Remember me
▼ Content

There is still no Global Warming science.



Page 3 of 4<1234>
30-09-2015 12:56
KeiranKProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
You see this is where I feel confused. I care passionately about the environment, but sometimes I hear the argument that there is no science to 100% prove all the harm that WE are responsible for - and this makes me wonder why I am carrying the weight of the world on my shoulders the majority of the time.

I think there is much fear about what is happening, and people are trying to fix it with science, but ultimatley there is not hard solid facts that will show us a definite way.
30-09-2015 21:08
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi KeiranK

I agree that there is a lot of fear and false information around, particularly in the media. If you are interested in knowing the facts, I would really recommend reading the IPCC report (physical science basis). It is a pretty long report, but there is a 'summary for policy makers' version, which is much shorter, and has been written in as user friendly way as possible to the non-scientist, see here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf.

Although not peer reviewed itself, almost all of the information in the IPCC reports is based on peer reviewed literature from the scientific community (a lot of which is not available to the public for free, unfortunately, although many journals are changing to be open access nowadays). In addition, the IPCC reports are endorsed by almost every scientific institution in the world, including the WMO, the Royal Society, CSIRO, NOAA, NASA, JMA, etc.

I don't think that people are trying to 'fix the problem with the science'. I think that the science is informing us about what the problems really are, which are the ones that we really need to do something about, and which are the lower priority ones. As for how to solve these problems, a lot of that is out of my domain - I am a climate scientist who makes greenhouse gas measurements in the atmosphere, not an economist, social scientist, or politician. What I do is make the measurements, interpret them, and present the science, which is then used to inform the policy makers about what the current scientific status is.

Perhaps there is someone here with economics/social science/political professional expertise who can enlighten us on what the solutions might be??
01-10-2015 04:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
climate scientist wrote:Your scientific knowledge is flawed on several accounts:

Let me guess, you're not going to identify anything I said specifically that was in error.

climate scientist wrote:
Greenhouse gases *do not* slow the rate of thermal radiation into space. They do what I explained in my previous post.

...and what you said in your post is that they violate the 1st LoT, which is what I said in my post.

climate scientist wrote:O2, N2 and Ar are not greenhouse gases because they do not absorb and emit radiation in the thermal infrared part of the EM spectrum.

As I predicted, you cannot define the "greenhouse effect" in a manner that does not violate the laws of physics. You're dancing around the issue and trying to change the subject.

I don't know why you insist on putting the cart before the horse. First define the "greenhouse effect" in a manner that does not violate the laws of physics and then I'll let you explain how the defining properties of "greenhouse gases" lead to the "greenhouse effect" that you defined.

climate scientist wrote:Your comment about the composition of the atmosphere having no relevance to the temperature of the planet is wrong.

I know your religious dogma insists this is true but you have no science to support it, only apples-n-oranges comparisons like "Venus vs. Mercury."

climate scientist wrote: Venus is twice as far from the sun as Mercury,

That says a lot about atmospheric pressure, doesn't it. What is Mercury's atmospheric pressure? What is Venus'?

Now, answer me this: Why is Death Valley so much warmer than the top of Mt. Whitney when Death Valley is technically farther from the sun?

climate scientist wrote:I'm not sure why you are so fixated on the 1st Law of thermodynamics being violated.

I'm not sure why you are so fixated on trying to pass a flagrant violation of the 1st LoT off as normal physics. Actually, I do know why. Your religious dogma is based on it. It sucks to be you.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
01-10-2015 12:29
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"...and what you said in your post is that they violate the 1st LoT"

I never said that. That was what you said in your comment on my post.

"As I predicted, you cannot define the "greenhouse effect" in a manner that does not violate the laws of physics. You're dancing around the issue and trying to change the subject.

I don't know why you insist on putting the cart before the horse. First define the "greenhouse effect" in a manner that does not violate the laws of physics and then I'll let you explain how the defining properties of "greenhouse gases" lead to the "greenhouse effect" that you defined."

Um, I think you must be confused. It is not possible to explain the greenhouse effect without first explaining what a greenhouse gas is, because greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect. This is a bit like trying to explain to somehow how lose weight, without first explaining what a calorie is.

I think that you actually couldn't find much of a flaw in my explanation of a greenhouse gas, and you tried to deflect this by complaining about my explanation of the greenhouse effect. So are you finally willing to admit that there is such as thing as a greenhouse gas???

"That says a lot about atmospheric pressure, doesn't it. What is Mercury's atmospheric pressure? What is Venus'?"

You are not capable of looking this up yourself?? Mercury's atmospheric pressure is negligible. Venus's atmospheric pressure is 92 bar. Earth's atmospheric pressure is 1 bar. There is no correlation between a planet's atmospheric pressure and it's distance from the sun...

"Now, answer me this: Why is Death Valley so much warmer than the top of Mt. Whitney when Death Valley is technically farther from the sun?"

Haha... Death Valley is only technically further from the sun in the daytime! At night, Death Valley is technically closer to the sun than the top of Mount Whitney!

As you climb Mount Whitney, atmospheric temperature decreases, because your height within the troposphere increases. Above the tropopause, atmospheric temperatures increase again to near surface values, and then decreases again in the stratosphere. Death Valley is warm because it is at a low altitude, and heat from the Earth's surface is trapped by the valley walls, which prevents the hot air from rising out of the valley. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the atmospheric temperature on Venus has been greatly increased by the fact that 96% of its atmosphere is comprised of CO2.
01-10-2015 20:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
climate scientist wrote:I never said that. That was what you said in your comment on my post.

Yes, I paraphrased. You wrote of a direct violation of the 1st LoT in your own words, specifying an energy increase without any work being performed. The only thing you omitted was a header with the words "My preferred violation of the 1st LoT."

climate scientist wrote: Um, I think you must be confused.

No, that would be you. In fact, you are about to explain why you have no business in any discussion of science:

climate scientist wrote: It is not possible to explain the greenhouse effect without first explaining what a greenhouse gas is, because greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect.

This is the response of dogma-spewing preacher who seeks to confuse others with circular definitions, e.g. The "greenhouse effect" is the effect caused by "greenhouse gases." "Greenhouse gases" are atmospheric gases that cause the "greenhouse effect." The "greenhouse effect" is the effect caused by "greenhouse gases." "Greenhouse gases" are atmospheric gases that cause the "greenhouse effect." The "greenhouse effect" is the effect caused by "greenhouse gases." "Greenhouse gases" are atmospheric gases that cause the "greenhouse effect." etc...

Any real, physical effect can be defined in a manner that does not violate the laws of physics. You have effectively explained why there really is no such real, physical "greenhouse effect."

climate scientist wrote: This is a bit like trying to explain to somehow how lose weight, without first explaining what a calorie is.

I can easily define "weight loss" without the terms calorie, exercise, diet, roller-coaster, Atkins, protein, carbohydrates, or any of a host of others.

climate scientist wrote: I think that you actually couldn't find much of a flaw in my explanation of a greenhouse gas,

You have explained only one thing, i.e. a violation of the 1st LoT, and we haven't gotten beyond it. You refuse to address the flagrant violation except to say 'No, it isn't a violation" ...and to try to quickly change the subject.

You need to acknowledge either that there is no temperature increase involved in this "greenhouse effect" or show that work is somehow performed that you omitted previously. The 1st LoT is pretty clear on this. You can't get around it.

So, get off the "greenhouse gases" and get back to defining "greenhouse effect" in a manner that doesn't violate the laws of physics.

climate scientist wrote:You are not capable of looking this up yourself??

Keeping the streak alive, we once again need to address your poor reading comprehension. You can't possibly have a higher, formal education and be unable to understand the use of rhetorical questions.

I clearly addressed your apples-n-oranges comparison of Venus and Mercury by pointing to the stark differences in atmospheric pressure, the other factor in planetary surface temperature. I then directed you to an apples-n-apples comparison of Mt. Whitney and Death Valley.

Look, you can't possibly be a scientist of any sort and be this scientifically illiterate. I can already foresee the problems you are going to have understanding the ideal gas law.

climate scientist wrote:As you climb Mount Whitney, atmospheric temperature decreases, because your height within the troposphere increases.

Good...keep going. Why is that? You are getting closer to your answer.

climate scientist wrote: Death Valley is warm because it is at a low altitude,

Good...why is that? We're getting there.

climate scientist wrote: and heat from the Earth's surface is trapped by the valley walls, which prevents the hot air from rising out of the valley.

No. This is absurd. You were on the right track above. Hint: atmospheric pressure.

climate scientist wrote:But this has nothing to do with the fact that the atmospheric temperature on Venus has been greatly increased by the fact that 96% of its atmosphere is comprised of CO2.

No, you have been duped. The composition of Venus' atmosphere has nothing to do with Venus' surface temperature. The vast atmospheric pressure does. Again, we go back to why Death Valley is so much warmer than the top of Mt. Whitney, on the same planet, within the same atmosphere.

Stay focused. Stay apples-n-apples.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
01-10-2015 20:53
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"Thermal energy can be increased *either* by adding heat *or* by doing work on a system."

From I-Physics, section 12.2.b The First Law of Thermodynamics, page 292.

You have not explained exactly *how* my explanation of the greenhouse effect supposedly violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

I don't have the time to write a longer response, as I have to go do some CLIMATE SCIENCE on a ship tomorrow.
01-10-2015 21:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
From I-Physics, section 12.2.b The First Law of Thermodynamics, page 292.:
"Thermal energy can be increased *either* by adding heat *or* by doing work on a system."



climate scientist wrote:
You have not explained exactly *how* my explanation of the greenhouse effect supposedly violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Yes I have. Many times.

You insist that a temperature increase is created (which implies thermal energy is created) through energy changing form, and or through the particular direction IR EM radiates, with no work being performed.

climate scientist wrote: I don't have the time to write a longer response, as I have to go do some CLIMATE SCIENCE on a ship tomorrow.

I'm glad you think that science is something that one "does."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
01-10-2015 22:06
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"You insist that a temperature increase is created (which implies thermal energy is created) through energy changing form, and or through the particular direction IR EM radiates, with no work being performed. "

Yes. As stated before: "Thermal energy can be increased *either* by adding heat *or* by doing work on a system." It is very possible to have an increase in thermal energy with no work being performed if there is an increase in heat.

As I posted before from OED: "Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". One can do science.
02-10-2015 00:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
climate scientist wrote:Yes. As stated before: "Thermal energy can be increased *either* by adding heat *or* by doing work on a system." It is very possible to have an increase in thermal energy with no work being performed if there is an increase in heat.

Clearly your understanding of the subject matter extends no further than the definition you read.

You showed neither work nor heat.

Now comes the eye-rolling whereby you show that you don't understand what constitutes heat nor what constitutes work.

climate scientist wrote:As I posted before from OED: "Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". One can do science.

Then let's just agree that you consider the dictionary to be your science textbook and we won't need to bother with any pretenses as to why you are scientifically illiterate. We won't need to waste any more time.

Otherwise, your definition is wrong.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
03-10-2015 12:11
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"You showed neither work nor heat."

So you admit that I am right, and that thermal energy can be increased either by adding heat or by doing work on a system.

Light of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb and re-emit infrared both upwards and downwards. The downwards infrared is then absorbed by the surface of the Earth, which causes it to heat.

"Now comes the eye-rolling whereby you show that you don't understand what constitutes heat nor what constitutes work."

And you are an expert on the matter I suppose. This should be interesting...

"Then let's just agree that you consider the dictionary to be your science textbook and we won't need to bother with any pretenses as to why you are scientifically illiterate."

You were quibbling over my English grammar at this point, therefore it is completely appropriate to refer to OED.

"We won't need to waste any more time."

Are you giving up?

"Otherwise, your definition is wrong."

Which definition are you referring to here? My quote from a physics textbook, or my quote from OED? Either way, I think you will have a hard time *proving* that either quote is wrong. But be my guest....
03-10-2015 13:04
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Oh and btw, this is what NASA has to say about the climate on Venus:

http://www.nasa.gov/venus
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_60AR.html

I suppose that they are wrong too??
03-10-2015 13:59
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Speaking of Venus, here is an interesting article from someone else who does not believe in the greenhouse effect.

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

Comments anyone? You can also reply to him directly if you wish.
03-10-2015 18:57
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Climate Scientist,

In the original post to this thread, IBdaMann stated "In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion." I would respond to this with two points:

1. We have never witnessed this kind of event before, yet science can, and has proceeded without working models. AIDS is a perfect example of this. HIV, and retroviruses in general, were recent discoveries at the time, and there wasn't any working model when medical research on AIDS began. Yet, given it's impact on society, few people other than extreme religious homophobes declared AIDS to be a religious issue instead of a scientific one.

2. There is a working model for one aspect of global warming: will a life form living with finite resources destroy itself? The valid, non-false model for this is found in how we manufacture drinking alcohol. One way to do this is to place a solution of carbohydrate (sugar, corn, starch, potatoes, etc.) and yeast in a closed container for a period of time during which the yeast will convert the carbohydrate to alcohol which we can then distill and drink. However, the important thing here isn't the alcohol, but what happens to the yeast. Alcohol, which we like to drink, is actually a waste product the yeast produces as it metabolizes the carbohydrate (i.e. - it's yeast shit). Now, the yeast needs to consume the carbohydrate in order to survive, but as it does so over time, it creates more and more alcohol (shit) inside the container. At a certain point, the amount of alcohol in the container becomes so toxic that it actually kills off all the yeast. That is why traditional methods of making alcohol cannot achieve more than about 10-15% alcohol concentration: the yeast die swimming in their own shit. Now, we live in a closed container called Earth. As a species, we like to consume petrochemicals (not orally, but via combustion engines) and give off (excrete waste) CO2 into the atmosphere. Over time, this cycle of petrochemical consumption leading to CO2 excretion will, through man-made climate change (which includes global warming), make our planet too toxic for us to live on and we will all die. So, yes, in answer to IBdaMann's original post, there already is a working model for one aspect of global warming.

Now, one last thought, Climate Scientist. When it comes to climate change doubters, I have found them to be much like the people who claimed cigarettes don't cause lung cancer. Yes, there are always exceptions to any rule, but the overwhelming data we have today does back the existence of man-made climate change. However, rather than take the big picture into account, climate change doubters will latch onto and question every minute detail like the child who always responds with "why?" no matter what answer you give to them. Don't get me wrong, doubt and skepticism are healthy components of any scientific inquiry. But doubt for the sake of saying "you are wrong," solely so one can say "I am right" and end the discussion, is not the foundation of healthy debate. In the end, this latter type of doubting is what leads to a self-justifying, self-centered Ptolemaic model of discourse that, no matter which way you spin it, cannot encompass the whole truth. Therefore, though I often doubt and am skeptical about many things, when it comes to debate entrenched in redundant self-serving doubt, I like to leave those kind of discourses, like irksome children, where they belong: in the corner.
04-10-2015 01:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
trafn wrote:
1. We have never witnessed this kind of event before,

I would respond 'What event are you talking about?" Nobody, thus far, has been able to define "it" in a manner that doesn't violate the laws of physics, so it is completely insufficient for you to generically reference it as "this kind of event."

What, specifically, are you talking about? Would you mind defining it in a manner that doesn't violate the laws of physics?

trafn wrote: yet science can, and has proceeded without working models.

We need to address semantics.

Falsifiable models are absolutely required to have science.

The body of science is not the scientific method. (The body of) science is not a process nor is it a person, but rather a collection of falsifiable models that help us predict nature. Science therefore cannot "proceed."

The scientific method is a process that takes, as an input, a falsifiable model and attempts to prove it false. The scientific method cannot proceed without a falsifiable model.

trafn wrote: AIDS is a perfect example of this. HIV, and retroviruses in general, were recent discoveries at the time, and there wasn't any working model when medical research on AIDS began.

We certainly had many excellent working models of human anatomy, human physiology, microbiology, and others. We had much science based on the requisite falsifiable models, and those models were modified to give us new science.

trafn wrote:2. There is a working model for one aspect of global warming: will a life form living with finite resources destroy itself?

This is a question. This is an acknowledgement of something unknown.

trafn wrote: The valid, non-false model for this is found in how we manufacture drinking alcohol.

This would be "alcohol science." One does not get to say that a falsifiable Global Warming model exists just because a falsifiable model of something else exists.

Now, if you were to take that falsifiable alcohol model, formally define Global Warming within it in a manner that doesn't violate any of the other models within the body of science, and expound upon it to create a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false) then you would certainly have Global Warming science...but not before.

trafn wrote: (i.e. - it's yeast shit).

Amazing coincidence, just a few hours ago I was explaining to my daughter that alcohol was yeast piss. I'm hoping that sours her desire to eventually try it, and if/when she does, I want that imagery in her head.

trafn wrote: Now, we live in a closed container called Earth. As a species, we like to consume petrochemicals (not orally, but via combustion engines) and give off (excrete waste) CO2 into the atmosphere. Over time, this cycle of petrochemical consumption leading to CO2 excretion will, through man-made climate change (which includes global warming), make our planet too toxic for us to live on and we will all die.

If you build unfalsifiable dogma into your model, the model becomes unfalsifiable and cannot therefore be science. You believe the above to be true but there is no science for any of it. Your belief in the above is completely a matter of faith. Sure, because it's unfalsifiable, no one can prove your assertions false, however you can similarly never prove it to be true.

trafn wrote: Now, one last thought, Climate Scientist. When it comes to climate change doubters, I have found them to be much like the people who claimed cigarettes don't cause lung cancer.

Bad example. We can't prove that it does. We can see a strong statistical correlation but correlation is not causation. In fact, there have been heavy smokers who did not get lung cancer so we have examples showing smoking not causing lung cancer. I can be convinced of a heightened risk of lung cancer from smoking but I can't produce any science that shows a mechanism.

On the same point, have you considered viewing people like me as the atheists we are? I don't share your theology. Does that mean we need to be enemies? Can we peacefully coexist? The Global Warming religion seems to be more like Muslim jihadists who want to rid the world of all infidels/deniers while obeying the call to prayers for Allah/Climate.

trafn wrote: Yes, there are always exceptions to any rule, but the overwhelming data we have today does back the existence of man-made climate change.

"Climate" is not defined anywhere in the body of science. What is it and when did it come into existence? When did it start to change? How were these changes measured? What are the units of measure for "Climate Change"? These seem to be theological questions that have no answers in science.

trafn wrote: However, rather than take the big picture into account, climate change doubters will latch onto and question every minute detail like the child who always responds with "why?" no matter what answer you give to them.

Are you aware that you just described the scientific method? Do you therefore agree with me that Global Warming, "Climate," "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas," "Climate Forcing," etc.. are incompatible with the scientific method for the reasons you specified?

trafn wrote: Don't get me wrong, doubt and skepticism are healthy components of any scientific inquiry.

All religions make the same claim, that they welcome the doubting and the questioning of the dogma, ...that it is healthy, but only up to a point, and that point is when the dogma starts to actually be doubted and questioned.

I really wish scientific atheists and the Global Warming congregation could get along. The congregation doesn't seem to want to. It appears that science is like their greatest threat.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-10-2015 15:28
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann, try reading this:

Infrared radiation and planetary temperature.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Edited on 04-10-2015 15:30
04-10-2015 18:05
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

1. "It" refers to the current event of climate change which began in the mid-1800's which cannot be satisfactorily explained by any relevant historical data sets derived before this time period from naturally occurring factors (non-man-made), yet can be satisfactorily explained by man-made intervention during this time period.

2. You adhere quite strictly and stringently to Karl Popper's concept of falsifiable models as being the only useful method for demarcating science from non-science. While Popperism is a recent and useful philosophy from which to approach both scientific investigation and data, it is by no means the only avenue by which to do so. Yes, there are many advantages to Popperistic concepts, especially as applied to the sciences, but even Popper correctly stated that his ideas were merely ideals and not the end all for determining reality. Unfortunately, many Popperites forget this facet of Karl's work, perhaps being confused by the influence of logical positivism which gained favor around the same time as his concepts surrounding falsifiable models.

