Why deny global warming

Surface Detail wrote: The first thing we need to get clear is that changes in insulation can give rise to temperature changes when there is a constant supply of external energy.

Surface Detail wrote:It depends how hot the rock is to start with.

Surface Detail wrote:The Earth and everything on it is being continuously supplied with energy by the sun.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: The first thing we need to get clear is that changes in insulation can give rise to temperature changes when there is a constant supply of external energy.

Sorry. The first thing we need to lock down is that energy sources increase temperature, not insulation. This should be obvious to you but we really can't proceed until you understand this. It does not matter how irrelevant you "deem" this point. It does not matter how desperately you wish to conflate thermal convection/conduction with thermal radiation.

One more time: If you were to place a rock in space with no star or any other significant source of energy, and you were to wrap the rock in a thick layer of the most advanced insulation known to chemical engineering (that was the same temperature as the rock).

1. would the rock increase in temperature?

2. would the rock nonetheless decrease in temperature?

Surface Detail wrote:It depends how hot the rock is to start with.

No it does not. If the insulation is the same temperature as the rock then both the rock and the insulation will specifically cool.

Shall I take it that you do not understand this? Shall I take it that you believe that there is a certain temperature that will somehow yield different results? You really have no business discussing a more complex topic if you don't grasp something this simple.

Surface Detail wrote:The Earth and everything on it is being continuously supplied with energy by the sun.

...and this does not change the fundamental mechanics of what energy sources do and don't do, and of what insulation does and does not do. It would be pointless for you to move on to a scenario involving a heat source while you are still operating under the mistaken belief that insulation somehow acts as a heat source.

You need to first understand the fundamentals, but I see a lot of resistance from you to even take steps to understand the science involved in your own conjecture.

Let me know if anything changes.

Surface Detail wrote: Whether the rock cools or warms depends on its initial temperature. If its initial temperature is below that of the cosmic microwave background (2.7 K) then it will warm. If its temperature is above that, then it will cool.

Surface Detail wrote: Insulation does not act as a heat source. I've not claimed that it does.

Surface Detail wrote: It does, however, slow the rate of flow of energy from one place to another. Agreed?

spot wrote: Im not a moderator so I can't stop every thread being diverted into a disscusion of THE LAWS OF FISICKS.;

spot wrote:What about water vapor if you dont believe the long established properties of CO2 you don't believe in the properties of water vapour either correct?

spot wrote: You don't seem to detect where I am going with this line of questioning,...

spot wrote: ...what do you think water vapour does in the atmosphere?

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: You don't seem to detect where I am going with this line of questioning,...

Are you sure you want to go down this "rabbit hole"? You seem to be embarking on a discussion about the LAWS OF FISICKS.

spot wrote: ...what do you think water vapour does in the atmosphere?

Become precipitation?


.

spot wrote: If you were right me you and everyone else would never had existed.

spot wrote: Anyway besides become preciptation what else does it do, in the summer have you noticed how sometimes you get warm muggy nights?

spot wrote:
Te he, No thats damp the water is no longer in its vapour form for that to happen, I was more interested in the effect water vapour has on temputure.

spot wrote:
Te he, No thats damp the water is no longer in its vapour form for that to happen, I was more interested in the effect water vapour has on temputure.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Whether the rock cools or warms depends on its initial temperature. If its initial temperature is below that of the cosmic microwave background (2.7 K) then it will warm. If its temperature is above that, then it will cool.

The cosmic microwave background would be an energy source.

Surface Detail wrote: Insulation does not act as a heat source. I've not claimed that it does.

Unfortunately, you not claiming something doesn't prevent you from presenting models which imply what you might very well explicitly state is not happening. You violate physics and then follow up with the words "...and there's no violation of physics."

I already know what's going to happen. You are eager to start throwing in a heat source, i.e. the sun, so you can 1) begin having insulation add additional energy (i.e. become an energy source) and then include the words "...and it's adding no additional energy), and 2) you want the assertion "CO2" is insulation to thermal energy" to be assumed. That's not going to happen, by the way.

Surface Detail wrote: It does, however, slow the rate of flow of energy from one place to another. Agreed?

I'm waiting for you to acknowledge that insulation reduces the coefficient of heat transfer in conduction/convection but has nothing to do with thermal radiation which is driven by temperature alone.

Buildreps wrote:Who of the 'great scientific minds' here is able to explain the eccentricity of the last glaciation? If you can explain this, you might successfully explain something else about our climate.

Buildreps wrote: If you can't explain the past, you don't understand the future.

IBdaMann wrote:

Buildreps wrote:Who of the 'great scientific minds' here is able to explain the eccentricity of the last glaciation? If you can explain this, you might successfully explain something else about our climate.

It looks like roughly every 100,000 years the earth's eccentricity climbs to ~0.04 (might require up-rounding) to 0.05+ which seems to correspond to more ice.

Buildreps wrote: If you can't explain the past, you don't understand the future.

Is that because past performance guarantees future results?


.

Buildreps wrote:
1) How does this changing orbital eccentricity can account for an eccentricity of ice formation around the poles?

2) What is the net result in energy collection of this changing orbital eccentricity? When e is large, it would account for glaciations, but you will see that the net collected solar energy in one years remains unchanged. How do we want to explain ice ages knowing this?

Buildreps wrote:

Sorry it's not meant to be a quiz, but when no one can solve these questions, there's no real debate about any of the causes, or is it?

Ceist referenced: Benestad, R. E. (2016). A mental picture of the greenhouse effect. Theoretical and Applied Climatology

"The radiative energy emitted from an object can be described by Planck's law, relating electromagnetic energy loss to a so-called 'emission temperature' (T e )."

Ceist referenced: Benestad, R. E. (2016). A mental picture of the greenhouse effect. Theoretical and Applied Climatology,

5 Conclusions
"The GHE is a result of a vertical distance between a planet's surface, where energy from the sun is deposited, and higher aloft, where its heat loss back to space takes place. The vertical distance itself, however, is determined by GHGs."

Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

Ceist wrote:

Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field where he explains what you were asking, but can still claim "no-one can explain this".

"You better go back to the source of the info", instead of just making it up yourself.

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field where he explains what you were asking, but can still claim "no-one can explain this".

"You better go back to the source of the info", instead of just making it up yourself.

All Hail the Great God Consensus, for He teaches us to not think for ourselves!

Ceist wrote:

Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field, where he explains what you were asking, but you can still claim "no-one can explain this".

You also managed to miss more than 200 published papers on Antarctic and Greenland ice-cores/ice-sheets listed in Prof Alley's CV.

"You better go back to the source of the info", instead of just making it up yourself.

Buildreps wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field, where he explains what you were asking, but you can still claim "no-one can explain this".

You also managed to miss more than 200 published papers on Antarctic and Greenland ice-cores/ice-sheets listed in Prof Alley's CV.

"You better go back to the source of the info", instead of just making it up yourself.

I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense.

Ceist wrote:

Buildreps wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field, where he explains what you were asking, but you can still claim "no-one can explain this".

You also managed to miss more than 200 published papers on Antarctic and Greenland ice-cores/ice-sheets listed in Prof Alley's CV.

"You better go back to the source of the info", instead of just making it up yourself.

I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense.

Yes, it's obvious you and the other delusional science deniers suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect don't want to 'waste your time' on learning science. Laughably, you believe you already 'know all there is to know".

I didn't post those resources for the fake 'skeptic' science deniers who just reject them out of hand, but for rational people who might be interested.

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field where he explains what you were asking, but can still claim "no-one can explain this".

"You better go back to the source of the info", instead of just making it up yourself.

All Hail the Great God Consensus, for He teaches us to not think for ourselves!

All Hail the Great God Cereal Box- where delusional science deniers suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect learn everything they need to know about The LAWS of FISICKS and other 'sciencey stuff'.

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Buildreps wrote:

Ceist wrote:
[quote]Buildreps wrote:"You better go back to the source of the info[/i]", instead of just making it up yourself.

I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense.

Yes, it's obvious you and the other delusional science deniers suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect don't want to 'waste your time' on learning science. Laughably, you believe you already 'know all there is to know".

I didn't post those resources for the fake 'skeptic' science deniers who just reject them out of hand, but for rational people who might be interested.

You're a fan, aren't you, of Dunning and Kruger. Two guys that won the Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 for this theory of theirs. Psychoquackery at it's best!

I laugh at them, and I laugh at you for depending so heavily on them!

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

One Punch Man wrote:Here's how Wikipedia explains the Dunning-Krunger effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

Sounds a lot like climate scientists to me. You know, the sort of climate scientists who think they have god-like mental powers of omniscience and have convinced themselves that their simplistic models can accurately predict the temperature of the climate one-hundred years from now and refuse to admit their own ineptitude when their models fail to predict the climate a few years in advance:



The Dunning–Kruger effect describes Michael Mann, Phil Jones and the IPCC perfectly. Cue an attack on Roy Spencer unrelated to the graph above.

Surface Detail wrote:The surface is, of course, where we actually live!

1) Skill-boundary transgression: The individual is seeking to operate as an authority or qualified individual, in a field beyond their personal level of academic and professional qualification.

2) Self-identified authority: The individual identifies themselves as sufficiently competent to comment authoritatively on the subject.

3) Unrecognized competence: The individual's self-assessed competence is not recognized by those who are academically and professional competent.

4) False peers: The individual believes that the favourable commentary of other unskilled and non-professional individuals, indicates they themselves are sufficiently qualified.

5) Scrutiny avoidance: The individual fails to submit their work for professional scrutiny (such as in the relevant scholarly literature), for review by those genuinely qualified.

6) Pioneer complex: The individual self-identifies as a pioneer uncovering previously unknown or unrecognized facts; a Copernicus or Galileo.

7) Conspiracy claims: The individual explains opposition by qualified professionals as a coordinated attempt to suppress truth, in order to defend the existing scholarly consensus.

8) Allocentric claims of bias: The individual explains the difference between their views and those of qualified professionals, as the result of inherent bias on the part of the professionals; accusations of bias are directed at anyone other than themselves, and they claim objectivity.

One Punch Man wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Buildreps wrote:

Ceist wrote:
[quote]Buildreps wrote:"You better go back to the source of the info[/i]", instead of just making it up yourself.

I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense.

Yes, it's obvious you and the other delusional science deniers suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect don't want to 'waste your time' on learning science. Laughably, you believe you already 'know all there is to know".

I didn't post those resources for the fake 'skeptic' science deniers who just reject them out of hand, but for rational people who might be interested.

You're a fan, aren't you, of Dunning and Kruger. Two guys that won the Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 for this theory of theirs. Psychoquackery at it's best!

I laugh at them, and I laugh at you for depending so heavily on them!

Here's how Wikipedia explains the Dunning-Krunger effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

Sounds a lot like climate scientists to me. You know, the sort of climate scientists who think they have god-like mental powers of omniscience and have convinced themselves that their simplistic models can accurately predict the temperature of the climate one-hundred years from now and refuse to admit their own ineptitude when their models fail to predict the climate a few years in advance:



The Dunning–Kruger effect describes Michael Mann, Phil Jones and the IPCC perfectly. Cue an attack on Roy Spencer unrelated to the graph above.

Surface Detail wrote:
While there are discrepancies in their predictions of the equatorial mid-troposphere temperatures, the models have done a pretty good job of predicting the global average surface temperature:



The surface is, of course, where we actually live!

Surface Detail wrote:
This seems a well-referenced way to determine who's a sufferer:

A Dunning-Kruger detection kit

1) Skill-boundary transgression: The individual is seeking to operate as an authority or qualified individual, in a field beyond their personal level of academic and professional qualification.

2) Self-identified authority: The individual identifies themselves as sufficiently competent to comment authoritatively on the subject.

3) Unrecognized competence: The individual's self-assessed competence is not recognized by those who are academically and professional competent.

4) False peers: The individual believes that the favourable commentary of other unskilled and non-professional individuals, indicates they themselves are sufficiently qualified.

5) Scrutiny avoidance: The individual fails to submit their work for professional scrutiny (such as in the relevant scholarly literature), for review by those genuinely qualified.

6) Pioneer complex: The individual self-identifies as a pioneer uncovering previously unknown or unrecognized facts; a Copernicus or Galileo.

7) Conspiracy claims: The individual explains opposition by qualified professionals as a coordinated attempt to suppress truth, in order to defend the existing scholarly consensus.

8) Allocentric claims of bias: The individual explains the difference between their views and those of qualified professionals, as the result of inherent bias on the part of the professionals; accusations of bias are directed at anyone other than themselves, and they claim objectivity.

There's quite a bit of number (7) going on here!