Remember me
▼ Content

There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2



Page 12 of 14<<<1011121314>
16-01-2020 23:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
MarcusR wrote:
tmiddles wrote:

Marcus,

ITN/IBD actually deny every college textbook on the laws of thermodynamics.



When I went to the university we used Fundamentals of Thermodynamics by Borgnakke/Sonntag. I actually had to mail Claus once so I could show someone at Discuss how extremely wrong he was regarding the 2nd law of thermo. That annoying bugger used that very book as a source to say that the GHE violates the 2'nd law of thermo, and since I had it in my bookshelf I looked it up. He didn't believe me, even though I posted a page with a reference to a chapter, so I mailed Claus as well.

Not that it mattered to the person claiming that the GHE violates the 2nd law though. He had already made his mind up, and in his/her universe the words from the writer of the very source he/she used didn't matter.... Priceless !!


No book, journal, or magazine falsifies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


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
16-01-2020 23:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
No book, journal, or magazine falsifies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And how did you learn the 2nd LTD ITN?
16-01-2020 23:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It's an interpolation and not actual.
You do realize that almost all data has to be interpreted right? You cannot "actually" measure most things. Something like temperature for example will always have a range and vary.

A measurement produces a single value, not a range.
tmiddles wrote:
If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations.

Proxies aren't used in science. Measuring under the tongue tells you nothing about any other location.
tmiddles wrote:
I know they should correlate and it's hardly a "wild ass guess" for me to determine your internal temperature based on that proxy.

WAG
tmiddles wrote:
But it seems your premise is that scientists and engineers just don't know what they are doing in general, not just as it relates to the CLIMATE DEBATE ?

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'.


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
16-01-2020 23:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No book, journal, or magazine falsifies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And how did you learn the 2nd LTD ITN?


Through the study of the history of science and experimentally.


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
16-01-2020 23:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote: You do realize that almost all data has to be interpreted right?

No, I don't. Please clarify. How does one need to interpret 27 degrees Celsius, as an example?

How is it that you think "interpolation" means "interpretation"?

tmiddles wrote: Something like temperature for example will always have a range and vary.

This goes back to your mathematical incompetence. Constants don't vary. Constants don't have ranges either. Somebody seriously messed with you.

tmiddles wrote: If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations.

Not true. You're not a doctor, are you? Ask me how I know.

tmiddles wrote:But it seems your premise is that scientists and engineers just don't know what they are doing in general, not just as it relates to the CLIMATE DEBATE ?

No, I think he is pointing out that you have no understanding of science, of scientists, of mathematics, of data validity, of common sense, of logic, ... yet you have this compulsive NEED to gibber ... and you get might testy when people ask you questions that imply you are clueless ... because they hit close to home.

Yes, I think that is more of what he was trying to say than what you were claiming.


.


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
16-01-2020 23:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
A measurement produces a single value, not a range.
Reality is range. That's why you have to take more than one measurement to establish what it is.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations.

Proxies aren't used in science. Measuring under the tongue tells you nothing about any other location.
Tell a doctor that. Do you think they are wondering if your tongue is running a fever?
16-01-2020 23:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
Through the study of the history of science and experimentally.
Did you read anything? If so what was it?

You too IBD. Did you read anything that's been published to learn about science?
Edited on 16-01-2020 23:53
17-01-2020 00:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A measurement produces a single value, not a range.
Reality is range.
Not the definition of 'reality'. Try again.
tmiddles wrote:
That's why you have to take more than one measurement to establish what it is.
Nope. One will do!
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations.

Proxies aren't used in science. Measuring under the tongue tells you nothing about any other location.
Tell a doctor that.
No need. Obviously, you are not a doctor.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you think they are wondering if your tongue is running a fever?

No. They can measure it.


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
17-01-2020 00:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Through the study of the history of science and experimentally.
Did you read anything? If so what was it?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You too IBD. Did you read anything that's been published to learn about science?

RQAA.


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
17-01-2020 00:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Through the study of the history of science and experimentally.
Did you read anything? If so what was it?

You too IBD. Did you read anything that's been published to learn about science?

I think you are going about your questions in the wrong way. It seems clear to me that you don't quite grasp that science understanding is developed by each individual, just as is mathematical proficiency, logic proficiency, and other mental skills. It's not a matter of just reading something as a silver bullet. It's not any one lab that reveals all. It's not reenacting any particular experiment that makes one understand a branch of science.

The reason Into the Night recommended reading a history of science is that it can be very helpful to walk oneself through the thought processes that led to epiphanies upon which were built even grander ideas, etc... I remember having that light-bulb moment in which I "thought through" Einstein's theory of Relativity and it all made sense. Now I can explain it to teenagers. The point is that I had to do the mental work, and it was done in my head.

So, forgive me for saying it, it is absolutely stupid to outright dismiss the science understanding that someone is willing to teach you just because you have already adopted an anti-science religion. It is frankly stupid to insist on "a reference" before you will allow yourself to be enlightened. You, as an adult, can study Relativity from OpenStax, Wikipedia, whatever for a year and still not achieve the same clarity and understanding that I can provide a teenager in fifteen minutes ... with no textbook whatsoever. Of course, you would quibble with everything I would tell you that ran counter to Global Warming, and that is one of the reasons you are pretty much doomed to remain scientifically illiterate.

So for what, exactly, are you asking?


.


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
17-01-2020 01:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
The reason Into the Night recommended reading a history of science
Like what? What specifically have either of you read that you find credible?

Scientists go to school.

They read books in school.

What books do you think are credible? We've been over this many times.

TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY

I know you're not going to answer. I'm just exposing you a liar once again.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
17-01-2020 02:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The reason Into the Night recommended reading a history of science
Like what? What specifically have either of you read that you find credible?

Scientists go to school.

They read books in school.

What books do you think are credible? We've been over this many times.

TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY

I know you're not going to answer. I'm just exposing you a liar once again.


Already answered. RQAA.


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
17-01-2020 02:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
Already answered. RQAA.
Lie
17-01-2020 02:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Already answered. RQAA.
Lie

Lie. RQAA. Fallacy fallacy.


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
17-01-2020 04:06
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It's an interpolation and not actual.
You do realize that almost all data has to be interpreted right? You cannot "actually" measure most things. Something like temperature for example will always have a range and vary.

If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations. I know they should correlate and it's hardly a "wild ass guess" for me to determine your internal temperature based on that proxy.

But it seems your premise is that scientists and engineers just don't know what they are doing in general, not just as it relates to the CLIMATE DEBATE ?


Man I'm sorry. I just don't know exactly what to say in response...

Statistics is concerned with the use of data in the context of uncertainty and decision making in the face of uncertainty.

Someone offered up a website that was supposed to have temperature data sets, which would presumably support the premise of increased global temperatures over time.

There's qualitative properties for data sets to be statistically significant such as for predictive purposes for modeling global warming. I went to the website and discovered the text I quoted above. They have forced the missing data which renders it useless. So yes, it might as well be a WAG.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
17-01-2020 04:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:Like what? What specifically have either of you read that you find credible?

I don't believe this. You completely ignored what I wrote. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised since that seems to be all you do. The thorough answer to your question was in there.

tmiddles wrote: Scientists go to school.

... but not the same school.

tmiddles wrote: They read books in school.

Mostly lecture material. Scientists usually hate reading. I bet you like to read.

tmiddles wrote: What books do you think are credible? We've been over this many times.

I know you're not going to answer.

Correct. Because you know that I answered you already. You are simply repeating questions over and over to give the appearance that they have somehow never been answered.

I wonder if you are fooling anyone.

tmiddles wrote: I'm just exposing you a liar once again.

Like I said, I wonder if you are fooling anyone.


.


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
17-01-2020 05:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Harry C wrote: Statistics is concerned with the use of data in the context of uncertainty...
There is almost always some uncertainty. The only time there is not is when what is being measured is abstract. Like the number of quarters in you pocket. The weight, the temperature, dimensions, always uncertain to some degree.

Harry C wrote: They have forced the missing data which renders it useless.
What do you mean by that?

Why don't you contrast that with temperature measurements/data you consider good/kosher.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Like what? What specifically have either of you read that you find credible?
...The thorough answer to your question was in there.
Where? What book/books do you recommend IBD? How would a student learn about thermodynamics?

Lectures? OK name a professor a student could go hear a lecture by on thermodynamics.

Schools? Name a school that won't lie to students about thermodynamics.

Why don't you share your own source? Was this a terribly shy teacher who instructed you in the oral tradition?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 17-01-2020 05:03
17-01-2020 06:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote: The only time there is not [uncertainty] is when what is being measured is abstract.

How about when discussing, say, the relationship between the hypoteneuse of a right triangle and the other two legs? How about when determining who is older between parents and children? How about whether or not you are reading these words right now? How about whether you are mistaken about the only times there is no uncertainty?

Hmmmm, I'm still uncertain.

tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote: They have forced the missing data which renders it useless.
What do you mean by that?

He means that they fudged the data to fit their preconceived model, thus rendering the data invalid and the conclusions dismissed.




.


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
17-01-2020 06:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The only time there is not [uncertainty] is when what is being measured is abstract.

How about when discussing, say, the relationship between the hypoteneuse of a right triangle and the other two legs?
A good example of abstract thinking. You call an object, a mass of molecules you distinguish from the mass of molecules around it, a "Right Triangle". Or maybe you're not even dealing with a physical right triangle but with the concept which is purely abstract thinking.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-math-abstract

IBdaMann wrote: How about when determining who is older between parents and children? How about whether or not you are reading these words right now?
That's not abstract, there is no reasonable doubt. I don't think you can call that uncertain. Neither of those parallel the issue at hand well at all. Measuring temperatures of matter and testing a scientific hypothesis.

IBdaMann wrote: How about whether you are mistaken about the only times there is no uncertainty?
I'm certain I was wrong : )
I see "abstract" isn't the right word for something that is inherently true due to circumstances. Interesting question. Not relevant to Harry C's initial comment but interesting still.

IBdaMann wrote:
He means that they fudged the data to fit their preconceived model, ...
Again compare and contrast with work properly done.




.
Edited on 17-01-2020 06:46
17-01-2020 06:57
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
tmiddles wrote:
There is almost always some uncertainty. The only time there is not is when what is being measured is abstract. Like the number of quarters in you pocket. The weight, the temperature, dimensions, always uncertain to some degree.


The problem is the measure of the uncertainty, ie. standard deviation.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
17-01-2020 18:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote: Statistics is concerned with the use of data in the context of uncertainty...
There is almost always some uncertainty.

Nope. A measurement is a measurement. It produces a single value.
tmiddles wrote:
The only time there is not is when what is being measured is abstract.

You cannot measure the abstract.
tmiddles wrote:
Like the number of quarters in you pocket.

That is not a measurement. It's a count.
tmiddles wrote:
The weight, the temperature, dimensions, always uncertain to some degree.

Nope. A measurement produces a single value.
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote: They have forced the missing data which renders it useless.
What do you mean by that?

Simple they are making up numbers.
tmiddles wrote:
Why don't you contrast that with temperature measurements/data you consider good/kosher.

Not enough thermometers. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Like what? What specifically have either of you read that you find credible?
...The thorough answer to your question was in there.
Where? What book/books do you recommend IBD? How would a student learn about thermodynamics?

Lectures? OK name a professor a student could go hear a lecture by on thermodynamics.

Schools? Name a school that won't lie to students about thermodynamics.

Why don't you share your own source? Was this a terribly shy teacher who instructed you in the oral tradition?

RQAA.


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
17-01-2020 18:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
There is almost always some uncertainty. The only time there is not is when what is being measured is abstract. Like the number of quarters in you pocket. The weight, the temperature, dimensions, always uncertain to some degree.


The problem is the measure of the uncertainty, ie. standard deviation.


Actually, no.

The problem is the margin of error. This number is calculated from the variances of data, not from the data itself. It has no standard deviation.

In all of statistics, you are selecting some elements from a given set of elements. It is a summarization tool to describe averages of the selected set and how much it may deviate from the given set.

For example, you can construct a summary of the height of basketball players even though you are not measuring every player. You do, however, have to examine the possible height a basketball player may have (a team of midgets?). This is called the possible variance and is an important part of statistics. The margin of error value is calculated from this.

In the case of temperatures, you must consider how fast a temperature may change by distance. This can be a simple observation. I have personally seen temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile. This is the value I use. For ultimate limits, you can used the highest recorded and lowest recorded temperatures in history.

There are simply not enough thermometers to produce a margin of error any better than the ultimate limits. When one sees this, one can mathematically say that any summary is a pure guess. Useless.

An average means absolutely nothing without the accompanying margin of error value.

Further, the data that is selected must be selected by randN, and all biasing influences of collecting that data must be eliminated.

For temperatures, that means thermometers must be read at the same time. Storms move, Earth moves, air moves, etc.

It also means the thermometer placement must be uniform. 10 thermometers in a city tell you nothing about the countryside. Only a mile away, temperatures as measured in the city might give you an idea of the temperature of the countryside +- 20 deg F. The surface area of Earth is approximately 192 million square miles, most of which are not covered by any thermometer reading at all.

Anyone saying they know global temperatures are rising or falling is just making shit up.


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
17-01-2020 22:01
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It's a freakin' wag!.
What's a wag?


Literally it's a "wild assed guess", however I didn't mean it literally.
It's an interpolation and not actual. Statistically it diminishes the confidence interval if you wanted to use the data for predictive value.


D'uh! Brain fart. I had it here wherein margin of error is 1-confidence interval.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
18-01-2020 02:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Harry C wrote:
The problem is the measure of the uncertainty, ie. standard deviation.
So just to get it out of the way that's not what "standard deviation" is.

But yes, the amount of confidence we can have in an answer is important. Generally it's based on our need. Sometimes we need a lot more precision than other times.

"Accuracy", "precision", "exacting" are all relative terms with no specific value.

The question is always "for what purpose/need".

Take "knowing" the temperature in Denver. There is a big difference between the precision required to plan your wardrobe for a Sunday picnic and the precision required to claim a 1/4 degree temperature increase over a 10 year period.
18-01-2020 05:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:And how did you learn the 2nd LTD ITN?

The same way anyone learns anything, you moron. The brain has a mysterious process for learning that is poorly understood. You aren't smart enough to realize that humans learn by living and interacting with nature. You think that learning is pidgeon-holed into reading a specific book or listening to a specific lecture.

Somebody totally mind-fugged you into being a complete dumbass, and now all you can do is lash out in confusion. You ask the stupidest questions. It's no wonder you fell for the Global Warming scam.

Hey tell me, is it a FACT that Trump is a liar but you are not?

Love it.


.


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
18-01-2020 16:31
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
The problem is the measure of the uncertainty, ie. standard deviation.
So just to get it out of the way that's not what "standard deviation" is.

But yes, the amount of confidence we can have in an answer is important. Generally it's based on our need. Sometimes we need a lot more precision than other times.

"Accuracy", "precision", "exacting" are all relative terms with no specific value.

The question is always "for what purpose/need".

Take "knowing" the temperature in Denver. There is a big difference between the precision required to plan your wardrobe for a Sunday picnic and the precision required to claim a 1/4 degree temperature increase over a 10 year period.


Talk about blunting a point, this is nothing but a huge distraction...if that's you're purpose, so be it.

We have a group of people under central command who are attempting to assert control of the world through one central catastrophe.

They are allowing a lack of adherence to scientific methods and knowledge create a false construct.

One construct is temperature records that are so incomplete as to defy anal6sis to begin with, much less using it as a foundation for predictive values.

You should be vitally concerned that the information is valid. Statistically it comes from having a high confidence in the correlative prediction to act as a support. Low data confidence is a WAG.

Let's say you are a traffic engineer and you are performing traffic counts on a roadway exchange by a mall. If you rely on data exclusively around Christmas it will give you an incorrect conclusion about how much traffic the road should support. Now let's say the engineer's counter didn't work for a 4 hour period one day and the engineer went back to the last 4 hour period and used it as a source of proxy data. The data sampling to support the proposition was not properly designed and what was collected was not representative. Compound those two errors in the decision making about what will be built and it could be several million dollars.

Take this small example and scale it up to the magnitude of the climate debate issue. The statistics and science must be correct. There's too many people that want to pick a side and be on it because it either fits their ego (personal agenda) or they are so naive as to just want to be on the side of a perceptional winner.

This is foundational to many of the points that are consistently made by IBDM and ITN.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
18-01-2020 21:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
Harry C wrote: Talk about blunting a point, this is nothing but a huge distraction...if that's you're purpose, so be it.


Harry, you are going about it all wrong.

Let's presume hypothetically that you have given up trying to find science supporting either Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect and you have instead decided to pursue the "data" route. You should be focusing on "margin of error" right at the beginning, not quibbling over whether data exists.