3. As to the remainder of the bulk of you prior post, nothing in science has ever been proven to be 100% true (which ever Karl Popper admitted) as it only takes one contrary instance to prove something false, the inherent problem being that we can never fully observe and completely measure all applicable instances of any hypothesis or theorem. So we agree to degrees of certainty which can be established by various criteria, including but no limited to falsifiable models. Keep in mind that historically the Chinese were responsible for making some of the most fascinating (and true) discoveries about nature by using the philosophy if the inclusive middle. This is the idea that in seemingly opposing points of view, both might have some degree of truth, with some of it being the same shared truth, that shared truth being the inclusive middle. Today, in western philosophy, including our sciences, we tend to impose the principle of the excluded middle where only one of two seemingly opposing points of view can be correct, and there can be no commonly shared middle ground of truth. From reading many of your past posts, I get the distinct impression that you come from the excluded middle camp. Might I suggest that you review your writings and those of others from the included middle perspective?

4. As to wanting to get rid of all "deniers," that would be about as useful an application of my time and energy as, had I been there, trying to convert all Protestants on the Titanic into practicing Catholics after the ship had already hit the iceberg. As for me, I believe we passed the tipping point of no return for man-made climate change back in 1901 with Spindletop and that, due to our behavior, this planet will be devoid of all life well before the end of this century. My only interest here is to enjoy the discourse and to learn about others' points of view on this matter (not to eliminate them).
04-10-2015 18:11
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Ceist,

That's a fascinating article on IR and planetary temperature. Thanks for sharing!

04-10-2015 18:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Ceist wrote:IBdaMann, try reading this:

Why are you asking me to read this? I already understand thermal radiation. Don't you want the others in this thread who don't understand it to learn about it?

Ceist wrote:Infrared radiation and planetary temperature.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

Wait! Nevermind. Now I understand. This article is simply more erroneous Global Warming church material for the scientifically illiterate. It's not about actual thermal radiation science but about playing on the Global Warming congregation's misunderstanding.

Did you read the article? Did you not detect a few glaring red flags? It opens with a flagrant physics error, sufficient to tell readers that they needn't continue reading. I'm guessing you saw the drop of Fourier's name and thought "Wow, this must be profound physics truth!" Hint: Articles containing the names "Fourier" and "Arrhenius" are usually Global Warming dogmababble.

In any event, thanks for your consideration but the article is bogus.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-10-2015 19:15
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Ceist. Nice article!

Very in-depth and thorough.

IBdaMann - it is funny to watch you squirm and EVADE the science presented in this article. If you are able to, please enlighten us by explaining specifically which sentences of this article are incorrect.

If the article is bogus, then I assume that you think the American Institute of Physics is also bogus.
04-10-2015 19:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
trafn wrote: 1. "It" refers to the current event of climate change which began in the mid-1800's which cannot be satisfactorily explained by any relevant historical data sets derived before this time period from naturally occurring factors (non-man-made), yet can be satisfactorily explained by man-made intervention during this time period.

When I read this sentence, several questions spring to mind:
1. What is "Climate"? OK, you did give me your definition previously, that it is essentially the earth's atmosphere, surface and biosphere, including all the water and that it is not a bunch of averages, statistics and trends. So that's good on you for being clear.
2. To which change, specifically, in this climate do you refer?
3. Are you sure this change started from the industrial revolution?
4. How do you know that it cannot be explained? You are presuming to speak for an entire planet of people when you say none have an explanation. Perhaps if you tell me what this change is I can give you a perfectly satisfactory answer that doesn't involve violations of the laws of physics.
5. If you are aware of irreconcilable problems with the "man-made cause" explanations, why do you nonetheless champion it? Christians use the same argument for "Creation." They point to our (current) inability to create life in a lab and say "See, (the Christian) God is the only answer that satisfactorily explains creation." I believe that any change you specify has an easy explanation, but even if no one were to be able to satisfactorily explain it today that doesn't mean that no one will be able to explain it tomorrow and it doesn't mean that any other error-filled explanation must therefore be correct.

trafn wrote: 2. You adhere quite strictly and stringently to Karl Popper's concept of falsifiable models as being the only useful method for demarcating science from non-science.

I notice that you are attempting to put the focus on me, and couching this in terms of my adherence to some perceived authority figure.

The process I mentioned is not mine; it is de facto to science. The scientific method accepts falsifiable models and tries to show them to be false, and those models that survive the scientific method take their place in the body of science. This system was established before I was born. Even Einstein, as brilliant and recognized as he was, was required to adhere to it. I am simply reporting it.

So, yes, that means that all the data gathering in the world, all the measurements, all the observations...their only value is the ideas they inspired (and the falsifiable models they showed to be false).

trafn wrote:3. As to the remainder of the bulk of you prior post, nothing in science has ever been proven to be 100% true

Correct. Science doesn't prove things to be true. There is no such thing as "settled science." Good scientists continue to question and doubt every little aspect of every little detail of everything, like children asking "Why? Why? Why? How? How? How? What? Where? When?" Religions, of course, pressure people to not question and to not doubt, sometimes at the edge of the sword.

The body of science forms our operating presumptions of truth. It is the body of falsifiable material that we have not yet been able to show is false. We need to be able to predict nature so we can make decisions. Science is that body of reference material for what we consider true. Religious people are free to add their own unfalsifiable dogma to what they consider to be true as well HOWEVER when an unfalsifiable religious dogma conflicts with science, we must throw out the religious dogma...EXCEPT that religious adherents to unfalsifiable dogma tend to not want to discard their dogma. The dogma acts as a drug; it makes them feel good. They search for ways to change the science or even to discard the science. They will pressure those presenting the conflicting science to not threaten their dogma with science, sometimes at the edge of the sword.


trafn wrote: Keep in mind that historically the Chinese were responsible for making some of the most fascinating (and true) discoveries about nature by using the philosophy if the inclusive middle.

Absolutely, lets give credit where it is due. ICE CREAM! ...and others, of course.

trafn wrote: As for me, I believe we passed the tipping point of no return for man-made climate change back in 1901 with Spindletop and that, due to our behavior, this planet will be devoid of all life well before the end of this century.

You made this point with abundant clarity.

You have to realize that you have become the next prophet of doom based on a religious belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
In your faith, CO2 has mystical, magical powers to create weather miracles and to defy the laws of thermodynamics. This is not based on science (although it is likely that people you trusted convinced you that it is based on science, which is likely due to then being confused by the name of the religious dogma "The Science")

I fully realize that telling you this is a direct affront to your belief. I realize that this might very well be your motivation for seeking alternative definitions of science and why, owing to the fact that I am the one bearing the news, that you might want to couch the science I present as being my subjective opinion. It is not my intent to burst any bubbles, but science has that effect, especially on unfalsifiable faiths. If there is anything I can do to shed light on any topic, please do not hesitate to ask.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2015 00:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:IBdaMann, try reading this:

Why are you asking me to read this? I already understand thermal radiation. Don't you want the others in this thread who don't understand it to learn about it?

Ceist wrote:Infrared radiation and planetary temperature.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

Wait! Nevermind. Now I understand. This article is simply more erroneous Global Warming church material for the scientifically illiterate. It's not about actual thermal radiation science but about playing on the Global Warming congregation's misunderstanding.

Did you read the article? Did you not detect a few glaring red flags? It opens with a flagrant physics error, sufficient to tell readers that they needn't continue reading. I'm guessing you saw the drop of Fourier's name and thought "Wow, this must be profound physics truth!" Hint: Articles containing the names "Fourier" and "Arrhenius" are usually Global Warming dogmababble.

In any event, thanks for your consideration but the article is bogus.


The article is not bogus. It's mainstream science found in any textbook. It
is your views that are bogus because your understanding of the physics of atmospheric heat transfer appears to be fundamentally flawed. You seem to believe that the earth is a closed system. It's not.

Why not take your own advice and read a few textbooks on atmospheric physics?

You are parroting laughable flawed blog pseudoscience by "Sky Dragon slayers".
Edited on 05-10-2015 01:03
05-10-2015 01:04
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

1. I've come to the conclusion that I may never be able to give you a satisfactory (i.e. - totally Popperian) explanation of man-made climate change. However, I have the strong suspicion that you don't believe such a thing exists. Since we seem to be going in circles with me trying to explain to you why it does exits, let's change our approach and have you explain to me why it doesn't exist (in Popperian terms, of course).

2. While Karl Popper's concepts do dominate a lot of the scientific process today, it certainly is not the only valid methodology around. In fact, because of it's strict and stringent rules, it is often not a very efficient methodology to employ. The reason for this is that while Popper's falsifiable models have high specificity (they produce few false positives), they tend to have very low sensitivity (they produce many false negatives) due to the narrow gauntlet they create which data must pass through. So, if you have the convenience of many centuries to continually collect, evaluate and re-evaluate data, Popperian principles are probably a good way to go. But, if you're on the verge of sinking this planet like the Titanic, you might want to cast a broader and more expedient net. I, for one, chose the latter option.

3. Epistemologicaly speaking, when it first dominated the globe, religion was the science of its day and the direct predecessor of modern science. While it concepts are largely outdated now, centuries and millennia earlier it provided a well defined and easy to understand process for interpreting the world. Though religion is not my cup of tea, I'd prefer not to speak too harshly about it and, in fact, would rather not even mention it during conversations such as these (why talk of third grade constructs when you're obviously educated well beyond the third grade?).

4. Yes, ice cream and spaghetti, though maybe not together.

5. As to gloom and doom, if you find yourself in a hurricane and it makes you feel better to say, "Oh, what a nice sunny day it is outside today," then who am I to tell you you're wrong. Maybe you're in the eye of the storm. And fear not, there are no bubbles to burst here, only ideas to share.
05-10-2015 01:18
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
Hi Ceist,

That's a fascinating article on IR and planetary temperature. Thanks for sharing!

climate scientist wrote:
Hi Ceist. Nice article!

Very in-depth and thorough.

IBdaMann - it is funny to watch you squirm and EVADE the science presented in this article. If you are able to, please enlighten us by explaining specifically which sentences of this article are incorrect.

If the article is bogus, then I assume that you think the American Institute of Physics is also bogus.


You're welcome. It's one of the better summaries I've come across.

Crackpot 'Sky dragon slayers' like IBdaMann are really funny. I would guess that IBdaMann has picked up his fundamentally flawed ideas from some pseudoscience blogger with an engineering background who knows very little about atmospheric physics.
Edited on 05-10-2015 01:55
05-10-2015 04:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Ceist wrote:IBdaMann - it is funny to watch you squirm and EVADE the science presented in this article.

It's funny to watch your threatened imagination run wild. I'm not the one squirming.

I have you down officially as not understanding enough science to spot bullchit when you see it, and that you are relegated to believing whatever your church clergy order you to believe, without question of course. I will also add you to the list of people who are not smart enough to discern religion from science.

Ceist wrote: If you are able to, please enlighten us by explaining specifically which sentences of this article are incorrect.

Please post a link to a copy of that document that will allow me to cut-n-paste.

For now I'll just mention that there is no such thing in science as earth's "energy budget." That is pure Global Warming theology. Also Fourier did not "recognize" that the atmosphere affects the thermal radiation. He mistakenly conjectured that it did, and that the composition of the atmosphere was a factor, but his error became understood and that particular model of his has long since been discarded. As I said previously, any article referring to Arrhenius and Fourier, wrt Global Warming, is going to be crap based on crap. Microwave electromagnetic radiation, not thermal radiation nor "energy budgets" is the underlying principle for microwave ovens. A radiation field cannot be in thermodynamic equilibrium; radiation has no temperature. Pierrehumbert refers to blackbody radiation without any mention of a blackbody that is radiating. This is a foul because without a blackbody, the radiation is not blackbody radiation and the blackbody math does not apply. Then Pierrehumbert intentionally rakes his readers over unnecessary, overly complex and inappropriate blackbody math (that adds no value to the reader, but serves to make the reader think that he, Pierrehumbert, is smarter than he actually is). I understand the math, and I can readily see that what is written is not needed for this article, and it doesn't even apply, but for the author it serves the same function as the old Catholic Church saying masses in Latin, to reassure the congregation that they are too stupid to understand the complicated truth that is understood by the wise clergy, so they should just obey and believe as they are told.

Look, you obviously didn't read this article, and given your inability to grasp the fundamentals, you wouldn't get anything out of it if you were to read it. I have only covered errors on the first page. The article is full of crap. Let me jump to the end of the article.

The thesis statement is an illogical conclusion unsupported by the rest of the article. Pierrehumbert makes the standard climate lemming claim, just in far more convoluted technobabble, that the composition of the atmosphere has an effect on the rate of planetary thermal radiation, despite not performing any additional work, and we all know that's a violation of the 1st LoT. He springs this nutty, unsupported conclusion on us at the end of the article in the hopes that the reader won't realize that nothing in the article up to that point supports his conclusion.

Note to self: I'm no longer accepting the responsibility of proving every article to be crap. In the future, posters will have to cut-n-paste the text they believe supports whatever point they believe they are making.

Ceist wrote:If the article is bogus, then I assume that you think the American Institute of Physics is also bogus.

I have you down as a hero-worshiping dupe who believes his authority figures are "off limits" for being called out for the crap they post.

Yes, of course The American Institute of Physics is responsible for any crap they publish and sure, they should be called out for this crap. I'll do it right here, right now. I have officially put the American Institute of Physics on my "Not Credible" list. In the future, expect anything cited from them to be summarily dismissed.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2015 06:28
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:IBdaMann - it is funny to watch you squirm and EVADE the science presented in this article.

It's funny to watch your threatened imagination run wild. I'm not the one squirming.

I have you down officially as not understanding enough science to spot bullchit when you see it, and that you are relegated to believing whatever your church clergy order you to believe, without question of course. I will also add you to the list of people who are not smart enough to discern religion from science.

Ceist wrote: If you are able to, please enlighten us by explaining specifically which sentences of this article are incorrect.

Please post a link to a copy of that document that will allow me to cut-n-paste.

For now I'll just mention that there is no such thing in science as earth's "energy budget." That is pure Global Warming theology. Also Fourier did not "recognize" that the atmosphere affects the thermal radiation. He mistakenly conjectured that it did, and that the composition of the atmosphere was a factor, but his error became understood and that particular model of his has long since been discarded. As I said previously, any article referring to Arrhenius and Fourier, wrt Global Warming, is going to be crap based on crap. Microwave electromagnetic radiation, not thermal radiation nor "energy budgets" is the underlying principle for microwave ovens. A radiation field cannot be in thermodynamic equilibrium; radiation has no temperature. Pierrehumbert refers to blackbody radiation without any mention of a blackbody that is radiating. This is a foul because without a blackbody, the radiation is not blackbody radiation and the blackbody math does not apply. Then Pierrehumbert intentionally rakes his readers over unnecessary, overly complex and inappropriate blackbody math (that adds no value to the reader, but serves to make the reader think that he, Pierrehumbert, is smarter than he actually is). I understand the math, and I can readily see that what is written is not needed for this article, and it doesn't even apply, but for the author it serves the same function as the old Catholic Church saying masses in Latin, to reassure the congregation that they are too stupid to understand the complicated truth that is understood by the wise clergy, so they should just obey and believe as they are told.

Look, you obviously didn't read this article, and given your inability to grasp the fundamentals, you wouldn't get anything out of it if you were to read it. I have only covered errors on the first page. The article is full of crap. Let me jump to the end of the article.

The thesis statement is an illogical conclusion unsupported by the rest of the article. Pierrehumbert makes the standard climate lemming claim, just in far more convoluted technobabble, that the composition of the atmosphere has an effect on the rate of planetary thermal radiation, despite not performing any additional work, and we all know that's a violation of the 1st LoT. He springs this nutty, unsupported conclusion on us at the end of the article in the hopes that the reader won't realize that nothing in the article up to that point supports his conclusion.

Note to self: I'm no longer accepting the responsibility of proving every article to be crap. In the future, posters will have to cut-n-paste the text they believe supports whatever point they believe they are making.

Ceist wrote:If the article is bogus, then I assume that you think the American Institute of Physics is also bogus.

I have you down as a hero-worshiping dupe who believes his authority figures are "off limits" for being called out for the crap they post.

Yes, of course The American Institute of Physics is responsible for any crap they publish and sure, they should be called out for this crap. I'll do it right here, right now. I have officially put the American Institute of Physics on my "Not Credible" list. In the future, expect anything cited from them to be summarily dismissed.


You're quoting the wrong poster.




05-10-2015 07:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Ceist wrote:
You're quoting the wrong poster.

Quite right. My apologies. I still had your name in my buffer and I started pasting without noticing.

I'll see if I can edit.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's not my intent to get things mixed up.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2015 09:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
trafn wrote:1. I've come to the conclusion that I may never be able to give you a satisfactory (i.e. - totally Popperian) explanation of man-made climate change.

That's not a problem. Since I don't believe any such thing is real, I already don't expect you to necessarily provide one.

trafn wrote: However, I have the strong suspicion that you don't believe such a thing exists.

If you merely had a "strong suspicion" then I wasn't clear enough. I will explicitly state that I don't have any belief that such a thing exists. None whatsoever.

trafn wrote: Since we seem to be going in circles with me trying to explain to you why it does exits, let's change our approach and have you explain to me why it doesn't exist (in Popperian terms, of course).


Thrice the problem we have here, so this one is definitely a non-starter.

1) I'm not saying this was your intent, but this is the classic attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is a standard logical fallacy and automatically causes you to lose any argument you might be making (so try to avoid it). The Global Warming assertions you make are your assertions (even if someone else has made them previously, when you make them, they are yours) and you bear the full burden of proof to support your assertions. No one bears any burden to prove your assertions false. When you try to shift your burden of proof to support your assertions onto someone else to show your assertions false, the referee jumps out, throws the flag and ejects you from the game (or at least deducts a few points).

2) I cannot prove anything false that is unfalsifiable. I cannot prove that the Christian God does not exist. I cannot prove that the Muslim Allah does not exist. I cannot prove there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Invisible Troll under the Bridge, or that the moon doesn't have a core of green cheese. I can prove neither that there is no such thing as "Climate" nor that any such thing is not "changing" in some way. Unfalsifiability renders me unable to prove something false.

3) I am an atheist. I don't believe any gods exist. This is not the same as declaring that I believe no gods exist, which would be a theism. I have no theism, so I simply don't have any theistic beliefs. If I were to list my beliefs on a piece of paper, the page would be blank. He who believes that no gods exist would at least have that one belief to list.

trafn wrote: 2. While Karl Popper's concepts do dominate a lot of the scientific process today, it certainly is not the only valid methodology around.

There are many methodologies. Only the one I mentioned will add to the body of science. 1. It must be a falsifiable model that helps predict nature and 2. it must survive the scientific method.

I'd be interested to learn of what other manner you believe will add to the body of science.

trafn wrote: In fact, because of it's strict and stringent rules, it is often not a very efficient methodology to employ. The reason for this is that while Popper's falsifiable models have high specificity (they produce few false positives), they tend to have very low sensitivity (they produce many false negatives) due to the narrow gauntlet they create which data must pass through.


First, Karl Popper is dead. He no longer has any say in what he helped establish. The rigid process we have today lives on without him, just like Darwin has no say in the advancement of genetics.

Second, narrow and rigid is what we absolutely demand for science. No loosey-goosey good-old-boy declarations of unfalsifiable models as science. We want a scientific method that asks "Why? Why? Why? How? How? How? When? What? Where?" about every minor aspect of every detail, and blasts a hole at first opportunity.

trafn wrote: But, if you're on the verge of sinking this planet like the Titanic, you might want to cast a broader and more expedient net. I, for one, chose the latter option.

So if the planet is in no danger whatsoever then you are fine with proceeding on as I described, yes?

trafn wrote: 3. Epistemologicaly speaking, when it first dominated the globe, religion was the science of its day

Not science, but considered the authority. Remember, we have our body of science, and every person is free to add any set of additional operational axioms of what s/he thinks s/he knows to augment what s/he does know. Back in the day, the body of science was essentially nonexistent, so religion filled the set of operating axioms. It wasn't science, but it was certainly considered the authority.

