you're doing that now.
Lie. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
You've had no response to what I've had to say in this topic either. That's your choice. It's clear what you're doing so carry on.

Lie. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
However I think my question here, and I don't have an answer yet, is a good one so I hope someone can help.

Lie. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:...the foolishness. He hasn't really contributed anything to the site,....
I don't like you either Harvey.

Obvious.
tmiddles wrote:
But you claim I'm committing offenses worthy of a ban.

According to your own criteria, yes.
tmiddles wrote:
No examples of the foolishness Harvey?

RFAF
tmiddles wrote:
But really what's interesting is how on topic you are in summing up everything I've posted, which contradicts what you want to be true, as nothing at all.

Lie. RDCF
tmiddles wrote:
Someone intent on believing dinosaurs never existed is able to do that same thing.

YALIF. RFAF.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You, on the other hand, intentionally distort ...
Why bother saying that and not giving an example?

RQAA RFAF
tmiddles wrote:
What words have I distorted the meaning of?

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
How is that not easily corrected by stating the meaning in place of the word?

RQAA. Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:*I* get to determine what words *I* use in my arguments and what they mean.
And if someone doesn't know, and you're addressing them, isn't it appropriate to provide a method from them to discover that meaning?

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...as long as the semantics are unambiguously defined.
is often something that needs to be addressed isn't it?

Because you like to quibble words. RDCF
tmiddles wrote:
But hear me out here I think there is something to that:
I think one of the ways this insidious self satisfaction that masquerades as debate

RFRRFAF
tmiddles wrote:
and research

What research?
tmiddles wrote:
works is in the reader/hearer warping what the speaker is saying to turn it into something they prefer. Wouldn't you agree I do that with what you say?

Inversion fallacy. RDCF
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:When I first encountered Into the Night, there were several times in which I started to rake him over the coals ... only to discover that he was entirely correct, he was just using different words.
That's crystal clear and well said. I would add that another similar area of confusion arises when the subject matter being addressed is confused.

RDCF. RQAA.
IBdaMann wrote:...you should break your addiction to false authorities...

One of the tools that has been used to "sober up" any group is laying a trap.

YALIF. Paranoia.
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted unrelated material...
But I think what's called for is a better understand and application, on my part for one, of a scientific method.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
tmiddles wrote:
I went to art school so I got nothing yet.

But to reiterate: You all are 100 times crazier/blinder than me, easily, but I think I'm still crazy/blind.

YALIFNAP


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 06:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...rake me over the coals...an argumentative fool...
Well like I said I include myself in making this error. All I said was that you ignored my posts and that's clearly not much of an insult ...
...what I wrote but it was not an insult....
I was saying that my accusing you of ignoring my posts what not an insult to you. I never alleged you insulted me. I don't care at all about that we are floating avatars on the internet.

Harry C wrote:...I was not answering your questions because I don't take you seriously. ...
This is my entire thesis here. I was pointing that out. Just as I don't take some things seriously/dismiss them and Voilà ! The echo chamber is achieved.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Your definition of science has long since been debunked:
Google: 7 results, pretty much just you
28-01-2020 07:31
keepit
★★★★☆
(1070)
I know Richard Feynman and Karl Popper and Don Lincoln have said that science is a set of falsifiable theories but i don't find it helpful at all. It's kind of like the weak anthropic principle, not much use IMHO.
28-01-2020 08:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...rake me over the coals...an argumentative fool...
Well like I said I include myself in making this error. All I said was that you ignored my posts and that's clearly not much of an insult ...
...what I wrote but it was not an insult....
I was saying that my accusing you of ignoring my posts what not an insult to you. I never alleged you insulted me. I don't care at all about that we are floating avatars on the internet.
RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...I was not answering your questions because I don't take you seriously. ...
This is my entire thesis here. I was pointing that out. Just as I don't take some things seriously/dismiss them and Voilà ! The echo chamber is achieved.
RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Your definition of science has long since been debunked:

Lie. RDCF. RRFRFAF


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 08:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
keepit wrote:
I know Richard Feynman and Karl Popper and Don Lincoln have said that science is a set of falsifiable theories but i don't find it helpful at all. It's kind of like the weak anthropic principle, not much use IMHO.


Then you don't understand their arguments.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 13:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
keepit wrote:
I know Richard Feynman and Karl Popper and Don Lincoln have said that science is a set of falsifiable theories but i don't find it helpful at all. It's kind of like the weak anthropic principle, not much use IMHO.


I looked for that and couldn't find it. I believe they talk about theories be falsifiable but no one has ever said Science is ONLY that. Except for ITN that is
28-01-2020 15:26
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...I was not answering your questions because I don't take you seriously. ...
This is my entire thesis here. I was pointing that out. Just as I don't take some things seriously/dismiss them and Voilà ! The echo chamber is achieved.


There is a difference. I'm trying to learn and you are not. You have already assigned yourself the role of provocateur. I've seen it so many times before. You insert yourself in to discussions with an attempt to be relevant. You dissect people's posts to the point that no one knows which end is up anymore. It causes confusion, diffusion and dilution.

No sir, there is no point to this thread except you trying to create some authority for yourself.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
28-01-2020 17:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
keepit wrote: I know Richard Feynman and Karl Popper and Don Lincoln have said that science is a set of falsifiable theories but i don't find it helpful at all.

The most likely reason is that you don't find science helpful at all.


keepit wrote: It's kind of like the weak anthropic principle, not much use IMHO.

It's nothing like it at all.

You are still batting 0.000



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-01-2020 19:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
I know Richard Feynman and Karl Popper and Don Lincoln have said that science is a set of falsifiable theories but i don't find it helpful at all. It's kind of like the weak anthropic principle, not much use IMHO.


I looked for that and couldn't find it. I believe they talk about theories be falsifiable but no one has ever said Science is ONLY that. Except for ITN that is


Lie.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The echo chamber:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact