Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

CO2 sanity

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by The E   » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:46 am

The E
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1985
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
The E wrote:Look at you not understanding how Science works.



Okay dumkopf.


Oh look at you, calling me an idiot in my language (except, you're not: The word is "dummkopf"). Such an exemplar of rational thought and considered argument you are.

Anyway, amongst people who deny science (be they young earth creationists like smr or DDHv, be they climate change deniers like you), there are a few common complaints against science that reappear constantly, and are usually indicative of the person complaining being scientifically illiterate or dishonest. One is "It's only a theory", where people claim that just because a scientist refuses to use the word "fact", they are not speaking factually, and that whatever the theory is or says can be ignored.
The other, the one you're doing right now, is "Scientists are always changing their stories and can't be trusted". This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific knowledge gets developed, that is, iteratively and through constant refinement as more data becomes available.

So, TFLY, what is it? Do you misunderstand science, or are you being dishonest?

Please, do the math rather than post nasty insults or have a toddler temper tantrum.


Unlike you, I will openly admit to not being a scientist. I do not know climatology enough to have a valid opinion on the subject, and I do not have the time to pursue a degree in the field to have that opinion.
What I do know is that there is overwhelming consensus amongst the people who do have the degrees, who have done the science and the math, that climate change is real, that it is heavily influenced by human action, that it will cause catastrophies in the near future, and that we thus better be preparing to mitigate the damage.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Annachie   » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:23 am

Annachie
Admiral

Posts: 2445
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

I'm sort of ashamed to admit that my University time is best summed up by a Brett Kavanaugh quote.

But I was doing science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:07 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Captain of the List

Posts: 476
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:58 am

The E wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:
Okay dumkopf.


Oh look at you, calling me an idiot in my language (except, you're not: The word is "dummkopf"). Such an exemplar of rational thought and considered argument you are.

Anyway, amongst people who deny science (be they young earth creationists like smr or DDHv, be they climate change deniers like you), there are a few common complaints against science that reappear constantly, and are usually indicative of the person complaining being scientifically illiterate or dishonest. One is "It's only a theory", where people claim that just because a scientist refuses to use the word "fact", they are not speaking factually, and that whatever the theory is or says can be ignored.
The other, the one you're doing right now, is "Scientists are always changing their stories and can't be trusted". This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific knowledge gets developed, that is, iteratively and through constant refinement as more data becomes available.

So, TFLY, what is it? Do you misunderstand science, or are you being dishonest?

Please, do the math rather than post nasty insults or have a toddler temper tantrum.


Unlike you, I will openly admit to not being a scientist. I do not know climatology enough to have a valid opinion on the subject, and I do not have the time to pursue a degree in the field to have that opinion.
What I do know is that there is overwhelming consensus amongst the people who do have the degrees, who have done the science and the math, that climate change is real, that it is heavily influenced by human action, that it will cause catastrophies in the near future, and that we thus better be preparing to mitigate the damage.



Your acknowledgement that you do not have an education in the relevant fields which I actually respect illustrates the problem. Most of the people who are getting published in the "peer reviewed" journals on Climate Science have no relevant expertise in climatology. They also are not self taught experts such as Albert Einstein who invented Tensor Calculus without ever getting a college degree. Most of the published "experts" have degrees may be in biology or chemistry but more often soft sciences such as sociology, political science or psychology. Oregon State University even has a paid "expert" on Climate Change that has ZERO credentials in the hard sciences. The Global Circulation Models that produce the forcasts are like Oz Machines which they refuse to publish the source code for.

When I posted the equation for equilibrium temperature and invited comment and analysis, I was not trying to be insulting or denigrating. I was challenging you people to think for yourselves rather than simply regurgitate talking points. Anyone looking at that equation should understand that the equilibrium temperature of the planet is extremely INSENSITIVE to all variables because temperature scales to the one-fourth power with ALL variables. You need to have a HUGE change in Insolation, Albedo or IR emissivity to create a noticable change in equilibrium temperature. Given this insensitivity, the idea that CO2, which has only very narrow absorbition bands in the IR spectrum, dramatically effects temperature is highly suspect.

Svante Aarhenius had a rather bitter debate with Robert Angstron regarding the importance of CO2. Aarhenius presumed that CO2 was the predominant greenhouse gas while Aangstrom was actually doing the experiments and measurements that proved that H2O was the primary greenhouse gas. Aarnhenius got so butt hurst that he concocted the theory that somehow CO2 controlled the concentration of H2O in the atmosphere. Any classically trained meterologists will tell you that H2O is self regulating.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Donnachaidh   » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:43 pm

Donnachaidh
Commodore

Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:11 pm

These are a lot of very generalized accusations without any specific supporting them. Your main challenge is for people to do the research themselves and not rely just on what others say yet you're asking us to do just that.

TFLYTSNBN wrote: <snip>Most of the people who are getting published in the "peer reviewed" journals on Climate Science have no relevant expertise in climatology. They also are not self taught experts such as Albert Einstein who invented Tensor Calculus without ever getting a college degree. Most of the published "experts" have degrees may be in biology or chemistry but more often soft sciences such as sociology, political science or psychology. Oregon State University even has a paid "expert" on Climate Change that has ZERO credentials in the hard sciences.<snip
_____________________________________________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:45 pm

TFLYTSNBN
Captain of the List

Posts: 476
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:58 am

Donnachaidh wrote:These are a lot of very generalized accusations without any specific supporting them. Your main challenge is for people to do the research themselves and not rely just on what others say yet you're asking us to do just that.

TFLYTSNBN wrote: <snip>Most of the people who are getting published in the "peer reviewed" journals on Climate Science have no relevant expertise in climatology. They also are not self taught experts such as Albert Einstein who invented Tensor Calculus without ever getting a college degree. Most of the published "experts" have degrees may be in biology or chemistry but more often soft sciences such as sociology, political science or psychology. Oregon State University even has a paid "expert" on Climate Change that has ZERO credentials in the hard sciences.<snip



Check the math yourself.


A more complete version of the basic equation is

Thermal power = Emissivity x 5.67eex-8 x T^4

Solving for The

(Thermal Power /(Emissivity x 5.6eex-8))^(1/4) = The

Thermal power = 1,400 Watts per square meter.
Play with the numbers to see what changes in Emissivity do to Temperature
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Michael Everett   » Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:13 pm

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

I can see that people are getting very het up over this.
That being the case, there is only one thing to do.
*sneaks out.*
*Ding!*
*sneaks back in.*
Image
Okay, I'm all set. Continue!
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
Animal Crossing Dreams at 6E00-00F5-2891
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Donnachaidh   » Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:04 pm

Donnachaidh
Commodore

Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:11 pm

I wasn't talking about the math. I was talking about your claims about people with no relevant expertise being published in journals in which you clearly doubt the level of peer review and your claim that OSU has a climate change expert with no background. That's why I only included that paragraph about that when I quoted you.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
Donnachaidh wrote:These are a lot of very generalized accusations without any specific supporting them. Your main challenge is for people to do the research themselves and not rely just on what others say yet you're asking us to do just that.



Check the math yourself.


A more complete version of the basic equation is

Thermal power = Emissivity x 5.67eex-8 x T^4

Solving for The

(Thermal Power /(Emissivity x 5.6eex-8))^(1/4) = The

Thermal power = 1,400 Watts per square meter.
Play with the numbers to see what changes in Emissivity do to Temperature
_____________________________________________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by The E   » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:35 am

The E
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1985
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Your acknowledgement that you do not have an education in the relevant fields which I actually respect illustrates the problem. Most of the people who are getting published in the "peer reviewed" journals on Climate Science have no relevant expertise in climatology.


Please provide proof for this assertion. I'm sure you can find examples of this, but you're going to have to find evidence that this is true of bodies such as the IPCC in order to have a convincing argument.

When I posted the equation for equilibrium temperature and invited comment and analysis, I was not trying to be insulting or denigrating. I was challenging you people to think for yourselves rather than simply regurgitate talking points. Anyone looking at that equation should understand that the equilibrium temperature of the planet is extremely INSENSITIVE to all variables because temperature scales to the one-fourth power with ALL variables. You need to have a HUGE change in Insolation, Albedo or IR emissivity to create a noticable change in equilibrium temperature. Given this insensitivity, the idea that CO2, which has only very narrow absorbition bands in the IR spectrum, dramatically effects temperature is highly suspect.


And this is why I can't really take what you say as fact. While I don't have a lot of in-depth knowledge about climatology, I do know that the climate is a highly dynamic system of multiple interlocking factors. Looking at one part of the problem, like you do with CO2, doesn't tell you the whole story.

Svante Aarhenius had a rather bitter debate with Robert Angstron regarding the importance of CO2. Aarhenius presumed that CO2 was the predominant greenhouse gas while Aangstrom was actually doing the experiments and measurements that proved that H2O was the primary greenhouse gas. Aarnhenius got so butt hurst that he concocted the theory that somehow CO2 controlled the concentration of H2O in the atmosphere. Any classically trained meterologists will tell you that H2O is self regulating.


Thank you for pointing out that climate science in 1900 was not on the same level as it is now.

BTW, Arrhenius hypothesized that a doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 content would lead to a 3 or 4 degree increase in temperature; a process he thought would take 500 years. Now, a little over a hundred years later, CO2 content in the atmosphere has risen to about 1.5 times the levels it was at in 1900, with a mean temperature increase of about 1 degree, according to NASA GISS data. So, while his model may have been simplistic, it seems to hold up in principle, if not in detail.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:21 am

TFLYTSNBN
Captain of the List

Posts: 476
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:58 am

The E wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:The thing I'm stuck on is your hypocrosy, dishonesty, arrogance and hostility. You really are a troll.


Remind me when I was actively being hypocritical or dishonest. I'll wait.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Just in case anyone can interpret a graph, notice the 15 year pause in warming.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/01/ ... arm-years/

Note that classical AGW theology predicted that temperatures would rise rather than remain constant.


Yeah, see, I can read graphs. And those graphs there show a slow but steady trend of temperatures climbing upwards.



Now forbsome graphs that indicate a longer term trend.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/

Temperatures were higher centuries before humans started burjing fossil fuels.

I must confess that I would favor a bit of global warming if it would trigger a revival in Minoan women's fashions.
Top
Re: CO2 sanity
Post by Donnachaidh   » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:25 pm

Donnachaidh
Commodore

Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:11 pm

I have to say, creepy and lecherous comments like this make me look forward to you being banned again.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:...[snip]
I must confess that I would favor a bit of global warming if it would trigger a revival in Minoan women's fashions.
_____________________________________________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Top

Return to Politics