Nowadays, the Global Warming crowd wants to hijack science for its authority value, so their religion will, they believe, carry the authority of science. Unfortunately, that doesn't quite work, but it has been rather effective in political arenas (which is why Marxists are all onboard).

trafn wrote: Though religion is not my cup of tea, I'd prefer not to speak too harshly about it and, in fact, would rather not even mention it during conversations such as these (why talk of third grade constructs when you're obviously educated well beyond the third grade?).

When discussing a religion, it is difficult to not mention religion or faith.

trafn wrote: 4. Yes, ice cream and spaghetti, though maybe not together.

A big plate of spaghetti with ice cream for desert. ...and then an extra couple of hours at the gym.

trafn wrote: 5. As to gloom and doom, if you find yourself in a hurricane and it makes you feel better to say, "Oh, what a nice sunny day it is outside today," then who am I to tell you you're wrong.

If you find yourself outside on a nice sunny day and it makes you feel better to say "Oh, what a terrible hurricane we're experiencing", would you prefer I snap you out of it, or not?

Actually, let's look at this a little more closely because I like your example. If you and I were in the park on a nice sunny day, nary a breeze, with not a cloud in the sky, and someone were to come running by screaming "Get shelter NOW! The CAT V hurricane is here!" ...but I were to tell you "He's nuts, let's continue enjoying the awesome day"...how would you react?

Now, let's say that someone were to come running by screaming "The end of the world is coming. CO2 can violate the laws of physics, but there's no violation there, no, not at all, and it causes a "greenhouse effect" even though the earth doesn't act as a greenhouse, but it's real and will destroy the planet!" but I tell you "He's nuts, none of that is happening nor can it happen" ...how would you react?

In both cases, that's what you are doing and that's what I am saying. I can support what I say with verifiable science that you can review to your heart's content. You, on the other hand, are keenly aware that there is no science that you have reviewed and understand that convinced you Global Warming is real. All you have is your faith that this science exists, because people you trusted told you so, and they told you what to believe.

If you believe I am mistaken, I would be elated to review any science you would like to discuss. AND, as a bonus, none of it need be complicated. You likely learned, as a youngster, most of the science you need to understand why a lot of what you have been told is crap.

I promise, I'll help you through any science that is giving you heartburn.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2015 10:43
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Evasion again, this time with the excuse of not being able to copy and paste. Come on IBdaMann, you are letting yourself down. Please post the sentences that are bogus from that article here.

If you are able to, a scientific explanation of why they are bogus, rather than simply stating that they are bogus, would be nice. But this is probably beyond you. Anyone can state that "there is no such thing as Earth's energy budget". Simply stating that does not make you correct. Enlighten us all please with your superior knowledge, by explaining scientifically why and how there is no such thing as Earth's energy budget.
05-10-2015 10:47
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:
You're quoting the wrong poster.

Quite right. My apologies. I still had your name in my buffer and I started pasting without noticing.

I'll see if I can edit.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's not my intent to get things mixed up.

Now if you could only let go of your absolute but unfounded faith that your confused ideas about atmospheric physics are correct and your zealous but unsupported insistence that 150 years of mainstream physics is wrong; and hold back on your constant stream of childish insults, you might even learn something.




Edited on 05-10-2015 10:49
05-10-2015 15:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Ceist wrote:
Now if you could only let go of your absolute but unfounded faith that your confused ideas about atmospheric physics are correct and your zealous but unsupported insistence that 150 years of mainstream physics is wrong;

The word "mainstream" applies to religions. I think you know that.

I wish I could get you to break the mental fetters of your religion and get you to see that your religious dogma has nothing to do with science, but that cognitive paralysis of yours is just too strong. There's a reason you won't be contributing anything of value to these discussions. All we can do for you now is to make sure you're comfortable and give you the remote.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2015 18:29
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Now if you could only let go of your absolute but unfounded faith that your confused ideas about atmospheric physics are correct and your zealous but unsupported insistence that 150 years of mainstream physics is wrong;

The word "mainstream" applies to religions. I think you know that.

I wish I could get you to break the mental fetters of your religion and get you to see that your religious dogma has nothing to do with science, but that cognitive paralysis of yours is just too strong. There's a reason you won't be contributing anything of value to these discussions. All we can do for you now is to make sure you're comfortable and give you the remote.


When I say 'mainstream' science, I'm differentiating it from the pseudo-science nonsense you post. Your ideological rants and childish insults are entertaining, but in no way are your posts science based.


05-10-2015 19:24
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Everyone,

I have enjoyed participating on various threads over the past few weeks here on Cimate-Debate.com. It is wonderful to have a place where we can freely exchange ideas on this topic.

Unfortunately, some of the threads like this one have taken on negative overtones which no longer facilitate ongoing goodwill which is the foundation of this website. In cases such as this, I have decided that the best way to respond to such threads is by not responding to them at all and ceasing any further participation in them.

The reason I'm posting this is to let you know that instead of continuing participation here, I have created my own new thread, and I invite you to do the same. You can join my new thread at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-2-minute-warning-clock-on-climate-change-d6-e714.php

To assist in maintaining a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere on my thread, I'm going to suggest the following guidelines:

1. Please stay on topic. If you find my new thread inspires tangential ideas which you'd like to share with others, then create a new thread of your own for that purpose and post an invitation to it from my thread.

2. Please direct your critical posts/comments to the message and not the messenger (i.e. - anyone expressing themselves either on this website or outside of this website). Agreement is not required, but respect is requested.

3. Please avoid posting road blocks. Repetitive and redundant posts serve only to draw attention to oneself and create conflict.

Given I lack the capacity to take authoritative action, I cannot moderate my new thread. However, think of me like a janitor who aspires to maintain a welcoming environment for everyone.

If someone does not follow the thread's guidelines, I will post a request asking them to amend their post of concern. Should they refuse, then in the spirit of maintaining goodwill here I will contact the website administrator/moderator and ask that they intervene.

Should you find another participant violating these guidelines, I would ask that you not respond to them. Instead, if I have not already addressed your concerns by post in my new thread, please notify me so that I might do so immediately.

I look forward to your participation in my new thread and the opportunity to exchange ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Trafn
06-10-2015 05:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
climate scientist wrote:
Oh and btw, this is what NASA has to say about the climate on Venus:

http://www.nasa.gov/venus
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_60AR.html

I suppose that they are wrong too??

NASA and NOAA are intentionally misleading. They are political organizations whose announcements must first be vetted by a senior political representative of the administration to ensure they fit the agenda.

Oh yes, they are wrong.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
06-10-2015 10:40
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
They are political organizations whose announcements must first be vetted by a senior political representative of the administration to ensure they fit the agenda.


This is complete rubbish! I know many people who work at NOAA. In fact, I was just at a conference with a whole bunch of them. There was no one vetting their talks and poster presentations - many people were still writing their talks only an hour or so before they had to present! There was no time for vetting of any sort!
06-10-2015 12:22
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
They are political organizations whose announcements must first be vetted by a senior political representative of the administration to ensure they fit the agenda.


