Remember me
▼ Content

The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"



Page 6 of 8<<<45678>
19-10-2015 14:50
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
How does "climate science" differ substantially from any major religion?


In the same way that physics, chemistry, and biology differ substantially from any major religion.


Exalent!

I look forward to seeing you post the evidence to support your position. Something some here utterly fail to do.

I don't think tens of thousands of published research papers in the Journals over the past 40 years or so, the research reports of most of the major Science institutions, all the IPCC reports on the research, and a whole lot of University textbooks (And hey, even ExxonMobile's research since the 1970's) could fit in a forum post.

Are you saying you haven't looked into any of these yourself?



Edited on 19-10-2015 14:59
19-10-2015 15:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the Dumber - pray tell, dear Timothy, regarding Exalent which you refer to in your prior post, is that the oratory equivalent of Ex-lax which you rely upon to produce so much verbal diarrhea?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 17:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1356)
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
How does "climate science" differ substantially from any major religion?


In the same way that physics, chemistry, and biology differ substantially from any major religion.


Exalent!

I look forward to seeing you post the evidence to support your position. Something some here utterly fail to do.

I don't think tens of thousands of published research papers in the Journals over the past 40 years or so, the research reports of most of the major Science institutions, all the IPCC reports on the research, and a whole lot of University textbooks (And hey, even ExxonMobile's research since the 1970's) could fit in a forum post.

Are you saying you haven't looked into any of these yourself?


I have certainly read some of these. I just wanted to say that it will be good to have points backed by references to data and papers.

So that claims can be checked out.
19-10-2015 17:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1356)
trafn wrote:
@Tim the Dumber - pray tell, dear Timothy, regarding Exalent which you refer to in your prior post, is that the oratory equivalent of Ex-lax which you rely upon to produce so much verbal diarrhea?


I think you have the better of me in the verbage stakes.

Spelling I'll give you, you have me beat there too. I never could spell.
19-10-2015 17:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - you know, me neither. As a matter of fact, I'm fond of saying that if there isn't a typo in it, then I probably didn't write it.

I'll share a little secret with you (don't tell anyone). In the 70's when I attended Syracuse University, I held the all time record for failing Freshman English 101: 5 times in a row!* It wasn't until I finally studied and passed predicate logic (the logic of language) that I finally passed the damn English course, and that was, of course, only after I had failed predicate logic once before.

* - this is true! The English Department even posted a plaque honoring me for the achievement which they posted in the first floor men's room of the English Building.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 19:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14349)
trafn wrote: which they posted in the first floor men's room of the English Building.

How did you know it was an English building? Did it speak with a funny accent?


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
19-10-2015 23:57
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - yes, every time you walked in the door it said, "Hello," but in with a strong Slavik accent.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
16-06-2023 10:32
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi trafn

I'm glad that you have joined in on this discussion, as you seem to know a lot about Karl Popper.

I myself have been doing some research on this too, and came across this really interesting blog post:

http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/falsifiable-and-falsification-in-science.html

which lead me to another really interesting blog post:

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

The latter lists 10 ways in which anthropogenic global warmings is falsifiable. For me, the two that are most relevant to the greenhouse effect in particular are numbers 5 and 6.

5, states that warming of the stratosphere would falsify the greenhouse effect. Currently the stratosphere is cooling, as confirmed by measurements, which are presented in this report from the American Met Society (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2013BAMSStateoftheClimate.1). Greenhouse gases cause stratospheric cooling because they absorb and re-emit infrared in the troposphere in all directions, including downwards, which in turn is reducing the amount of infrared radiation heating the stratosphere (see: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp).

6, points out that major errors in satellites that measure Earth's outgoing infrared would also falsify the greenhouse effect. The satellite data currently show that Earth's outgoing IR is significantly reduced at wavelengths that coincide with the main greenhouse gas absorption spectra. If these measurements could be shown to be wrong, then this would also disprove the greenhouse effect.

I also thought some of the preceeding text by Hans Custers was very interesting, so I have copied it here:

"First, a few more things about falsifiability in general. Bart wrote a concise post about the subject four years ago, explaining that a bird in the sky does not disprove gravity. What looks like a refutation at first, might on second thoughts be based on partial or total misunderstanding of the hypothesis. Natural climate forcings and variations do not exclude human impacts. Therefore, the existence of these natural factors in itself, cannot falsify anthropogenic climate change. A real skeptic is cautious about both scientific evidence and refutations. 'Climate change skeptics' like to mention the single black swan, that disproves the hypothesis that all swans are white. Of course that is true, unless that single black swan appears to be found near some oil spill."

"It is not very easy to find options to falsify the science of human impacts on climate. Not because climate scientists don't respect philosophical principles of science, but simply because there's such a huge amount of evidence. There are not a lot of findings that would disprove all the evidence at once. A scientific revolution of this magnitude only happens very rarely. Whoever thinks differently, doesn't understand how science works."

"Even more, the claim 'The AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable' demonstrates a lack of understanding of Popper's ideas, in which falsifiability is so important. I don't think Popper's philosophy implies that some three word hypothesis – Anthropogenic Global Warming – can be rejected by nothing but a few simple claims. Popper would expect a more serious intellectual effort from a scientist. First, he will have to find an accurate wording for his hypothesis. The next step is some thorough thinking about the consequences. This will help him to design tests that can either support or falsify his idea. If, in the end, the result of the test appears to be worthwhile, the scientist will write a paper on this whole enterprise."

"As a matter of fact, the 'AGW-hypothesis' is not a hypothesis in the Popperian sense. The human impact on climate is a theory, supported by many hypotheses, each of them tested according to widely accepted scientific standards. Just as Popper and his successors in the philosophy of science would have wanted."


trafn - perhaps you could comment on these quotes?

I suppose that IBdaMann is now going to be upset because I am not following the 'rules'. However, it is very hard to have any sort of meaningful discussion, without showing where your information comes from, regardless of whether it is from white literature, or from a blog post.

IBdaMann - I am looking forward to the examples that trafn has requested, so that I might be able to figure out if I will be able to follow them or not.
16-06-2023 10:33
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
climate scientist wrote:
IBdMann - you did not comment on my post yet. Do you have nothing to say about the two examples I described of how the greenhouse effect is falsifiable?

Here is another example:

In 1896, Arrhenius proposed that if atmospheric CO2 increased by 2.5-3 times, then Arctic temperatures would rise by 8-9 deg C.

This theory was not based on atmospheric measurements at the time, and is entirely falsifiable. Just because modern atmospheric measurements have not been able to prove Arrhenius wrong, does not mean that his theory is not falsifiable.

And now for a basic physics lesson on 1st LoT, from the I-physics text book, section 12.

"Thermal energy can be increased either by doing work, or by adding heat to a system. Thus, the total increase in the thermal energy of a system is the sum of the work done on it, and the heat added to it."

This is called the first Law of Thermodynamics, and is essentially the same as the Conservation of Energy, applied to thermal systems.

The equation for the 1st LoT is:

deltaQh = W + Ql, where W is the work done on the system, Ql is the heat added to a system, and deltaQh is the change in thermal energy.

It is easy to see from this equation that one does not require work to increase the thermal energy of the system. If W is 0, but Ql is not 0, then deltaQh will not be 0. Similarly, if Ql is 0, but W is not 0, then deltaQh will not be 0.

There are many examples of the 1st LoT in the real world, some of which show only heat being added to a system with no work done, and others that show work being done with no heat added.

For example:

If a person rubs their hands together, they are warmed, but they did not come into contact with a warmer body. This is an example of an increase in thermal energy resulting only from work done, with no heat added to the system.

A car engine, is an example of thermal energy being increased by the addition of heat only to a system, with no work done. A mixture of air and gasoline vapour is ignited to produce a very hot flame. Heat flows from the flame to the air inside the cylinder. The hot air expands, due to the increase in thermal energy of the system. This expanding air pushes on a piston, which converts the thermal energy into mechanical energy.

Another example would be heating up food using a gas hob. The thermal energy of the food increases because one adds heat (via the burning gas flame), not because there is any work done on the food.

So you see, there is plenty of technology in existence today, where thermal energy is increased by the addition of heat alone, without requiring any work to be done, and this technology is not in violation of the 1st LoT.

IBdaMann - you stated in another post that "You insist that energy is created without work being performed".

Firstly, I never stated that energy is created. The law of conservation of energy states that energy is never created or destroyed, but is instead transferred from one form to another.

Secondly, do you have any evidence/examples/reasoning to explain why you think that thermal energy can only be increased by work being done on a system?

Given the above explanation of 1st LoT, it is clear to see that the greenhouse effect does not violate the 1st LoT. As I stated before, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere emit infrared radiation upwards and downwards. The downwards radiation is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Therefore, via the 1st LoT, the Earth's surface warms. If the downwards radiation did not heat the Earth's surface, then this would be a violation of the 1st LoT, and the Law of Conservation of Energy.

As I have demonstrated, one does not require work to change the thermal energy of a system. Are you going to try and argue that cars and gas hobs, as well as numerous other technologies, which I have not described here, violate the 1st LoT?
16-06-2023 10:34
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
climate scientist wrote:
"I have already covered this. Only the falsifiable "Greenhouse Effect" model gets to say how it is falsifiable. You need to present the falsifiable Greenhouse Effect model for public scrutiny for people to see exactly how it is falsifiable.

That's the whole point of this thread, to post your falsifiable "Greenhouse Effect" model so we can discuss it."


I did! Can you not read? Shall I post them again for you here?

5, states that warming of the stratosphere would falsify the greenhouse effect. Currently the stratosphere is cooling, as confirmed by measurements, which are presented in this report from the American Met Society (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2013BAMSStateoftheClimate.1). Greenhouse gases cause stratospheric cooling because they absorb and re-emit infrared in the troposphere in all directions, including downwards, which in turn is reducing the amount of infrared radiation heating the stratosphere (see: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp).

6, points out that major errors in satellites that measure Earth's outgoing infrared would also falsify the greenhouse effect. The satellite data currently show that Earth's outgoing IR is significantly reduced at wavelengths that coincide with the main greenhouse gas absorption spectra. If these measurements could be shown to be wrong, then this would also disprove the greenhouse effect.

"Arrhenius made a conjecture and it turns out his conjecture was mistaken. His assumption that CO2 has an effect on atmospheric temperature was wrong and thus discarded. That doesn't stop contemperary warmazombies from citing his mistaken conjecture while not mentioning that there's a reason we don't have any "Arrhenius Greenhouse Coefficients" in science today."


Actually, current atmospheric measurements support his theory. He has not been proven wrong yet. But that is not the point. The point is that his theory/conjecture is falsifiable!

"Heat is work. All heat is work, but not all work is heat"


No!

Heat is the transfer of energy from one system to another by thermal interaction. Work is the transfer of energy by any means other than heat!

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermochemistry-6/introduction-to-thermodynamics-58/heat-and-work-276-3605/

"This equation tells you that deltaQh is what you get if you don't specifically break out heat separately and just lump all work together. "


Um, no, the equation states that you can increase thermal energy either by an increase in heat, or by doing work, or by both together!

"Yes, you clearly specified an increase in temperature, which requires an increase in thermal energy"


But I never said that energy is created. The thermal energy increases because there is an increase in temperature caused by Earth's surface absorbing IR, which has been emitted downwards from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Which is why your creation of energy by energy merely changing form is a violation of the 1st LoT"


I am not saying that any energy is created. Thermal energy is increased due to the addition of heat.

"Total energy can only be increased by work being performed. Thermal energy can be increased by other energy changing form, e.g. absorption of electromagnetic energy."


Hang on a minute. Isn't this contradicting yourself? Above, you said that work has to be performed to increase thermal energy, and now you are saying that thermal energy can be increased from absorption of EM?! All along, I've been saying that thermal energy is increased because the Earth's surface absorbs IR. So now you are agreeing with me??? And why are you bringing up total energy anyway? We are discussing the 1st LoT, which is about thermal energy.

"Given your new understanding of "work" it should be clear to see that the "greenhouse effect" is a violation of the 1st LoT."


Your understanding of work (and physics in general) is flawed. As demonstrated clearly above.
16-06-2023 10:37
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
climate scientist wrote:
So you have nothing to add. Got it.


Afraid not! I've hardly even started.

Here is what Professor Stephen Lower, from UC Davis has to say about heat and work (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/12._Chemical_Energetics/Energy,_Heat,_and_Work#Heat_and_work):

"Heat and work are both measured in energy units, so they must both represent energy. How do they differ from each other, and from just plain "energy" itself?"

"The term "heat" has a special meaning in thermodynamics: it is a process in which a body (the contents of a tea kettle, for example) acquires or loses energy as a direct consequence of its having a different temperature than its surroundings (the rest of the world)."

"Thermal energy can flow from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. It is this flow that constitutes "heat"."

"Work refers to the transfer of energy some means that does not depend on temperature difference. Work, like energy, can take various forms, the most familiar being mechanical and electrical."

"When two bodies are placed in thermal contact and energy flows from the warmer body to the cooler one,we call the process "heat". A transfer of energy to or from a system by any means other than heat is called "work"."

So you see that Professor Lower seems to disagree with your statements:

Energy cannot increase unless work is performed

Total energy can only be increased by work being performed

If all else is the same but thermal energy is somehow increased, then total energy is increased, and work needs to be performed somewhere in there to account for that increase in total energy.


So, as I have asked many times now, post some links that back up these statements. Or you can just write another post with no links/source information to back up your statements, simply waffling on again about how I am apparently a 'Warmazombie' blindly following my 'religion', and demonstrate to everyone on this forum, once again, that your physics is flawed and you don't know what you are talking about.

Btw, I have a whole university library at my disposal, so I am really only just getting started.
16-06-2023 10:39
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Ceist wrote:
The 'greenhouse effect' does not violate the laws of physics. It was also confirmed by observed spectra in the 1960s.


"The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR into the essentially zero-temperature reservoir of space. It therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate between the two.

The greenhouse effect shifts the planet's surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature. The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from the furnace. The temperature of your house is intermediate between the temperature of the flame in your furnace and the temperature of the outdoors, and adding insulation shifts it toward the former by reducing the rate at which the house loses energy to the outdoors.

As Fourier already understood, when it comes to relating temperature to the principles of energy balance, it matters little whether the heat-loss mechanism is purely radiative, as in the case of a planet, or a mix of radiation and turbulent convection, as in the case of a house—or a greenhouse. Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation."

"Though the first calculation of the warming of Earth due to CO2 increase was carried out by Arrhenius in 1896, accurate CO2 and water-vapor spectroscopy and a fully correct formulation of planetary energy balance did not come together until the work of Syukuro Manabe and Richard Wetherald in 1967.

With that development, the theory was brought to its modern state of understanding. It has withstood all subsequent challenges and without question represents one of the great triumphs of 20th-century physics."


Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature - Physics Today, 2011

Hitran
16-06-2023 10:40
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Ceist wrote:
Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature:

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf


"For present Earth conditions, CO2 accounts for about a third of the clear-sky greenhouse effect in the tropics and for a somewhat greater portion in the drier, colder extratropics, the remainder is mostly due to water vapor. The contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, considerable though it is, understates the central role of the gas as a controller of climate.

The atmosphere, if CO2 were removed from it, would cool enough that much of the water vapor would rain out. That precipitation, in turn, would cause further cooling and ultimately spiral Earth into a globally glaciated snowball state. It is only the presence of CO2 that keeps Earth's atmosphere warm enough to contain much water vapor. Conversely, increasing CO2 would warm the atmosphere and ultimately result in greater water-vapor content—a now well-understood situation known as water-vapor feedback."
16-06-2023 10:41
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Ceist wrote:
.
From: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy

"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does.

Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

"The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies established long ago that water vapour and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs.

Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change. CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system."
16-06-2023 10:43
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Ceist wrote:
I don't know what 'science' IBdaMANNNN!!!!! believes he is ahhh...'discussing', but it's nothing that can be found in 'the body of science' as he claims.

I would suggest he reads a few textbooks to correct his fundamentally flawed understanding of the physics of thermodynamics, especially radiative heat transfer involved in the 'greenhouse' effect.

Here are just a few examples:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/radiative-transfer-atmosphere-and-ocean?format=PB

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/climatology-and-climate-change/principles-planetary-climate

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/atmospheric-thermodynamics-elementary-physics-and-chemistry?format=HB

But no doubt he would just go on a rant that Cambridge University Press and the authors are "Marxist warmazombie moron priests preaching their scientifically illiterate religious beliefs!!!"

16-06-2023 10:44
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
climate scientist wrote:
Hey, I have an idea, explain to those on this site why the earth would be an ice ball if it weren't for the trace quantities of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. I'm sure they'd love to read all about it.


Actually, water vapour in the atmosphere is the main greenhouse gas that contributes to the natural greenhouse effect and prevents Earth from being an ice-ball, not CO2.
16-06-2023 10:46
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
climate scientist wrote:
The only way to get an ice ball is to have water. That means you must have water vapor.


Agreed. I never said otherwise. My point was that water vapour dominates the natural greenhouse effect, not CO2.

This feedback builds a perpetual motion machine of the second order, thus violating the laws of thermodynamics.


So by this logic, it is not possible to ever have a runaway greenhouse effect, such is observed on Venus, or a runaway icehouse (the so-called 'Snowball Earth'), which is very likely to have occurred on Earth in the past (and probably several times over).

There is not really a positive feedback loop, since as Earth warms, it will reach a new equilibrium, whereby the outgoing IR radiation will increase because the Earth's surface is warmer (as you said), but the relative proportion of IR absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases will therefore decrease (assuming that GHG atmospheric mole fractions will stay the same), and so Earth's temperature will stabilise at a new equilibrium temperature, which will be higher than the temperature prior to adding anthropogenic CO2 etc. to the atmosphere.

A similar analogy would be insulating a house. The temperature will rise at first, even though you do not change the heating controls, but then a new equilibrium temperature will be reached, because the outgoing heat is again balanced by the heat generated from the heating system. The temperature inside the house will not continue to warm indefinitely just because you added insulation to the walls and roof, and much in the same way, the planet will not warm indefinitely (unless some other processes intervene), and therefore the greenhouse effect does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
16-06-2023 10:49
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
climate scientist wrote:
They ARE politicians. It was formed by the United Nations as a political group and is made up primarily of members of the Club of Rome.
I am not talking about typos. I am talking about total fabrication of data.


Hi Into the Night

I would just like to say that this is not true at all. The IPCC report are written by scientists. Many of them, from all around the world. They volunteer their time to contribute to the reports (they are not paid). A few people are paid to help format the documents, organise meetings, etc. But only a handful of people - the science is written by scientists, and thousands of them contribute. I know, because I work in the environmental science department at a university. Many of my colleagues contributed to the last IPCC report (and the ones before).

Where the politicians come in, is at the end. The wording of the summary for policy makers document is approved at a meeting where they go through line by line and representatives from each government have to all agree on the wording of the document.

The IPCC is policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. It's international nature makes it this way. The science is reviewed independently, and the reviews are available to read online.

There have been many criticisms of the IPCC process, and there have been a few mistakes in the IPCC reports, but the overall science has been found to be robust again and again. No independent investigation has ever found fault with the overall science represented in the IPCC reports. And there have been plenty of independent investigations.
16-06-2023 10:51
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
climate scientist wrote:
I would encourage people to look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-Hcu3jH8G4

Almost every speaker (apart from the narrator) is a scientist, and was a lead author on the reports. None of the lead authors were paid for their efforts, or to appear on the video. You can google pretty much all of them to find out more about their research on their personal university/institution web pages.

The video is a bit flowery with music that is too over-dramatic, but there is also some nice footage of climate scientists, oceanographers and atmospheric chemists doing fieldwork.
16-06-2023 10:51
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
climate scientist wrote:
So how come they were caught literally manufacturing data?


I have never heard of this. Can you be more specific? The IPCC do not collect any data, carry out any research, or monitor any climate variables. They only report on the peer-reviewed literature.

You say you work at a university science program. What is the source of funding for producing this report or for any related research?


As I said before, scientists who contribute to the reports do so as volunteers. There is no source of funding for contributing to the reports.

Our department receives funding from various sources. Mostly from the Natural Environment Research Council, but also from a few government departments, and quite a lot from the EU. We have to apply for this funding, and there is only a 10% success rate at the moment. The funding agencies do not place constraints on what we can apply for, or what the outcomes should be. We set this ourselves.

When a grant finishes, we have to write a report on what was found. We also have to show that the money was spent appropriately (i.e. not on some other research). It is not uncommon for research grant final reports to state results that are different from the predicted results, or to state that more research is needed to determine any kind of conclusion.

This is not the case in the school of pharmacy in our university. Many of the researchers there get funded by drug companies, and they are under a lot of pressure to produce the results that the companies want. This is not the case with environmental research.

At the end is enough.


Only the summary for policy makers, and I think also the technical summaries are reviewed by governments. The actual main reports are not.

Then all I can say is their peer review process sucks. The IPCC is absolutely policy prescriptive. It's international nature does not change that. They were formed specifically to report on global warming.


No, they were formed to report on climate change, not global warming (they are different). And that is what they do. They report on the state of the climate, from peer-reviewed literature from the scientific community.

Faults in the process, in the science, in the data, are found all the time.


I only know of a couple, the biggest one being the mistake relating to glacial melt. The IPCC apologised when this was discovered and issued a correction. They are not trying to hide anything. What are these mistakes in the data and the science that you are referring to?

The reports are public for everyone to read. Almost every sentence is referenced with peer reviewed literature. All you have to do is read the citations to know whether the IPCC has been 'manipulating the data/science'.
16-06-2023 10:53
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi Into the Night

It is clear that you don't know much about academia. This is completely understandable for someone who does not work in academia, and not a criticism in itself, however, it is a great shame that you have let your ignorance cloud your judgement on this issue, rather than doing some research to find out the truth. Let me help you with this:

Volunteers gotta eat. The only reason they are there is because of related research programs.


Most of the IPCC lead authors are pretty senior scientists, and as such have permanent positions at their respective universities/institutions. For most of those in universities, a large part of their time will be dedicated to teaching undergraduate students. It is also important for them to try and bring research funding to the institution/university, but their job security does not rely on it. They contribute to the IPCC as volunteers because it is a good experience, and it looks good on your CV.

Unless your department conforms with the interests of the NERC or any other government agency, you don't get your funding.


Wrong. There are 2 NERC funding rounds per year. NERC funds all sorts of environmental science, not just that pertaining to climate change. A list of NERC awarded standard grants can be found here:

http://gotw.nerc.ac.uk/list_them.asp?sb=sd&ZA.x=7&ZA.y=0&them=Standard+Grant&yr=&rnd=

As you can see, many of them have nothing to do with climate change. We compete for funding with all other environmental scientists.

Each proposal submitted to NERC goes out for anonymous review. This is assuming that it passes all of the NERC formatting rules, otherwise it gets thrown out immediately. Reviewers are other research scientists who have knowledge about the topic. Typically, each proposal will be reviewed by 3-6 people. Each reviewer gives the proposal a score out of 10. The proposal will then be ranked according the the scores given to it by the reviewers. For each submission round, NERC will fund proposals from the top of the list downwards, until their pot of money is all used up for that round. I.e. the highest ranked proposal is funded first, then the second highest, and so on. The success rate is only about 10% at the moment. In the last round, you essentially had to get a 9 out of 10 to get funded (and I have never heard of anyone getting a 10). Proposals are submitted by individuals, or sometimes by groups, and are not applied for by the department as a whole. Neither the department, nor the individuals have to conform to any particular view on climate science in order to be successful in getting funded. The results of your previous grant have no bearing on the success of any future proposal.

European funding (which is from the ERC) generally works in a very similar way to NERC, whereby proposals are reviewed and ranked. The main difference is that for EU funding, you generally have to compete with proposals from all fields of science, rather than just environmental science proposals.

Now you are saying they don't[]b do 'peer review'? That conflicts with their own website!


I never said this. I said that they report on climate change, not global warming. The two are not the same. The IPCC reports are based on peer reviewed literature. The reports themselves are also independently reviewed, and the reviewers comments are available to read on the IPCC website.

Not mistakes. Fabrications.


With the glacial melt error, they got the date wrong. The rest of the sentence was fine. They issued a correction. Please can you stop making false accusations, and post some evidence of these data fabrications?

No, you have to look outside their carefully controlled lists of approved peers


You seem to be confused. The IPCC reference thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications. Almost every sentence includes citations. All you have to do to see if the IPCC has re-worded the science, is read the sentence in the IPCC report, and then read the paper(s) that they cite for that same sentence, and see if they have somehow manipulated what the original paper said. It is time consuming, but perfectly possible. People actually check up on the IPCC in this way. The IPCC encourage it, because they are not hiding anything.
16-06-2023 10:56
sealover
★★★★☆
(1235)
Hopefully, by compiling the most informative posts from this thread, the information becomes more accessible to the new viewer.
16-06-2023 14:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14349)
sealover wrote:Hopefully, by compiling the most informative posts from this thread, the information becomes more accessible to the new viewer.

You are referring to non-informative posts as the "most informative posts." For example, the post you cited did not contain any factual information but rather made mere references to the IPCC, as though they are something more than an organized religion peddling pure political agenda.
RE: Eight Full Years of Trolling!26-10-2023 21:33
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
Into the Night wrote:
Of all the gasses commonly accepted with the name 'greenhouse gas', the most prevalent is water vapor. By various estimates the effect of water vapor is at least 70% of all 'greenhouse gas' effects, so it's worthwhile to consider the conditions surrounding it.

It is well known that areas with marine environments are colder during the day and warmer during the night than equivalent low moisture environments such as deserts at the same latitude and near the same altitude. The mean temperature is not altered, but the range of temperature sweep is. Examples of this phenomenon can be found in California, Oregon, and Washington. It can be extended by compensating by altitude the temperature differences (using the adiabatic rate of standard air).

Therefore the following model and hypothesis are proposed:

If these observations concerning water vapor are valid, then it is possible to look at water vapor as a stabilizing effect on the atmospheric temperatures. Rather than adding or subtracting energy, water vapor simply absorbs the available energy when it is available, leaving a cooler daytime temperature, and releases it when energy is not available, leaving warmer nighttime temperatures. The mean temperature stays the same.

The atmosphere in general possesses an inertial effect as well. We know this because it takes greater than a zero amount of time to heat and cool it. We can shorten the time by applying more work, but the time can never be reduced to zero.

We know that energy is introduced into the atmosphere through the infrared (and other) radiation from the Sun, which is converted to inertial energy as it strikes the ground, then spreading upward through the atmosphere as heat.

Comparing surface (ground or water) temperature to the air above it, water vapor acts as a heat sink during the day and as a heat source at night. This is the same as the rest of the atmosphere, but in marine environments this seems more pronounced than in dry environments.

If this can be done with water vapor, it can be done with carbon dioxide, methane, or any other 'greenhouse' gas. If this is so, calling them a 'greenhouse' gas is a misnomer. It would be better to call them 'phantom inertial gas' since they only act to enhance the inertial effects of atmosphere in general.

If there were no atmosphere at all, the mean temperature should not change. The temperature swings around it, however, would. Since there is no inertia of an atmosphere to consider, temperature would swing much wider. If there were a thicker atmosphere than we have, the mean temperature again would not change. The temperature swings around it, do. There is more matter per volume, and the temperature swing would be narrower.

The effect of a 'greenhouse' gas, therefore, is no different than to act as if the atmosphere had more of this inertial effect than the regular atmosphere would account for.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is satisfied since no energy is being gained or lost from the Earth.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since increased loss from excess energy (from whatever source) increases as predicted.
The 3rd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since all energy gains and losses from the Sun-Earth-Space system take place above absolute zero.
Newton's law is satisfied since all matter such as the atmosphere has mass, and therefore inertia.

It is possible to conjecture from this point the possible causes of this behavior in a phantom inertial gas. One such possibility may reside within the shape of the molecules themselves which may be able to store inertial energy in more than one mode of vibration. The water molecule, which is not symmetrical, could easily fit this model. Carbon dioxide, with it's more symmetrical shape would have less opportunity for different vibration modes. Methane even less so, since this molecule is symmetric in three dimensions. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunity for multiple vibration modes that are not available to the typical pairs of atoms comprising most of our atmosphere.




This post is from October 10, 2015

Apologies for missing the anniversary two weeks ago.

EIGHT FULL YEARS OF TROLLING!

The anti scientific claims are laughably absurd.

Let's sing a celebration song for eight years of valuable contribution.

"You are a nothing. You don't even know what thermodynamics is. You are a liar. You lock yourself into paradoxes. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy."

or as Pee Wee Herman would have said: "I know you are, but what am I?"

So, go back to your oyster farm/lignin laboratory and sell a pH meter.

Eight years of trolling and 20 million posts.
26-10-2023 22:14
James_
★★★★★
(2033)
Yep, He's right ITN, good trolling. It's like when I told you me and my brothers would go trolling with our father in the Salish Sea you'd say Puget Sound and Strait of Juan De Fuca. Can we just agree to disagree?
Also because N2 makes up 78% of the tropopshere's atmospheric gasses it is by far and away the #1 greenhouse gas with oxygen (O2) coming in a distant second at 21%. And if we consider math,
the average distance the surface of the Earth is from its axis of rotation is about 68% of its radius.
And if atmospheric gasses at the equator are moving at about 1,000 mph (447m/s) then 1 mol of
atmospheric gas has KE = 2837.79561472 J. Then if multiplied by 0.68 then it equals
1929.70101801 J so every second it equals 1929.7 watts. That's the average for the Earth and as everyone knows, wind circulates the air and the height of the troposphere is greater at the equator.
And it's also a lot warmer at the equator than either the arctic or antarctic. And I just "cooked" some Stir Fry in my microwave oven which has 1,100 watts of power. Also, 1 mol of air weighs 28.4 grams. As its mass increases so will atmospheric temperature.
And what is not known is how much UV radiation can ozone in the stratosphere block at higher levels? To find this out would require emptying a container of ozone in the stratosphere over a solar panel or other scientific instrument. For the most part watt (pun intended) needs to be known is
how many watts of solar radiation will pass through it. If we can add O2 to the ozone layer then this would need to be known.

p.s., The Salish Sea isn't rising!! Your legs are getting shorter.
27-10-2023 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21547)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Of all the gasses commonly accepted with the name 'greenhouse gas', the most prevalent is water vapor. By various estimates the effect of water vapor is at least 70% of all 'greenhouse gas' effects, so it's worthwhile to consider the conditions surrounding it.

It is well known that areas with marine environments are colder during the day and warmer during the night than equivalent low moisture environments such as deserts at the same latitude and near the same altitude. The mean temperature is not altered, but the range of temperature sweep is. Examples of this phenomenon can be found in California, Oregon, and Washington. It can be extended by compensating by altitude the temperature differences (using the adiabatic rate of standard air).

Therefore the following model and hypothesis are proposed:

If these observations concerning water vapor are valid, then it is possible to look at water vapor as a stabilizing effect on the atmospheric temperatures. Rather than adding or subtracting energy, water vapor simply absorbs the available energy when it is available, leaving a cooler daytime temperature, and releases it when energy is not available, leaving warmer nighttime temperatures. The mean temperature stays the same.

The atmosphere in general possesses an inertial effect as well. We know this because it takes greater than a zero amount of time to heat and cool it. We can shorten the time by applying more work, but the time can never be reduced to zero.

We know that energy is introduced into the atmosphere through the infrared (and other) radiation from the Sun, which is converted to inertial energy as it strikes the ground, then spreading upward through the atmosphere as heat.

Comparing surface (ground or water) temperature to the air above it, water vapor acts as a heat sink during the day and as a heat source at night. This is the same as the rest of the atmosphere, but in marine environments this seems more pronounced than in dry environments.

If this can be done with water vapor, it can be done with carbon dioxide, methane, or any other 'greenhouse' gas. If this is so, calling them a 'greenhouse' gas is a misnomer. It would be better to call them 'phantom inertial gas' since they only act to enhance the inertial effects of atmosphere in general.

If there were no atmosphere at all, the mean temperature should not change. The temperature swings around it, however, would. Since there is no inertia of an atmosphere to consider, temperature would swing much wider. If there were a thicker atmosphere than we have, the mean temperature again would not change. The temperature swings around it, do. There is more matter per volume, and the temperature swing would be narrower.

The effect of a 'greenhouse' gas, therefore, is no different than to act as if the atmosphere had more of this inertial effect than the regular atmosphere would account for.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is satisfied since no energy is being gained or lost from the Earth.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since increased loss from excess energy (from whatever source) increases as predicted.
The 3rd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since all energy gains and losses from the Sun-Earth-Space system take place above absolute zero.
Newton's law is satisfied since all matter such as the atmosphere has mass, and therefore inertia.

It is possible to conjecture from this point the possible causes of this behavior in a phantom inertial gas. One such possibility may reside within the shape of the molecules themselves which may be able to store inertial energy in more than one mode of vibration. The water molecule, which is not symmetrical, could easily fit this model. Carbon dioxide, with it's more symmetrical shape would have less opportunity for different vibration modes. Methane even less so, since this molecule is symmetric in three dimensions. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunity for multiple vibration modes that are not available to the typical pairs of atoms comprising most of our atmosphere.




This post is from October 10, 2015

Apologies for missing the anniversary two weeks ago.

EIGHT FULL YEARS OF TROLLING!

The anti scientific claims are laughably absurd.

Let's sing a celebration song for eight years of valuable contribution.

"You are a nothing. You don't even know what thermodynamics is. You are a liar. You lock yourself into paradoxes. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy."

or as Pee Wee Herman would have said: "I know you are, but what am I?"

So, go back to your oyster farm/lignin laboratory and sell a pH meter.

Eight years of trolling and 20 million posts.

And you still deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Stating theories of science isn't trolling.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-10-2023 21:31
keepit
★★★★★
(3049)
itn,
I don't buy into just posting a law of physics without describing how the application works. Sometimes you post how an application works and sometimes i agree and sometimes i don't. That is why i think that just posting a law doesn't count for much.
27-10-2023 21:36
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5645)
keepit wrote:
itn,
I don't buy into just posting a law of physics without describing how the application works. Sometimes you post how an application works and sometimes i agree and sometimes i don't. That is why i think that just posting a law doesn't count for much.


Nothing can move faster than light is an accepted law of physics.

As long as you ignore galaxies moving at least 5 times light speed and entanglement

Conclusion, there are no laws of physics until the entire universe is explained


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
27-10-2023 21:49
keepit
★★★★★
(3049)
Swan,
The laws of physics are a work in progress. Nevertheless they are laws and serve to further science and understanding of the universe.
By the way, i don't ignore entanglement and the expansion of the universe. I don't think the galaxies are actually moving though. I think of it as more space coming to exist between the galaxies thus giving the illusion of movement.
27-10-2023 22:05
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5645)
keepit wrote:
Swan,
The laws of physics are a work in progress. Nevertheless they are laws and serve to further science and understanding of the universe.
By the way, i don't ignore entanglement and the expansion of the universe. I don't think the galaxies are actually moving though. I think of it as more space coming to exist between the galaxies thus giving the illusion of movement.


A physics law that is a work in progress is a mistake until it is understood and there is no more progress. When the entire universe is understood there will be laws, but not before, because if the universe is not understood, neither is anything in it.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
27-10-2023 22:11
keepit
★★★★★
(3049)
Physics laws aren't generally mistakes. They are something that can be improved on. Newton's laws weren't mistakes. They were just something that was improved on by Einstein's laws of relativity. The laws of relativity will also be improved on. The fact that gps works and there is gravitational lensing gives validity to the laws of relativity. Parts of the laws of relativity are sometimes suspect though.
27-10-2023 22:27
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5645)
keepit wrote:
Physics laws aren't generally mistakes. They are something that can be improved on. Newton's laws weren't mistakes. They were just something that was improved on by Einstein's laws of relativity. The laws of relativity will also be improved on. The fact that gps works and there is gravitational lensing gives validity to the laws of relativity. Parts of the laws of relativity are sometimes suspect though.


There is no way to improve on a physical law. Note that law in this application means certainty not the legal law. There is no way to improve on a certainty, unless it was never certain to begin with.

So there are no laws until the universe is understood.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
27-10-2023 22:35
keepit
★★★★★
(3049)
JMHO but don't tangle yourself up in too many of your own "laws". You won't be able to think as freely and creatively.
27-10-2023 22:39
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5645)
keepit wrote:
JMHO but don't tangle yourself up in too many of your own "laws". You won't be able to think as freely and creatively.


Again a physical law is exactly the same as a physical certainty. So if the law is a work in progress, then it was never certain to begin with, which means that the professor stole your money and taught you nonsense.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
27-10-2023 22:54
keepit
★★★★★
(3049)
Quantum physics says that there is no such thing as a physical certainty, only probabilities.
Edited on 27-10-2023 22:56
27-10-2023 23:23
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5645)
keepit wrote:
Quantum physics says that there is no such thing as a physical certainty, only probabilities.


Everything that is understood is a certainty, both macro and quantum it does not matter. When the Universe is understood everything will be certain, and the reality is that as I said previously anything and everything is understood until you look closely enough. The double slit experiment is observed and repeatable, which does not explain it in any way.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
28-10-2023 00:49
keepit
★★★★★
(3049)
Swan,
Not only are there no physical certainties (only probabilities) but there is the belief among some scientists that there are no physical things. They believe that we live in a simulation (nothing physical).
28-10-2023 01:08
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5645)
keepit wrote:
Swan,
Not only are there no physical certainties (only probabilities) but there is the belief among some scientists that there are no physical things. They believe that we live in a simulation (nothing physical).


So now you agree with me that there are no physical laws.

Knew that you would see it my way.

Everyone does eventually, or gives up and hides.

The simulation theory is actually an attempt of the scientific establishment to admit to the need for a God as not one believer in the simulation will tell you that the grand simulation that is everything wrote itself in Darwin's magic life creating pond, thus a programmer/writer/creator/God is needed, the title is irrelevant. While I do not believe that the universe is programming, we are, as DNA is merely a molecular computer code or simulation if one chooses that vernacular, that cannot form from nothing in a magic life creating pond.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 28-10-2023 01:19
28-10-2023 01:41
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5191)
keepit wrote:
Swan,
Not only are there no physical certainties (only probabilities) but there is the belief among some scientists that there are no physical things. They believe that we live in a simulation (nothing physical).


Science isn't belief, or consensus. Beliefs are religion. Consensus is a congregation, a church.
28-10-2023 01:41
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5191)
keepit wrote:
Swan,
Not only are there no physical certainties (only probabilities) but there is the belief among some scientists that there are no physical things. They believe that we live in a simulation (nothing physical).


Science isn't belief, or consensus. Beliefs are religion. Consensus is a congregation, a church.
Page 6 of 8<<<45678>





Join the debate The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is still no Global Warming science.38728-02-2024 23:50
A Science Test1809-12-2023 00:53
Magic or Science706-12-2023 00:29
'Greenhouse' Effect?4930-11-2023 06:45
Science and Atmospheric Chemistry625-11-2023 20:55
▲ 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