If you are going to approach this as a scientist, you would first have to determine what hypothesis you plan to investigate. You can't just start collecting random data. You need to approach it as though your data will be your model from which you will derive hypotheses. Ergo, you will need valid datasets that will either corroborate or falsify your preselected hypothesis(es). For datasets to be valid they must meet technical requirements (Into the Night was kind enough to elaborate in the Data Mine those requirements that must be met lest your data be summarily discarded along with all the "conclusions" henceforth derived). Your methodology for deriving conclusions from your data must also adhere to standard statistical methods and be published with all margins of error. If your data does not support your preselected hypothesis then you must report that as your findings.

So, your first step is to determine the hypothesis you wish to investigate. For the sake of discussion let's say you choose "the earth's average global temperature is rising." Great. Box checked.

Second, you define what you mean by the earth's average global temperature. You can't just pull the tmiddles intellectual coward routine and declare that "everyone knows" what that is. Does it include the hydrosphere, i.e. oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, etc...? Does it include the atmosphere, and if so, up to what altitude? Does it include the ground/solid surface ... or not?

Third, once you have everything unambiguously defined, you must make the most fundamental decision of your entire effort. What do you consider to be an acceptable margin of error. This will form the complete foundation for your research. There's no point in gathering insufficient data to meet your margin of error, nor is there any point in selecting a margin of error that is so wide that no one will consider your research usable or your conclusions helpful.

When you are discussing data with tmiddles or any other proclaimer of divine knowledge, the first question you should ask is "what are you considering an acceptable margin of error." At this point you should be realizing that warmizombies NEVER mention any sort of margin of error with their proclamations ... because all of their knowledge is divinely bestown from the Climate goddess ... but that's another matter.

You will either be handed a bunch of lame excuses as to why said margins of error cannot be divulged, or you will be given some amazingly small (accurate) margin of error with absolutely no valid dataset to support those conclusions to that margin of error. Normally you will not be provided any data at all.

But that's the process. You should be locking down "margin of error" right at the beginning of any discussion concerning data. If you don't then you are wasting your time and begging for new levels of frustration.

I wish you the best ...


.


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
18-01-2020 22:37
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
My bad...I get repulsed by anecdotal evidence and should have left it alone.

I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2. How do they believe it works?

This one from Elmhurst gets fuzzy for me when weazel words like "may" and "general" are used.

Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing infrared radiation.
Infrared radiation strikes a CO2 molecule and causes the bonds to bend and vibrate which is termed the absorption of IR energy.
The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation.
This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.


Wouldn't the work of creating kinetic energy in the atmosphere reduce the energy that is transmitted to the surface? I've distilled the CO2 proposition to either the photon is absorbed in the atmosphere or on the surface. In either event it's a zero sum.
19-01-2020 03:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote: How do they believe it works?

... and therein lies your violation of thermodynamics ... although I bet you don't realize it. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that CO2 "works." In physics work = energy. If someone can get you to believe that CO2 "works" then they have already got you believing that CO2 creates/produces energy ... which is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

CO2 is inanimate matter. It just sits there until a breeze carries it away. It doesn't "work." If you are talking about absorbing and emitting thermal radiation then you can read up on Stefan-Boltzmann ... but that applies to all matter everywhere.

There is no such thing as any gas that somehow "works" differently than any other gas.

Harry C wrote: The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.


You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?

The moral of the story is ... if you are being led down the garden path of infinite complexity until you cease to understand ... you are being deceived. Stefan-Boltzmann is all you need.

Harry C wrote: In either event it's a zero sum.

It has to be. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.


.


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
19-01-2020 16:56
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote: How do they believe it works?

... and therein lies your violation of thermodynamics ... although I bet you don't realize it. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that CO2 "works." In physics work = energy. If someone can get you to believe that CO2 "works" then they have already got you believing that CO2 creates/produces energy ... which is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

CO2 is inanimate matter. It just sits there until a breeze carries it away. It doesn't "work." If you are talking about absorbing and emitting thermal radiation then you can read up on Stefan-Boltzmann ... but that applies to all matter everywhere.

There is no such thing as any gas that somehow "works" differently than any other gas.

Harry C wrote: The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.


You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?

The moral of the story is ... if you are being led down the garden path of infinite complexity until you cease to understand ... you are being deceived. Stefan-Boltzmann is all you need.

Harry C wrote: In either event it's a zero sum.

It has to be. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.


.


With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.

Please try to follow my lay description. I believe the perceived greenhouse effect works like this. CO2 diffuses heat in the higher portion of the atmosphere. The extra redirected photons minimize the heat that reaches the surface and would raise the temp in upper the atmosphere. At worst case, which I doubt would be significant due to the insignificant concentration of CO2, weather patterns may become more volatile if it creates a wider disparity in temperatures. Alarmists think it somehow amplifies heat at the surface.

So if you are going to reply, please be kind enough to help me revise my position. If I want to be influential, rather than a gatekeeper, I have to be able to bring one side to the other.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
19-01-2020 17:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
Harry C wrote:With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.


By EVADING my question you have spoken volumes.


IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?


With all due respect, you have no such objective. You want to project an appearance of relevance, of pursuing an impossible pipe dream that establishes you as the wise judge/arbiter of Truth. You are pursuing religion as though it is science ... which makes you a dumbass.

So, with all due respect, now that we all know you're a dumbass putting on a clown act, everyone can know what to expect.

Your questions are stupid. You aren't fooling anyone, at least not anymore.

With all due respect, of course.


.


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
19-01-2020 19:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote: How do they believe it works?

... and therein lies your violation of thermodynamics ... although I bet you don't realize it. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that CO2 "works." In physics work = energy. If someone can get you to believe that CO2 "works" then they have already got you believing that CO2 creates/produces energy ... which is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

CO2 is inanimate matter. It just sits there until a breeze carries it away. It doesn't "work." If you are talking about absorbing and emitting thermal radiation then you can read up on Stefan-Boltzmann ... but that applies to all matter everywhere.

There is no such thing as any gas that somehow "works" differently than any other gas.

Harry C wrote: The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.


You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?

The moral of the story is ... if you are being led down the garden path of infinite complexity until you cease to understand ... you are being deceived. Stefan-Boltzmann is all you need.

Harry C wrote: In either event it's a zero sum.

It has to be. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.


.


With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

There is a reason for this. There is no 'greenhouse effect', so any explanation of it the Church of Global Warming comes up with must describe why it can't be done. There is no way for Earth's temperature to be measure, so any explanation of it the Church of Global Warming comes up with must describe why it can't be done.

The Church of Global Warming is trying to implement fascism by oligarchy.

In the end, the message is, "Don't Panic". There really isn't a problem. Stay with capitalism. It is the only economic system that creates wealth. People really are capable of managing their own affairs.

Harry C wrote:
My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.

There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.

In other words, the planet is not the concern with these people. It is just the excuse. It is being used as a pawn to further socialism. You can see it in the way they ignore their own advice. By 'they', i mean the leaders of this movement. The schmuck believers really believe they are trying to 'save the planet'.

Harry C wrote:
Please try to follow my lay description. I believe the perceived greenhouse effect works like this. CO2 diffuses heat in the higher portion of the atmosphere. The extra redirected photons minimize the heat that reaches the surface and would raise the temp in upper the atmosphere.

Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface. This absorption does not warm the Earth though. Emitting that infrared light by the surface requires energy. That tends to cool the surface.

In just the same way that the atmosphere is heated by the warmer surface by conduction, some gases allow the atmosphere to be heated by the warmer surface by radiance.

Big deal.

All of it radiates into space. The surface radiates far more than the atmosphere into space. This is again according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If you were to view Earth with an infrared camera (hey...satellites can do this!), you will see a bright surface with very thin 'fog' around it (the infrared from the atmosphere).

The atmosphere is generally colder than the surface, so it cannot heat the surface. That's the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I abhor the Church of Global Warming. I abhor the Church of Green. These are socialists trying to implement an evil agenda. They are out to take your freedom and liberty away. They are both of the Church of Karl Marx. They will deny science and anything else that stands in their way.

I Am the Great Satan when it comes to these religions. I will do everything I can to put them down. They are evil religions. They seek to enslave people, not 'save the planet'.

There is no compromise.


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
Edited on 19-01-2020 19:46
19-01-2020 20:15
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote:With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.


By EVADING my question you have spoken volumes.


IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?


With all due respect, you have no such objective. You want to project an appearance of relevance, of pursuing an impossible pipe dream that establishes you as the wise judge/arbiter of Truth. You are pursuing religion as though it is science ... which makes you a dumbass.

So, with all due respect, now that we all know you're a dumbass putting on a clown act, everyone can know what to expect.

Your questions are stupid. You aren't fooling anyone, at least not anymore.

With all due respect, of course.


.


Of everything I expected, this reply was not one of them...

Is this the question you seek my answer to?
You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?


You have not posed that question to me before that post and frankly did not think it was relevant to anything I had posted so I ignored it. I do remember it being posed to to tmiddles and I am not him. However, I do not know the answer to the question. If it will help, I will guess the baseball's temperature has not increased.


As to this question I sincerely thought I had answered it within the body of my posts. You asked:
I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?


I have been very consistent in my purpose here. Let me state it another way. I want to possess the information to falsify the greenhouse effect of CO2 that's assumed to be at work by alarmists. If you are stating to me that Stefan Boltzmann is all I need to know, I won't disagree with you. What I will say however is that answer doesn't carry the day with a contingent of this crowd; and unless or until it can be demonstrated clearly it's not enough.

I'm not so sure why you are threatened by, what you describe as a "dumbass" , wants to know. Why can't you just help me instead of berating me? You could just ignore it, you know. I was sincerely trying to engage you.

I'm not threatened by what you write about me because I know who I am and you don't. There's no pretense. I've stated what I want to know and it's as simple as that. One more time: What's the difference between what alarmists believe the physical effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are and science. Why are you afraid to indulge that question?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
19-01-2020 20:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
Harry C wrote:I have been very consistent in my purpose here. Let me state it another way. I want to possess the information to falsify the greenhouse effect of CO2 that's assumed to be at work by alarmists.


Nope. I am not fooled. Your purpose is to glorify Global Warming and in the process, to show that your denomination of the religion is the TRUE faith, i.e. that worshipers should not follow the competing "warmizombie" denominations.

With all due respect, every time you insist that you wish to falsify Greenhouse Effect you profess your devotion to your belief in the existence of just such a falsifiable science model.

With all due repsect, every time you get irritated that I point out that Greenhouse Effect it is just a WACKY religious dogma you tip your hand that you're all about the religion.

So no, you aren't trying to get to any truth. You are simply competing with other denominations of your stupid religion. With all due respect, your pretense of being "scientific" is a total sham.

Either start demanding answers to the questions I provided you or, with all due respect, just pile into a little car with a bunch of other clowns and keep the circus act going.


.


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
19-01-2020 21:20
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote: How do they believe it works?

... and therein lies your violation of thermodynamics ... although I bet you don't realize it. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that CO2 "works." In physics work = energy. If someone can get you to believe that CO2 "works" then they have already got you believing that CO2 creates/produces energy ... which is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

CO2 is inanimate matter. It just sits there until a breeze carries it away. It doesn't "work." If you are talking about absorbing and emitting thermal radiation then you can read up on Stefan-Boltzmann ... but that applies to all matter everywhere.

There is no such thing as any gas that somehow "works" differently than any other gas.

Harry C wrote: The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.


You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?

The moral of the story is ... if you are being led down the garden path of infinite complexity until you cease to understand ... you are being deceived. Stefan-Boltzmann is all you need.

Harry C wrote: In either event it's a zero sum.

It has to be. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.


.


With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

There is a reason for this. There is no 'greenhouse effect', so any explanation of it the Church of Global Warming comes up with must describe why it can't be done. There is no way for Earth's temperature to be measure, so any explanation of it the Church of Global Warming comes up with must describe why it can't be done.

The Church of Global Warming is trying to implement fascism by oligarchy.

In the end, the message is, "Don't Panic". There really isn't a problem. Stay with capitalism. It is the only economic system that creates wealth. People really are capable of managing their own affairs.

Harry C wrote:
My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.

There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.

In other words, the planet is not the concern with these people. It is just the excuse. It is being used as a pawn to further socialism. You can see it in the way they ignore their own advice. By 'they', i mean the leaders of this movement. The schmuck believers really believe they are trying to 'save the planet'.

Harry C wrote:
Please try to follow my lay description. I believe the perceived greenhouse effect works like this. CO2 diffuses heat in the higher portion of the atmosphere. The extra redirected photons minimize the heat that reaches the surface and would raise the temp in upper the atmosphere.

Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface. This absorption does not warm the Earth though. Emitting that infrared light by the surface requires energy. That tends to cool the surface.

In just the same way that the atmosphere is heated by the warmer surface by conduction, some gases allow the atmosphere to be heated by the warmer surface by radiance.

Big deal.

All of it radiates into space. The surface radiates far more than the atmosphere into space. This is again according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If you were to view Earth with an infrared camera (hey...satellites can do this!), you will see a bright surface with very thin 'fog' around it (the infrared from the atmosphere).

The atmosphere is generally colder than the surface, so it cannot heat the surface. That's the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I abhor the Church of Global Warming. I abhor the Church of Green. These are socialists trying to implement an evil agenda. They are out to take your freedom and liberty away. They are both of the Church of Karl Marx. They will deny science and anything else that stands in their way.

I Am the Great Satan when it comes to these religions. I will do everything I can to put them down. They are evil religions. They seek to enslave people, not 'save the planet'.

There is no compromise.


Thank you for the very thoughtful post. I was composing my reply to IBDM while you must have been posting it. I will respond to a few items.

FIRST. I've made it abundantly clear that I do not believe in the the threat of increased global temperatures over time based upon an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Notice how a studiously avoided the use of the words 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change'.) I think that puts us on the same side.

SECOND. My beliefs:
A. G.H.W. Bush signed on to Agenda 21 in 1992.
B. The same year Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Eliot Engel and William Broomfield spoke in support of HR Concurrent Resolution 353, supporting implementation of Agenda 21 in the United States.
C. Sometime in the middle of his term as Vice President Al Gore got involved and put out his fictional account of climate change.
D. It has been gaining traction and most perceptibly since Trump was elected. Had Trump not been elected, I think the fix was in to have the socialists green agenda rammed down our throat.
E. Consistent with the NIPCC, I beleive climate change is a socialist's agenda to upset and overturn the balance of power in the world.
F. There are too many people in the world that have been willing to accept what news has reported that our world leaders believe about Climate Change.
G. It's time to double down on the challenge to stop this initiative.

THIRD I know there's not a greenhouse effect as used by warmazombies.
There is something going on in the atmosphere that causes the earth to be cooler than the sum of the IR that it receives. I don't know what that is and have no way to explain it. However, most people grew up thinking they knew what a 'greenhouse effect' was. To change what people think they know, you have to substitute it with a better description of what is happening in the atmosphere.

FOURTH You wrote:
There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.


I'm not looking for a compromise. What I want is the knowledge to proselytize the same message that you have. I can't do what you can do because I don't possess that body of knowledge. I need more information in order to know rather than just believe.

FIFTH Thank you for the feedback on my version of CO2. I'll restate what you wrote:
Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface.

My scenario did not include that reality. I had already presumed that whatever had gone back up to the atmosphere was similarly diffused (sorry if it's a poor word choice).
Can or will you comment on what happens to the kinetic energy that is created when the photon is absorbed the the CO2 molecule?

LASTLY: My church includes Jesus Christ and God. My political orientation is Libertarian. I can't see anything that I've written that makes me look like a 'warmazombie'.

I see Mr. Mann has favored me with a reply again. Instead of accepting the olive branch I was trying to hand him, he has decided to poke me with it again. I'm not sure why I deserve it???

IBdaMann wrote: With all due respect, every time you insist that you wish to falsify Greenhouse Effect you profess your devotion to your belief in the existence of just such a falsifiable science model.

I don't know why you can't allow me the space to reconcile terms to reinforce my knowledge. I'm not at odds with you about the outcome.

IBdaMann wrote:With all due repsect, every time you get irritated that I point out that Greenhouse Effect it is just a WACKY religious dogma you tip your hand that you're all about the religion.

I'm not irritated. I've been struggling for acceptance and you've been less than respectful. But hey, I understand there's probably been a litany of kooks that have been through the forum through the years.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
19-01-2020 21:41
James___
★★★★★
(3163)
Harry C wrote:
To change what people think they know, you have to substitute it with a better description of what is happening in the atmosphere.

FOURTH You (itn) wrote:
There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.


I'm not looking for a compromise. What I want is the knowledge to proselytize the same message that you have. I can't do what you can do because I don't possess that body of knowledge. I need more information in order to know rather than just believe.

FIFTH Thank you for the feedback on my version of CO2. I'll restate what you wrote:
Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface.

My scenario did not include that reality. I had already presumed that whatever had gone back up to the atmosphere was similarly diffused (sorry if it's a poor word choice).
Can or will you comment on what happens to the kinetic energy that is created when the photon is absorbed the the CO2 molecule?

LASTLY: My church includes Jesus Christ and God. My political orientation is Libertarian. I can't see anything that I've written that makes me look like a 'warmazombie'.

I see Mr. Mann has favored me with a reply again. Instead of accepting the olive branch I was trying to hand him, he has decided to poke me with it again. I'm not sure why I deserve it???



Harry, Norway is a socialist country. Great Britain and Australia are socialist countries. They have socialized healthcare.
Norway also exports oil and natural gas as well. That's what socialist countries do. That's socialism.
Consider what I sent you. Photons are emitted as electromagnetic radiation as in e = hf. With the tropopause and the mesopause, why are they colder than the atmosphere both below and above them?
Something for you to consider. Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were about 300 ppm (0.03% of atmospheric gases) and now are a little over 400 ppm (0.04% of atmospheric gases). At the same time oxygen in our atmosphere has decreased by 0.06%. This increases the amount of water vapor.
To simplify things, I believe certain gases help to cool our atmosphere because of convection. With oxygen, consider deforestation for a world population that has gone from 2.5 billion in 1950 to over 7.5 billion in 2019 https://binged.it/38mS3fT. And please don't compare that graph to annual global temperatures. On that note, I think a depleted ozone layer is a concern that's being ignored.
It's possible that man influencing the climate is unavoidable because what would we do? Start killing off people to reduce the population? I do support sustainability and a clean environment.
19-01-2020 21:48
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
Perhaps I didn't give this the full consideration you were looking for?

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry, you are going about it all wrong.

Let's presume hypothetically that you have given up trying to find science supporting either Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect and you have instead decided to pursue the "data" route. You should be focusing on "margin of error" right at the beginning, not quibbling over whether data exists.


I haven't given up on the supporting science. Nonetheless, I did make reference to the confidence interval in an earlier post. The post was simply to point out that even the referenced data was inconclusive to proceed with a driven approach.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you are going to approach this as a scientist, you would first have to determine what hypothesis you plan to investigate.
[snip]
I wish you the best ...


.


THANK YOU!


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
19-01-2020 21:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote: How do they believe it works?

... and therein lies your violation of thermodynamics ... although I bet you don't realize it. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that CO2 "works." In physics work = energy. If someone can get you to believe that CO2 "works" then they have already got you believing that CO2 creates/produces energy ... which is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

CO2 is inanimate matter. It just sits there until a breeze carries it away. It doesn't "work." If you are talking about absorbing and emitting thermal radiation then you can read up on Stefan-Boltzmann ... but that applies to all matter everywhere.

There is no such thing as any gas that somehow "works" differently than any other gas.

Harry C wrote: The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.


You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?

The moral of the story is ... if you are being led down the garden path of infinite complexity until you cease to understand ... you are being deceived. Stefan-Boltzmann is all you need.

Harry C wrote: In either event it's a zero sum.

It has to be. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.


.


With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

There is a reason for this. There is no 'greenhouse effect', so any explanation of it the Church of Global Warming comes up with must describe why it can't be done. There is no way for Earth's temperature to be measure, so any explanation of it the Church of Global Warming comes up with must describe why it can't be done.

The Church of Global Warming is trying to implement fascism by oligarchy.

In the end, the message is, "Don't Panic". There really isn't a problem. Stay with capitalism. It is the only economic system that creates wealth. People really are capable of managing their own affairs.

Harry C wrote:
My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.

There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.

In other words, the planet is not the concern with these people. It is just the excuse. It is being used as a pawn to further socialism. You can see it in the way they ignore their own advice. By 'they', i mean the leaders of this movement. The schmuck believers really believe they are trying to 'save the planet'.

Harry C wrote:
Please try to follow my lay description. I believe the perceived greenhouse effect works like this. CO2 diffuses heat in the higher portion of the atmosphere. The extra redirected photons minimize the heat that reaches the surface and would raise the temp in upper the atmosphere.

Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface. This absorption does not warm the Earth though. Emitting that infrared light by the surface requires energy. That tends to cool the surface.

In just the same way that the atmosphere is heated by the warmer surface by conduction, some gases allow the atmosphere to be heated by the warmer surface by radiance.

Big deal.

All of it radiates into space. The surface radiates far more than the atmosphere into space. This is again according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If you were to view Earth with an infrared camera (hey...satellites can do this!), you will see a bright surface with very thin 'fog' around it (the infrared from the atmosphere).

The atmosphere is generally colder than the surface, so it cannot heat the surface. That's the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I abhor the Church of Global Warming. I abhor the Church of Green. These are socialists trying to implement an evil agenda. They are out to take your freedom and liberty away. They are both of the Church of Karl Marx. They will deny science and anything else that stands in their way.

I Am the Great Satan when it comes to these religions. I will do everything I can to put them down. They are evil religions. They seek to enslave people, not 'save the planet'.

There is no compromise.


Thank you for the very thoughtful post. I was composing my reply to IBDM while you must have been posting it. I will respond to a few items.

FIRST. I've made it abundantly clear that I do not believe in the the threat of increased global temperatures over time based upon an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Notice how a studiously avoided the use of the words 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change'.) I think that puts us on the same side.

SECOND. My beliefs:
A. G.H.W. Bush signed on to Agenda 21 in 1992.
B. The same year Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Eliot Engel and William Broomfield spoke in support of HR Concurrent Resolution 353, supporting implementation of Agenda 21 in the United States.
C. Sometime in the middle of his term as Vice President Al Gore got involved and put out his fictional account of climate change.
D. It has been gaining traction and most perceptibly since Trump was elected. Had Trump not been elected, I think the fix was in to have the socialists green agenda rammed down our throat.
E. Consistent with the NIPCC, I beleive climate change is a socialist's agenda to upset and overturn the balance of power in the world.
F. There are too many people in the world that have been willing to accept what news has reported that our world leaders believe about Climate Change.
G. It's time to double down on the challenge to stop this initiative.

THIRD I know there's not a greenhouse effect as used by warmazombies.

So far, so good!
Harry C wrote:
There is something going on in the atmosphere that causes the earth to be cooler than the sum of the IR that it receives. I don't know what that is and have no way to explain it.

There are two points here, since you are actually trying to say two things (though it doesn't look it!).
1) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
2) Earth is not an ideal black body. There is no such thing. Not all of the infrared light reaching Earth is absorbed.
Harry C wrote:
However, most people grew up thinking they knew what a 'greenhouse effect' was. To change what people think they know, you have to substitute it with a better description of what is happening in the atmosphere.

The key point is that nothing is really happening in the atmosphere.

The land is heated, the oceans are heated, both by the Sun, and that in turn heats the atmosphere. That drives our weather as well. That's about it. As you have stated, there is no magick gas or vapor that changes that.
Harry C wrote:
FOURTH You wrote:
There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.

I'm not looking for a compromise.

Good...because there isn't one.
Harry C wrote:
What I want is the knowledge to proselytize the same message that you have. I can't do what you can do because I don't possess that body of knowledge. I need more information in order to know rather than just believe.

I will do what I can to help you in this. If you have a specific question, the better. As far as gaining information in general, stay tuned. I respond from time to time with longer posts that describe a principle or position on the matter. If you have a specific question, feel free to ask it!
Harry C wrote:
FIFTH Thank you for the feedback on my version of CO2. I'll restate what you wrote:
Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface.

My scenario did not include that reality. I had already presumed that whatever had gone back up to the atmosphere was similarly diffused (sorry if it's a poor word choice).
Can or will you comment on what happens to the kinetic energy that is created when the photon is absorbed the the CO2 molecule?

The CO2 is slightly warmed. Thermal energy dissipates from there to other air around it by conduction, and is also cooled by rising into the sky by convection. It's just like any other air.
Harry C wrote:
LASTLY: My church includes Jesus Christ and God.

Same as me.
Harry C wrote:
My political orientation is Libertarian.

I am a Constitutionalist. I believe government should be declared and defined by their constitutions, and they should stay only within those boundaries set by those constitutions.

This is called a republic. So, I am a republican, though not necessarily a Republican. I usually support the Republican party, however.
Harry C wrote:
I can't see anything that I've written that makes me look like a 'warmazombie'.

I will let this one pass. IBdaMann can sometimes assume too much about people. Don't take it personally. He strongly despises any religion. He is agnostic.
Harry C wrote:
I see Mr. Mann has favored me with a reply again. Instead of accepting the olive branch I was trying to hand him, he has decided to poke me with it again. I'm not sure why I deserve it???

He pokes me with it too.
Don't take it personally. He likes to poke a bit sometimes. As long as you continue along the lines of what you describe yourself here, I will do what I can to help you.
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:With all due repsect, every time you get irritated that I point out that Greenhouse Effect it is just a WACKY religious dogma you tip your hand that you're all about the religion.

I'm not irritated. I've been struggling for acceptance and you've been less than respectful. But hey, I understand there's probably been a litany of kooks that have been through the forum through the years.


Exactly. It's easy to get jaded opinions in forums. We do, after all, see an endless parade of Church of Global Warming zealots that come through here, each repeating the same mistakes in their arguments as the last.

If there's one thing you can say about the Church of Global Warming, it's members are unified into two sects:
1) The extremists. These are the people that are constantly arguing the Earth is doomed.
2) The 'warmazombie'. These are the people that accept the 'greenhouse gas' model, but are convinced its not a devastating situation.

Both are fundamentalists in their religion.


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
19-01-2020 22:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
Harry C wrote:
Perhaps I didn't give this the full consideration you were looking for?

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry, you are going about it all wrong.

Let's presume hypothetically that you have given up trying to find science supporting either Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect and you have instead decided to pursue the "data" route. You should be focusing on "margin of error" right at the beginning, not quibbling over whether data exists.


I haven't given up on the supporting science. Nonetheless, I did make reference to the confidence interval in an earlier post. The post was simply to point out that even the referenced data was inconclusive to proceed with a driven approach.



There is really no way to data to reference. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We simply don't have enough thermometers, and we can't build enough thermometers.

Earth has some 192 million square miles of surface area. Most of that has no thermometers. Temperatures can vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile. Anyone claiming they know the temperature of the Earth, or that it's rising or falling, is simply making shit up.


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
19-01-2020 22:20
James___
★★★★★
(3163)
Harry C, since you mentioned church, this is what the Bible says.

Hebrews 13:15-16; Therefore, let us offer through Jesus a continual sacrifice of praise to God, proclaiming our allegiance to his name. 16 And don't forget to do good and to share with those in need. These are the sacrifices that please God.

The Bible supports socialism. It supports caring about and helping others.

I let a woman I know that the story of the paralytic applies to me. Christians have no interest in helping me or forgiving me. So instead Jesus forgives me and wants me to go home.
Page 12 of 14<<<1011121314>





Join the debate There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The NCOVID Lock Down Prove CO2 Emission Do Not Cause Global Warming Climate Change1215-09-2020 04:37
July 2020 - Feeling the Heat?7604-09-2020 05:45
The ACTUAL Percentage of Atmospheric CO26403-09-2020 05:12
CO2 sensor112-08-2020 19:10
Less CO21022-07-2020 02:16
Articles
Theory
▲ 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