This is complete rubbish! I know many people who work at NOAA. In fact, I was just at a conference with a whole bunch of them. There was no one vetting their talks and poster presentations - many people were still writing their talks only an hour or so before they had to present! There was no time for vetting of any sort!


To those lay 'experts' suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect, paranoid conspiracy ideation and delusional irrational fear-based 'thinking', all the scientists are incompetent, lying and greedy. Methinks these types are actually projecting their own deficiencies onto scientists.



Edited on 06-10-2015 12:25
06-10-2015 15:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
climate scientist wrote: This is complete rubbish! I know many people who work at NOAA. In fact, I was just at a conference with a whole bunch of them. There was no one vetting their talks and poster presentations - many people were still writing their talks only an hour or so before they had to present! There was no time for vetting of any sort!

Your misperception is noted.

Nothing gets on the NOAA website that isn't vetted by a political appointee. Same for NASA. No one cares that you know some people who "work there." We all know some people who work there.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
08-10-2015 17:54
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi arthur18

Apologies for the long delay in posting about Harry Dale Huffman. Here is my view on his work.

Overall, I would say that his calculation is very over-simplified. For example, if one looks at the temperature vs pressure profiles for Venus and Earth, they are not nearly as similar as Huffman makes out (see plot 3 here: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm)

Clearly, there is a lot more going on than a simple temperature-pressure relationship in the atmospheres on both planets. For example, Earth's temperature increases in the stratosphere, while pressure continues to decrease.

Nevertheless, if we follow along with Huffman's simplification, then it is useful to have some more information.

Table 1.1 from John Houghton's book "The physics of atmospheres" (3rd Edition) has some useful data on Venus and Earth surface temperatures.

By equating the solar radiation that a planet receives with the infrared radiation that it emits, one can estimate the effective temperature of a planet's surface (assuming no atmosphere exists on either planet). For Venus and Earth respectively, the effective temperatures are about 230 K and 250 K. The actual measured mean surface temperatures for Venus and Earth respectively are 750 K and 280 K.

For Venus, the effective temperature and measured mean temperature are very different, owing to the dense atmosphere and thick cloud cover, which absorb almost all of the radiation with wavelengths of less than 1 mm. These clouds are causing a greenhouse effect on Venus, by preventing radiation emitted from the lower atmosphere from escaping into space, while still letting some solar radiation through. The process is the same on Earth, only much less severe.

Huffman makes the statement that "since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres".

I think that he makes this statement, because his calculation for the radiating temperature of a planetary body assumes no atmosphere, and therefore no greenhouse effect. But his crucial error, is to use Earth's measured surface temperature as his starting point, and not Earth's effective temperature, because Earth's measured temperature does include the greenhouse effect, and Earth's effective temperature does not.

So, when I apply Huffman's 1.176 factor to Earth's effective temperature of 250 K, I get an effective temperature on Venus of 294 K, which is higher than the figure in Houghton's book (and also remember that this is the temperature at 50 km height and not at the surface). This is probably due to the dubious 1.176 conversion value that Huffman has used. 294 K is, however, also much lower than the measured temperature on Venus at 50 km height, which is about 340 K. This is because of the greenhouse effect. So essentially, Huffman's calculation is flawed because he has included the greenhouse effect in his measurement of Earth's surface temperature, and has then used this value (along with a somewhat dubious relationship between Earth and Venus temperature/pressure profiles) to infer what the temperature on Venus should be without the greenhouse effect, which simply doesn't make any logical sense.

We know that the greenhouse effect exists on Earth, because we measure outgoing IR radiation from Earth using satellites. The data show that the outgoing IR is reduced for wavelengths associated with the main greenhouse gases, e.g. H2O, CO2, etc. See the two figures in section 'Greenhouse effect' here: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/atmos.html

This is a slight aside, but a good analogy for the greenhouse effect is this: If your house has an ambient temperature of 15 deg C, and then you decide to insulate the roof, the ambient temperature inside your house will increase, even though you have not turned the heating up. This is because the insulation is reducing the loss of heat from your house. I.e. you have created a radiation imbalance, and the temperature of your house will increase to a new equilibrium point, whereby the heat generated by your heating system to warm your house will equal the heat loss from your house.
08-10-2015 19:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
climate scientist wrote: Clearly, there is a lot more going on than a simple temperature-pressure relationship in the atmospheres on both planets.

We have yet another assertion from your imagination without any support beyond your use of the word "clearly" (which you apparently believe relieves you of any obligation for backing your claim).

I hate to break it to you, but a simple pressure-temperature relationship is all there is. Do you have any falsifiable models (that aren't false) that you'd like to discuss? If not, the word "clearly" does not suffice.

climate scientist wrote: For example, Earth's temperature increases in the stratosphere, while pressure continues to decrease.

Yes, the thermal energy distribution differs. Different substances abosrb differing EM signatures differently, O3 being a good example in this case.

climate scientist wrote: The actual measured mean surface temperatures for Venus and Earth respectively are 750 K and 280 K.

There is so much wrong with this statement. No one can take an "actual measurement" of the earth's surface temperature, much less of Venus.

climate scientist wrote: We know that the greenhouse effect exists on Earth,

The devoutly religious feel obligated to refer to their unfalsifiable beliefs as that which they "know."

climate scientist wrote: because we measure outgoing IR radiation from Earth using satellites.

How would IR measurements overcome your violation of the 1st LoT?

climate scientist wrote: The data show that the outgoing IR is reduced for wavelengths associated with the main greenhouse gases, e.g. H2O, CO2, etc.

I'm betting we never see hide nor hair of any complete, unfudged, raw, valid dataset that shows this. We don't even have a defined "greenhouse effect" that doesn't violate the 1st LoT such that any atmospheric gases have any properties that cause it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
08-10-2015 19:07
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Religion, Repetitiveness and Redundancy - the preferred three R's of the climate science illiterate!

Now who might want to think a little about that?


Edited on 08-10-2015 19:08
08-10-2015 19:10
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
We have yet another assertion from your imagination without any support beyond your use of the word "clearly" (which you apparently believe relieves you of any obligation for backing your claim).


I posted the link to the Venus and Earth temperature vs pressure profiles for everyone to see ...

Different substances abosrb differing EM signatures differently, O3 being a good example in this case.


Yes. O3 absorbs infrared because it is a greenhouse gas!

We don't even have a defined "greenhouse effect" that doesn't violate the 1st LoT such that any atmospheric gases have any properties that cause it.


Can you provide a link/reference to back up this statement?
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate There is still no Global Warming science.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
Still No Climate Change Science1111-07-2019 04:23
Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat128-05-2019 20:13
Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science028-05-2019 15:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact