The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist

In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure. Adiabatic processes, although well understood in classical Thermodynamics, are not part of the current climate theory, which focuses almost exclusively on diabatic radiative processes. As a result of this conceptual bias, climate-science classes taught at Universities do not properly explain the direct effect of pressure as a force on the temperature of thermodynamic systems. Instead, pressure is only discussed as a factor affecting the atmospheric IR optical depth assumed to control surface temperature through a purported "trapping" of radiant heat, which is not observed in the open, convective atmosphere.

Harry C wrote: [quote]In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure.

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: [quote]In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure.

Harry, what you posted is what I call an Oliver North maxim. The conclusion/hypothesis/thesis statement is absolutely spot on ... but for heinously wrong reasons that do nothing but undercut the credibility of the conclusion. For example, if I were to tell you that we should lower taxes ... because if we don't, men from Mars will burn my hair! ... if you were previously in agreement that we should lower taxes, you now might be inclined to vote to increase them based on my rationale.

Yes, there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... but the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. Your article is full of gibber-babble that does not support the thesis.


.

Harry C wrote:

In conclusion, ...

IBdaMann wrote:...the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface.

tmiddles wrote:
IBD is currently hell bent of pretending we know nothing about Venus to avoid debating this issue (because he will lose):

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not aware ...

Harry C wrote:I'm still seeking ...

Harry C wrote: On a more serious note, there's a large [congregation] that don't believe in a threat of AGW/CC [yet still believe in Global Warming]. However they arrive at their [faith] by different means. What the [Realist Congregation] need is a great unifier. Any ideas on who that could be?

Harry C wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: [quote]In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure.

Harry, what you posted is what I call an Oliver North maxim. The conclusion/hypothesis/thesis statement is absolutely spot on ... but for heinously wrong reasons that do nothing but undercut the credibility of the conclusion. For example, if I were to tell you that we should lower taxes ... because if we don't, men from Mars will burn my hair! ... if you were previously in agreement that we should lower taxes, you now might be inclined to vote to increase them based on my rationale.

Yes, there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... but the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. Your article is full of gibber-babble that does not support the thesis.


.

Thank you for the feedback. Your objection has been duly noted.

I'm still seeking. You could help me or give me credit for trying to support your message.

On a more serious note, there's a large contingent of people that don't believe in a threat of AGW/CC. However they arrive at their conclusion by different means. What the realists need is a great unifier. Any ideas on who that could be?

Into the Night wrote:
Not a who. A what. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:

In conclusion, ...

Not that it invalidates any points made but this is basically a private blog post by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. ...deleted Mantras 36d...36a...36b...37...29...25c...4a...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not aware ...

...deleted repetitious post...

Into the Night wrote:RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Not a who. A what. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

...deleted Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b...6...29...6...

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 7...20a1...20a2...20b...7...

Into the Night wrote:..deleted

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantra 29...26...

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: [quote]In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure.

Harry, what you posted is what I call an Oliver North maxim. The conclusion/hypothesis/thesis statement is absolutely spot on ... but for heinously wrong reasons that do nothing but undercut the credibility of the conclusion. For example, if I were to tell you that we should lower taxes ... because if we don't, men from Mars will burn my hair! ... if you were previously in agreement that we should lower taxes, you now might be inclined to vote to increase them based on my rationale.

Yes, there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... but the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. Your article is full of gibber-babble that does not support the thesis.


.

Thank you for the feedback. Your objection has been duly noted.

I'm still seeking. You could help me or give me credit for trying to support your message.

On a more serious note, there's a large contingent of people that don't believe in a threat of AGW/CC. However they arrive at their conclusion by different means. What the realists need is a great unifier. Any ideas on who that could be?

Not a who. A what. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Harry C wrote: And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board.

Harry C wrote: As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation.

Harry C wrote: And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message.

Harry C wrote: You offer no other corroboration.

Harry C wrote: If you want to control the narrative, ...

Harry C wrote: Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

Harry C wrote:There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you.

IBdaMann wrote:...the laws of physics simply don't change on a daily basis ...

IBdaMann wrote:The burden of support is entirely on you...

IBdaMann wrote:...Harry C is a moron...

Harry C wrote: ...[exact same cut-n-paste post deleted] ...

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: [quote]In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure.

Harry, what you posted is what I call an Oliver North maxim. The conclusion/hypothesis/thesis statement is absolutely spot on ... but for heinously wrong reasons that do nothing but undercut the credibility of the conclusion. For example, if I were to tell you that we should lower taxes ... because if we don't, men from Mars will burn my hair! ... if you were previously in agreement that we should lower taxes, you now might be inclined to vote to increase them based on my rationale.

Yes, there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... but the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. Your article is full of gibber-babble that does not support the thesis.


.

Thank you for the feedback. Your objection has been duly noted.

I'm still seeking. You could help me or give me credit for trying to support your message.

On a more serious note, there's a large contingent of people that don't believe in a threat of AGW/CC. However they arrive at their conclusion by different means. What the realists need is a great unifier. Any ideas on who that could be?

Not a who. A what. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

ITN. You seem to be a decent guy. I'll try to make a reasoned appeal to you.

Most people do not have fundamental knowledge of physics, much less the ability to apply the principles to solve a complex problem such as the climate controversy.

Harry C wrote:
And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board. As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation. There is no one that I can find that is holding the same conclusion.

Harry C wrote:
So to think that your pat answer is satiating the need to resolve the issue in a scientifically sound way is untrue.

Harry C wrote:
And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message.

Harry C wrote:
You offer no other corroboration.

Harry C wrote:
It starts to make me doubt that I've not joined a certain cult.

Harry C wrote:
If you want to control the narrative, you guys are going to have to do something more. Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

Harry C wrote:
There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you.

Harry C wrote:
You would think for something that's so simple, everyone on the skeptics or realists side could take refuge in that answer, such that you do.

Harry C wrote:
Unless we can reconcile terms and position, the anti- AGW/CC contingent is losing the battle for the minds and souls of the people.

Harry C wrote:
We, and yes I include myself, can't deliver a simple unified response to the alarmists.

Harry C wrote:
Instead we are bickering about science

Harry C wrote:
and the two of you won't get out of your way to help resolve it.

Harry C wrote:
It is maddening to me.

Harry C wrote:
Thanks for hearing me out.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...the laws of physics simply don't change on a daily basis ...

...deleted Mantras 25...32...10 (science<->data, science<->research)...22...25...25c...4a...4c...4b...4b...10...evasion...attempted force of negative proof fallacy...35b1...30...25c...30...

Into the Night wrote:
The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics haven't changed. Neither has the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Anyone can use these equations....Neither of us created the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Neither of us created the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. These are all you need....

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 7...20e1...25c...7...25c...4c...22...20e2...25f...29...TMSa3...

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Most people do not have fundamental knowledge of physics, much less the ability to apply the principles to solve a complex problem such as the climate controversy.

The so-called 'climate controversy' is not a problem, complex or simple. It is nothing more than the Church of Global Warming spewing the same religion over and over.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board. As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation. There is no one that I can find that is holding the same conclusion.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics haven't changed. Neither has the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Anyone can use these equations. What you are making is an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because YOU can't find them, doesn't mean they don't exist out there.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
So to think that your pat answer is satiating the need to resolve the issue in a scientifically sound way is untrue.

Nonsense statement. I cannot decipher the meaning. Please clarify.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message.

Not my message, and not IBdaMann's message. Neither of us created the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Neither of us created the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. These are all you need.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
You offer no other corroboration.

None needed.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
It starts to make me doubt that I've not joined a certain cult.

Science is not a cult. Neither is mathematics.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
If you want to control the narrative, you guys are going to have to do something more. Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

It's not about credibility. It's about these laws of science and statistical mathematics.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
You would think for something that's so simple, everyone on the skeptics or realists side could take refuge in that answer, such that you do.

Irrelevant.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Unless we can reconcile terms and position, the anti- AGW/CC contingent is losing the battle for the minds and souls of the people.

Not a bit of it. There are fewer and fewer faithful in the Church of Global Warming all the time. They're just loud.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
We, and yes I include myself, can't deliver a simple unified response to the alarmists.

I just gave it to you. It is a simple unified response.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Instead we are bickering about science

No, the Church of Global Warming denies science. Nothing has changed about these three theories of science.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
and the two of you won't get out of your way to help resolve it.

Nothing to resolve.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
It is maddening to me.

Perhaps because you can't yet absorb the ramifications of what these three theories mean.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Thanks for hearing me out.

Sure. But that only goes to a point.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:... Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

It's not about credibility....

...What are you afraid of?

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Most people do not have fundamental knowledge of physics, much less the ability to apply the principles to solve a complex problem such as the climate controversy.

The so-called 'climate controversy' is not a problem, complex or simple. It is nothing more than the Church of Global Warming spewing the same religion over and over.

You totally ignored the context of my sentence in the rush to stamp your prepackaged rebuttal. There is a controversy with most people due to their lack of the same knowledge you possess. Don't presume the lack of knowledge automatically makes people a member of the global warming church.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board. As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation. There is no one that I can find that is holding the same conclusion.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics haven't changed. Neither has the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Anyone can use these equations. What you are making is an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because YOU can't find them, doesn't mean they don't exist out there.

Again you ignore the premise. I know chapter and verse what you're writing. Not just anyone can use these laws or even understand them. I'm not arguing that the science you are relying upon doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that as far as the world at large knows, the truth as you know it is not out there.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
So to think that your pat answer is satiating the need to resolve the issue in a scientifically sound way is untrue.

Nonsense statement. I cannot decipher the meaning. Please clarify.

Oh come on. The scientific answers that you keep replying with are contained solely in this forum. Therefore it is not aiding anyone else to resolve the truth of the matter.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message.

Not my message, and not IBdaMann's message. Neither of us created the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Neither of us created the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. These are all you need.

It is your message. Messaging is independent of fact.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
You offer no other corroboration.

None needed.

Right, Not if you want to remain belligerent. If you want to be a paragon of leadership, information and virtue.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
It starts to make me doubt that I've not joined a certain cult.

Science is not a cult. Neither is mathematics.

The cult is not science or mathematics. The cult is repeating the same verses over and over without regard to any other externalities.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
If you want to control the narrative, you guys are going to have to do something more. Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

It's not about credibility. It's about these laws of science and statistical mathematics.

I have no idea why you want to remain so obtuse. What are you afraid of?

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.

Guilty as charged. Please help me. Why are two individuals on a forum that have a answer to a contrived emergency not winning a Nobel Prize?

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
You would think for something that's so simple, everyone on the skeptics or realists side could take refuge in that answer, such that you do.

Irrelevant.

Absolutely not irrelevant. It's my post and it's relevant to me!

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Unless we can reconcile terms and position, the anti- AGW/CC contingent is losing the battle for the minds and souls of the people.

Not a bit of it. There are fewer and fewer faithful in the Church of Global Warming all the time. They're just loud.

My evidence is mainstream online media sources.

Harry C wrote:
Look at the number of stories touting Global Warming. No stories against.

Harry C wrote:
I read the comments almost daily to maintain an informal poll. What do you offer?

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
We, and yes I include myself, can't deliver a simple unified response to the alarmists.

I just gave it to you. It is a simple unified response.

I'll give you "simple" but not unified as to the anti-AGW, skeptic, realist crowd. There's many prominent scientist that do not believe that CO2 has the claimed effect on long term temperature change (with which I agree) but will be non-committal about whether there is any effect of CO2 on temperature.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Instead we are bickering about science

No, the Church of Global Warming denies science. Nothing has changed about these three theories of science.

This is one I really wanted to get to. I'm not denying science, because I continue to profess my ignorance.

Harry C wrote:
But I have to choose to accept what I'm being told.

Harry C wrote:
Because I don't know, don't have the background, I have to ask questions.

Harry C wrote:
That is why I'm here.

Harry C wrote:
I get answers and then I analyze the answers.

Harry C wrote:
It's a Catch-22 for me for you to continue to recite the same verses and expect me to take it at face value.

Harry C wrote:
I've been attacked anytime I express anything less than confidence and ask follow up questions.

Harry C wrote:
So that erodes my confidence in what I've been told.

Harry C wrote:
I'm an expert in some fields and a professional in others.

Harry C wrote:
When I help someone I bridge the gap between what I know and what the individual needing help knows.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
and the two of you won't get out of your way to help resolve it.

Nothing to resolve.

If you still feel that way after this appeal, I guess we are done with the subject.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
It is maddening to me.

Perhaps because you can't yet absorb the ramifications of what these three theories mean.

True.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Thanks for hearing me out.

Sure. But that only goes to a point.

Hopefully I haven't passed the point. I don't belong to the Church of Global Warming and don't want to. Thanks again!

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:... Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

It's not about credibility....

...What are you afraid of?

...deleted Mantra 5...7...20e1...20a1...20a2...24...17...

Into the Night wrote:...CO2 has some magick power to warm the Earth, you belong to the Church of Global Warming...

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:...the truth as you know it is not out there...

It is out there. You just refuse to see it...These theories are published. Their histories of how they came about is published. They each stand on their own....

Into the Night wrote:...three theories of science that are denied...

Into the Night wrote:1st law of thermodynamics...You can't create energy out of nothing.

Into the Night wrote:* You must use raw data....The oft-quoted Mauna Loa station is cooking their data.

Into the Night wrote:...We don't have enough thermometers on Earth to measure a global temperature, which necessarily requires the use of statistics...

Into the Night wrote:The margin of error is too great to give any meaningful answer.

Into the Night wrote:BWe are not creating any new theory.

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

Into the Night wrote:...attempt to force a negative proof....I do not have to prove that I have an answer to any...

Into the Night wrote:Science isn't scientists...Consensus is not used...The theory still survives today despite tests applied against it...

Into the Night wrote:...a theory must be falsifiable.

Into the Night wrote:If you give me an accurate description of what you know, perhaps I can reword this...

Into the Night wrote:I do not have to prove anything.

Into the Night wrote:I am not making any claim the Earth is warming,

Into the Night wrote:Note, tmiddles often misquotes Karl Popper. Be aware of it.

Into the Night wrote:Still waiting for your example that falsifies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Harry C wrote: You totally ignored the context of my sentence in the rush to stamp your prepackaged rebuttal.

Harry C wrote: There is a controversy with most people due to their lack of the same knowledge you possess. Don't presume the lack of knowledge automatically makes people a member of the global warming church.

Harry C wrote:Again you ignore the premise. I know chapter and verse what you're writing. Not just anyone can use these laws or even understand them. I'm not arguing that the science you are relying upon doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that as far as the world at large knows, the truth as you know it is not out there.

6) Feigning Partnership or Offer to Work Together or Insincere Desire to Work Through the Math

Harry C wrote: Oh come on. The scientific answers that you keep replying with are contained solely in this forum.

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 8...lie...20a1...lie...29...29...29...30...36c...36c...36c...7...20e1..20a1...20m...20a1...20m...7...25c...4c...30...25e...4e...24...25c...25c...7...30...16...25c...16...30...30...29...25c...20a1...20i...20a1...20e1...4e...35b1...20e1...denial of quantum mechanics...20a2...7...20a1...20m...7...20l...20m...lie...30...20j...37c...38a...4c...20a1...7...20e1...25c...4e...30...20a...20e1...31...4e...37a...4c...7...22...7...29...4c...
36e...30...20a2...paradox...16...20a2...denial of quantum mechanics...7...29...

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 8...lie...20a1...lie...29...29...29...30...36c...36c...36c...7...20e1..20a1...20m...20a1...20m...7...25c...4c...30...25e...4e...24...25c...25c...7...30...16...25c...16...30...30...29...25c...20a1...20i...20a1...20e1...4e...35b1...20e1...denial of quantum mechanics...20a2...7...20a1...20m...7...20l...20m...lie...30...20j...37c...38a...4c...20a1...7...20e1...25c...4e...30...20a...20e1...31...4e...37a...4c...7...22...7...29...4c...
36e...30...20a2...paradox...16...20a2...denial of quantum mechanics...7...29...

No argument presented. RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...CO2 has some magick power to warm the Earth, you belong to the Church of Global Warming...

This is classic straw manning. No one argues that CO2 generates energy or does anything water vapor doesn't also do. ITN refuses to clarify what he is objecting to. Is it that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiance as Tyndall discovered? Well ITN? What is your objection?

That's a question I'm sure you'll ignore.

gfm7175 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 8...lie...20a1...lie...29...29...29...30...36c...36c...36c...7...20e1..20a1...20m...20a1...20m...7...25c...4c...30...25e...4e...24...25c...25c...7...30...16...25c...16...30...30...29...25c...20a1...20i...20a1...20e1...4e...35b1...20e1...denial of quantum mechanics...20a2...7...20a1...20m...7...20l...20m...lie...30...20j...37c...38a...4c...20a1...7...20e1...25c...4e...30...20a...20e1...31...4e...37a...4c...7...22...7...29...4c...
36e...30...20a2...paradox...16...20a2...denial of quantum mechanics...7...29...

No argument presented. RQAA.

Wow, tmiddles sure loves falling back on his mantras!!

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Most people do not have fundamental knowledge of physics, much less the ability to apply the principles to solve a complex problem such as the climate controversy.

The so-called 'climate controversy' is not a problem, complex or simple. It is nothing more than the Church of Global Warming spewing the same religion over and over.

You totally ignored the context of my sentence in the rush to stamp your prepackaged rebuttal. There is a controversy with most people due to their lack of the same knowledge you possess. Don't presume the lack of knowledge automatically makes people a member of the global warming church.

As long as you believe that CO2 has some magick power to warm the Earth, you belong to the Church of Global Warming. If you truly want to leave this religion, you must first discard this belief.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board. As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation. There is no one that I can find that is holding the same conclusion.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics haven't changed. Neither has the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Anyone can use these equations. What you are making is an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because YOU can't find them, doesn't mean they don't exist out there.

Again you ignore the premise. I know chapter and verse what you're writing. Not just anyone can use these laws or even understand them. I'm not arguing that the science you are relying upon doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that as far as the world at large knows, the truth as you know it is not out there.

It is out there. You just refuse to see it. Equations are not a chapter or a verse. Neither is science, and neither is mathematics.

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t)=E(t+1)+U where E is energy, 't' is time, and U is work.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time.
Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance, C is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

There are the three theories of science that are denied by the Church of Global Warming.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't reduce entropy in any system.
* No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. Not CO2, not methane, not water vapor, NOTHING.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
So to think that your pat answer is satiating the need to resolve the issue in a scientifically sound way is untrue.

Nonsense statement. I cannot decipher the meaning. Please clarify.

Oh come on. The scientific answers that you keep replying with are contained solely in this forum. Therefore it is not aiding anyone else to resolve the truth of the matter.

WRONG. These theories are published. Their histories of how they came about is published. They each stand on their own. None of them have yet been falsified.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message.

Not my message, and not IBdaMann's message. Neither of us created the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Neither of us created the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. These are all you need.

It is your message. Messaging is independent of fact.

Neither of us created these theories. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. They are not a 'message'. They are theories of science you choose to continue to ignore and deny.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
You offer no other corroboration.

None needed.

Right, Not if you want to remain belligerent. If you want to be a paragon of leadership, information and virtue.

I already am, but that claim is irrelevant here, just as your bringing up such a comment is irrelevant here.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
It starts to make me doubt that I've not joined a certain cult.

Science is not a cult. Neither is mathematics.

The cult is not science or mathematics. The cult is repeating the same verses over and over without regard to any other externalities.

These theories stand on their own. They don't need 'externalities'.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
If you want to control the narrative, you guys are going to have to do something more. Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

It's not about credibility. It's about these laws of science and statistical mathematics.

I have no idea why you want to remain so obtuse. What are you afraid of?

These theories are plain and simple. There is nothing obtuse about any of them. The requirements of statistical math are plain and simple. There is nothing obtuse about them either.
* You must use raw data. The raw data must be available.
* You must select from that raw data by randN, which is the same type of random number as used in a deck of cards.
* You must declare the variance used. In the case of temperature, I have already shown that temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile and how such a steep gradient can be obtained.
* You must normalize that data by paired randR. This is the same type of random number as on a pair (or more) or dice. This is how you discard out of band selected data.
* You must calculate the margin of error from the variance used, and the average of the selected data used. One without the other is a meaningless answer.
* We don't have enough thermometers on Earth to measure a global temperature, which necessarily requires the use of statistics. The margin of error is too great to give any meaningful answer.
* It is not possible to measure the absolute temperature of anything by using light. The emissivity of what you are measuring (the Earth) is unknown. It can only be measured by FIRST knowing accurately the temperature of the Earth. Therefore, no satellite can measure the temperature of the Earth.
* Similarly, there are not enough atmospheric CO2 monitoring stations to provide a global average CO2 measurement of the atmosphere. The oft-quoted Mauna Loa station is cooking their data. It is not available for use in statistical math.
* Measurements require a zero reference point (what we call 'zero' is up to us...as Einstein said, it's all relative. It is relative to what we ourselves decide to call 'zero'. There is no valid reference point for measuring global sea level. The current reference points are mounted on land, which moves, and even has a tide like the ocean. Therefore, it is not possible to measure the global sea level.
* No one is measuring the total ice and snow amount on Earth, as that constantly changes. However, one can look at the winter ice extents of polar ice by satellite (the area covered by polar ice during a winter). Both poles are showing larger ice extents for past couple of years. In 2014, the Antarctic recorded the largest ice extent ever recorded. This information is at the snow and ice data center, in Boulder, CO.
* Hurricane activity has not significantly changed (other than the usual variances from year to year). This data can be found at the hurricane data center located in Miami, FL.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.

Guilty as charged. Please help me. Why are two individuals on a forum that have a answer to a contrived emergency not winning a Nobel Prize?

Because the laws of thermodynamics already exist. We are not creating any new theory. The Stefan-Boltzman law already exists. We didn't invent that one either. What you are trying to do here is justify a fallacy known as an attempt to force a negative proof. It is literally an attempt to force an argument of ignorance fallacy upon another. It is this fallacy that makes 'guilty until proven innocent' a fallacious argument in and of itself. The fallacy often results from an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I do not have to prove that I have an answer to any emergency, contrived or otherwise. YOU have to show why it's an emergency at all. So far, the Church of Global Warming simply says that CO2 can warm the Earth. I object to this claim by means of applying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Various claims that there is data confirming CO2's magick behavior. I object to this claim by means of statistical mathematics. There is no data. Anyone telling you there is is lying. Yes, that includes NOAA and NASA, both government agencies, with agendas that have little to do with anything but increasing and enhancing government power.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
You would think for something that's so simple, everyone on the skeptics or realists side could take refuge in that answer, such that you do.

Irrelevant.

Absolutely not irrelevant. It's my post and it's relevant to me!

It is irrelevant, despite the fact that you posted it.

Science does not use consensus. Neither does mathematics. Only religions and politics use consensus.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Unless we can reconcile terms and position, the anti- AGW/CC contingent is losing the battle for the minds and souls of the people.

Not a bit of it. There are fewer and fewer faithful in the Church of Global Warming all the time. They're just loud.

My evidence is mainstream online media sources.

Another word for 'propaganda'. Newspapers are not evidence of anything. The sooner you can discard this notion that they are, the better off you'll be. No newspaper can override the requirements of statistical mathematics or falsify any theory of science.

Harry C wrote:
Look at the number of stories touting Global Warming. No stories against.

Irrelevant. Consensus is not used in science. It is only used in religions and politics. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. It is based on the initial circular argument that the global is somehow warming, and all of its other arguments extend from that initial circular argument. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'. Attempting to prove a circular argument is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

Harry C wrote:
I read the comments almost daily to maintain an informal poll. What do you offer?

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the rules and requirements demanded by statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics.

If you want to know why any of theory of science exists and how the theory was developed, read up on the history of that theory. That itself is often a fascinating tale, usually involving several scientists, not just the those that came up with the theory itself. Here you will find how the theory was tested for validity, and how tests for falsification were applied to the theory. The theory still survives today despite tests applied against it to try to destroy it. It is that fact which makes a theory a theory of science. Nothing else.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
We, and yes I include myself, can't deliver a simple unified response to the alarmists.

I just gave it to you. It is a simple unified response.

I'll give you "simple" but not unified as to the anti-AGW, skeptic, realist crowd. There's many prominent scientist that do not believe that CO2 has the claimed effect on long term temperature change (with which I agree) but will be non-committal about whether there is any effect of CO2 on temperature.

Science isn't scientists. It is just the theories themselves. The only requirement is that a theory must be falsifiable. That is to say, a theory must have available a test designed to destroy the theory. That test must be available to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result. If the theory survives such a test, it is automatically part of the body of science. No scientist or group of scientists vote on a theory. Once the theory is part of science, the scientist no longer matters. The theory stands on it's own.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Instead we are bickering about science

No, the Church of Global Warming denies science. Nothing has changed about these three theories of science.

This is one I really wanted to get to. I'm not denying science, because I continue to profess my ignorance.

Actually, you are denying science. I have already answered why. I have answered again here in this post. You continue to ask the same questions over and over. This I mark with the acronym RQAA (repetitious question already answered). It is also marked as Mantra 29.

Harry C wrote:
But I have to choose to accept what I'm being told.

That you do, but first you MUST discard the notion that CO2 or any other gas or vapor has the magick ability to get around the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

I you examine the so-called 'greenhouse effect', it violates each of these laws.

Harry C wrote:
Because I don't know, don't have the background, I have to ask questions.

You have already asked the questions, and they have already been answered several times. You continue to ask the same questions, because your religion tells you that you cannot accept the answer.

Harry C wrote:
That is why I'm here.

I have my doubts.

Harry C wrote:
I get answers and then I analyze the answers.

I will call this a lie. It is even a lie to yourself. You are not analyzing the answers at all. You are discarding them and asking the same questions over and over due to your religion.

Harry C wrote:
It's a Catch-22 for me for you to continue to recite the same verses and expect me to take it at face value.

I have described to you these theories of science. If you want to know why they are theories of science, you will have to do your own footwork looking up the histories of these theories, how they came to be, and how they were tested for falsification. There is no room to describe that here.

Harry C wrote:
I've been attacked anytime I express anything less than confidence and ask follow up questions.

No, you are being attacked because you ask the SAME questions repetitiously.

Harry C wrote:
So that erodes my confidence in what I've been told.

No, your belief in the Church of Global Warming erodes your confidence in what you've been told. Nothing else.

Harry C wrote:
I'm an expert in some fields and a professional in others.

Irrelevant. Credential claims, 'expertness' claims, and 'professional' claims mean nothing on blind forums such as this. It is only the arguments themselves that matter here.

Harry C wrote:
When I help someone I bridge the gap between what I know and what the individual needing help knows.

Basic learning process. If you want to learn, perhaps you could describe your background and I will work from that. If you give me an accurate description of what you know, perhaps I can reword this in terms you are more familiar with.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
and the two of you won't get out of your way to help resolve it.

Nothing to resolve.

If you still feel that way after this appeal, I guess we are done with the subject.

I do not have to prove anything. I am not making any claim the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same. I am not making any claim the ocean levels are rising, falling, or just staying the same. I point out fallacies in arguments and areas that disagree with certain theories of science or areas of mathematics. A fallacy is an error in logic (a closed functional system, like mathematics), just like an arithmetic error is an error in mathematics. Unfortunately, very few schools teach logic. Almost none of them teach philosophy (they tend to regard phenomenology as the entirety of philosophy, and spend a fair amount of time wasted on presenting paradoxes as 'philosophy').

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
It is maddening to me.

Perhaps because you can't yet absorb the ramifications of what these three theories mean.

True.

Perhaps the difficulty you are having in leaving the comfort of your belief in the Church of Global Warming, the newspaper articles, and what the government is telling as 'the Truth'; is leaving you in a position where you cannot view anything about this from a neutral point of view. Also, people are not talk to think for themselves. They are not taught to use philosophy, a powerful tool.

Philosophy is the reasoning behind an argument. An argument is a conclusion and a set of predicates. The only real rule in philosophy is that the reasoning must come from the individual making the argument. You cannot borrow predicates from others or use the arguments of others as your own.

It is philosophy that defines words like 'science', 'religion', 'reality', etc. For each word so defined, there is a reasoning behind each of their definitions. Philosophy has had many arguments trying to discriminate the meaning of 'science' and 'religion'. A good place to start with these is the philosophies presented by Karl Popper. Others have refined them since then, but the basic premise is well presented there.

Note, tmiddles often misquotes Karl Popper. Be aware of it.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Thanks for hearing me out.

Sure. But that only goes to a point.

Hopefully I haven't passed the point. I don't belong to the Church of Global Warming and don't want to. Thanks again!

Actually, you do. As long as you hold the notion that CO2 has some magick property that can warm the Earth, you do.

If you truly want to leave this religion, you MUST first discard the notion that CO2 or any other gas or vapor has any such magick property.

The 1st law of thermodynamics shows why.

Harry C wrote:
I do not believe in global warming due to CO2. I want to understand why others do.

Harry C wrote:
I know why the UN is promoting it. I'd like to be a change agent against it.

Harry C wrote:
I'm not comfortable merely reciting physics laws and telling people to figure it out.

Harry C wrote:
I've used this forum to try to validate outside information I have found. Evidently one is to be ridiculed if they don't fall in with the party line.

Harry C wrote:
I'll keep looking and it has nothing to do with disbelief of what has been shared with me here. It has to do with reinforcing my knowledge. If this is not a place to learn I'll move along.

Harry C wrote:
That's all I've ever said and what I'll continue to say until I can close the hole in my comprehension.

Harry C wrote:
My most sincere wish is this issue dies quickly.