'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

So you deny the science of AGW?

 

This is not a problem,

Bangladesh gaining land, not losing: scientists (AFP)

 

Airborne fraction is not being debated.
Rebuttal of Essenhigh:

 

What is the "science of AGW"?

 

Clearly you do not understand the logic of falsification. For a theory to be "true" is must maintain its prediction indefinitely, which is impossible. For a theory to be falsified it's prediction must only fail once. For example, all swans are white. For the theory to be true one would have to observe an infinite amount of white swans, for it to be false one would have to observe one black swan. Newtonian physics doesn't work at .6c, therefore newtonian physics is false.

 

Why don't you read what I said again, slowly. Energy CAN flow from cool to hot but it MUST require an additional external input. This additional external input on the system is an element of extremely complicated fluid dynamics in the atmosphere which are incalculable using modern supercomputers. Whether or not mankind is causing global warming cannot scientifically be confirmed and thus is unfalsifiable.

 

Also, unprovable.

 

AGW is 100% of science and -100% of physics. You will never get a civil answer from any warmists, whether a PF poster or an IPCC signer.

 

So the downward longwave radiation requires an additional external input? DLR has been measured. What, according to you is the additional external input that allows DLR?

 

The science that Anthropogenic Global Warming is based on. You know, Beer's law of Absorption, Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's Law, etc.

 

Bro, it is not complicated. I am sorry to see that you strugling. look at the 1st. dQ=dU+dA. Look at dA as the external input/output. It is not an additional. It is a part of the equation.

warmists have created a heat pump. It is simple concept. It is a mechanical [electrical] [sensible heat] work dA converted into dQ.

the 2nd generally states since in nature we do not have such an [additional] input everything cools down. If something is heating it means something is cooling if there is no mechanical [electrical] [sensible heat] work dA pumped into the system of heating and a cooling bodies.

the sun is cooling, the earth is warming, and the earth is cooling and the icy cold cosmos is waming until they all come into equilibrum at 0K. Such a machine.

extremely complicated fluid dynamics in the atmosphere may only transform dQ into dA above. It does not add to dQ.

P.S. G&T correctly state that a snap shot atmosphere is like insulation in your house, it is room T at the point inside and Cosmos T at the point outside, and the sun is like your fireplace- the source of heat. The same is true for a greenhouse snap shot. But it is another parts of physics called Heat and Mass Exchange.

 

One does not have to be physicist in order to understand that a crooked propaganda site does not constitute a rebuttal and should be ignored.

One does not have to be a physicist to see that there were only 2 papers which tried to refute basics in peer reviewed publications.

It was also interesting for me to check out what the overwhelming majorities of the scientific community reply to the article, because the article is very simple and calls to basics of physics.

The first one was made by an unemployed graduate and generally consisted of lies and personal insults, deflections and deceptions. It was a typical spit no different from Lepper’s or Poor debater or livetree’s posts.

Nevertheless your Sourcewatch tells you it is a valid refute: “Gerlich's views have been refuted many times:[1]
"Jochen Ebel has posted the most complete refutation, line by line, in German (PDF). Arthur Smith has destroyed G&Ts argument about average temperature in arXiv. Much stuff in Rabett Run: here and here and here and here and here. Atmoz article here. Discussion thread at UK Weather World. And of course the definitive RealClimate."


It was interesting to find another dispute of the unemployed graduate with another professor: (Translated from German)


Sender: Prof. Dr. Claus Meier
Recipient: 03384540000-0001@t-online.de
Copy-recipients: beckel@tec21.ch, Konrad Fischer
Date: 17 May 2002 21:00
Mr. Ebel,
You appear as an unemployed physicist to make a fun take on all targeted. To lighten our differences, I have even visited you in Borkheide. The result was depressing. You were not able to rebut the arguments put forward by me and exhibits. Instead, you tell all around, that my statements were wrong, but you'd rather. And the Internet media here seems to be a patient.
What you run is slander. Is that intentional? This raises the question of on whose behalf you act. If it is in your own behalf, I must give you a distorted relationship to logical thinking certify trade you externally determined, then this is also possible, after all, you have my note, to buy into my book (build correctly, expert Verlag, ISBN 3 -8169-1941-3, with plenty of arguments that is not the U-value is used in reality), this is rejected on the grounds that you had no money.
…………………………………….
In the beginning, I have replied to your messages, but your stubbornness and penetrance is quite impressive.
They are certainly one of the few representatives of the former GDR, who can not make friends with my statements - unlike many others. Do you have a concrete head has so much experience and is perhaps the reason that you are unemployed?


Claus Meier
Appendix: Your e-mail to me
Date: 22 May 2002 17:20
Mr. Ebel,
in the complex you will find my opinion to your message by e-mail of 20 05.02. I am assuming that you put these three sites also in your homepage.
I can not waste my time is spent again and again put forward the clear and unambiguous facts and ask yourself while numb. The termination of my visit was not caused by "other commitments", but by the hopelessness of a proper discussion.
One must accept
Subject: U-value dilemma
Sender: Prof. Dr. Claus Meier
Recipient: JEbel@t-online.de

One does not have to be a physicist in order to understand that articles in wikipedia written by unemployed graduates on global warming as well as Surcewatch and your favorite skeptics are just hopeless garbage, as well as everything taught in schools and universities about physics and global warming. The only surprise here is that the Prof. Gerlich has wasted his time pointing to basics and fundamentals of thermodynamics and heat and mass exchange as disciplines and physics as a subject. I along with some other posters pointed to a few basics in this treads and other treads despite of the proven hopelessness of a proper discussion. . Prof. Dr. Claus Meier can not waste his time spent again and again on putting forward clear and unambiguous facts and seeing another side being numb.


The 2nd postgraduate was not refuted by Prof. Dr. Gerlich – as PopTech shows - only but also by people who have no connection to Gerlich.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
Prof. Dr. Gerlich points to very basics, fundamentals of thermodynamics and heat and mass exchange as disciplines and physics as a subject.

Physics aka experimental philosophy is an experimental activity. Its methods and rules are written in stone and remain the same since Newton. In physics we ignore empirical evidence and logic. “No amount of evidence can prove me right, but one just one experiment can prove me wrong”. This basic principal differentiates physics from science taught in schools and universities. This basic principal is used to make everything you use, starting from a needle and finishing by a space ship. Science has no use in anything except of lies and deceptions and brainwashing. Physics is about having fun and playing with things. People, especially men always like to have fan and play. For now we just live in the darkest ages in history when scientists have an upper hand. Hopefully the next generation will see the light. Scientists are destined to fail sooner or later, and for now stupid, grim and ignorant they are an easy target to throw knives at.

 

You do not understand and do not care. I considered your posts here in details. http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...y-drive-global-warming-31.html#post1061025536

Your points are not different from points of unemployed graduates who “refuted” G&T.

1. warmists as usual use the same Ellochka The Cannibal’s argument – “you do not understand science.

2. They do not care to read or understand points made by the article and Hoosier8.

3. They make their own physics made out of total absurd.

4,. They spin basic things for days and weeks.
http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...e-4000-gallons-per-acre-4.html#post1060964604

http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...25-we-need-worry-about-38.html#post1060925192
http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...th-nasa-satellite-finds-2.html#post1060952939

If GAAR can add some more links.



All overwhelming majorities of the scientific commune say that ‘The second law forbids only net energy flow from cold to hot, not all energy flow from cold to hot. '‘They can easily demonstrate that in mathematical equations.

The fact is that not even a single majority understands the 2ndL, less mathematical principals of experimental philosophy. Heat always flows from a warmer body to a colder body in a spontaneous process. This is the law. In difference from science accepted by overwhelming majorities of scientific communists physics never makes disambiguas statements. “net” ‘’all energy’’, ‘’not all energy’’ “forbids” is made up by scientists and has no roots in the observed reality. Heat always each and every moment is decreasing in a warmer body and increasing in a colder body until they reach equilibrium. You wouldn’t find a majority of the scientific commune who understands the concepts of temperature and heat the more equilibrium. Illiteracy of scientific peer reviewed global warming publications is astonishing. That’s why the illiterate try to convince the public that a professor of technology and a professor of physics from MIT are not qualified to have an opinion on the global hoax.

As well scientific majorities do not understand the concepts of a point in geometry and geometry itself. They state “Parabolic reflectors work with a point source, and cannot work with a diffuse source.” And nod to each other, no matter how absurd is such a collection of words.


The French academy rejected all possible claims of inventing a perpetuum mobile of the 2nd type in the mid 18th century. They should look back and ban scientific majorities of the scientific community. We truly live in the darkest ages of prevailing ignorance, zeal and jealous greed.

 

The underlying mechanism of thermodynamics is probability, namely the probability of a transfer of both kinetic and electromagnetic energy. Hot travels to Cold on a net basis not absolutely. A great example of an external input allowing a reversal of the 2nd Law is Maxwell's Demon. Obviously if something is heating something must be cooling. In Maxwell's Demon the hot resavoir is heating and the cold resavoir is cooling because of a Demon which allows low energy particles from the hot resavoir to travel to the cold and vise versa.

 

No it's not.

Atmospheric residence isn't the same thing as carbon-cycle residence. Carbon transfer between oceans and atmosphere is fairly rapid, and uncontroversially so. When atmospheric CO2 goes up, carbonic ions in the oceans go up too, causing ocean acidification.

This paper doesn't even address residence time. It's about airborne fraction only.

And this paper (scraping the bottom of the barrel), besides not addressing cycle residence time, also violates Conservation of Matter.
Q: Why does a mechanical engineer submit a climate paper to a chemical journal?
A: Because he wants to avoid meaningful peer-review from a climatologist.
Q: What happens when you avoid meaningful peer-review?
A: You end up publishing junk that violates Conservation of Matter.

 

1. Please provide the objective criteria for determining "meaningful" peer-review.

2. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

 

Please explain in detail how Downward Longwave Radiation causes a cool body to transfer energy to a hot body. I honestly do not know anything on this subject.

 

Look it up in your Resnik / Halliday. Chapter 18, I think.

 

What an absurd statement. I can quickly think of a few things that would falsify the AGW theory.

1. Sustained lack of warming (both in air temps and ocean heat content).

2. A lack of more IR absorption in the CO2 bands (more heat going out, less being reflected back.)

3. A lack of stratospheric cooling.

4. Lack of rising CO2 levels.

5. Lack of an isotopic signature in atmospheric CO2.

A-T, you appear to an undergrad who has learned a few heat flow equations and now fancies himself a physics expert. You need to learn some logic to go along with those equations. That goes for all the denialists here; you guys all tend to fail in the logic department.

(Granted, you do all excel at cherrypicking, evasions and confusing your conspiracy theories with reality. I guess that's something.)

 

Meaningful peer review is review by an expert in the field. If you submit a climate paper to a chemical journal, it's unlikely it will get meaningful peer review.

Any scientist who has published a paper about climate in a journal about climate can be considered a climatologist.

 

From your own link:

"the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures."

How is this any different from saying the greenhouse effect doesn't exist?

 

When you have no evidence, just say so, and skip the conspiracy theories.

Your loving embrace of cherrypicking in favor of actual science is noticed. But then, if you have no science to support your wild claims, cherrypicking is all you have left.

Those cherrypicks aren't what I asked for. I asked you to show the gains in arable land in the cold areas would offset the loss of arable lands in warm areas, taking into account soil types, sunlight and food distribution problems.

You are the one claiming warming is beneficial, but all of your evidence for that is yanked out of your keister.

AGW scientists: Evidence first, conclusion second.

Denialists: Politically-driven conclusion first, cherrypick evidence to match.

 

Nonsense. It not only can be confirmed, it has been.

Prediction: Increased CO2 will cause increased downwelling IR in CO2 bands.
RESULT: Increased downwelling IR actually observed. Theory scientifically confirmed.

Prediction: Increased CO2 will cause decreased upwelling IR in CO2 bands.
RESULT: Decreased upwelling IR actually observed. Theory scientifically confirmed.

Prediction: Increased CO2 will cause more warming at night than during the day.
RESULT: Faster nighttime warming observed. Theory scientifically confirmed.

Prediction: Increased CO2 will cause stratospheric cooling.
RESULT: Stratospheric cooling observed. Theory scientifically confirmed.

Prediction: Increased CO2 will cause more warming in winter than in summer.
RESULT: More warming in winter than summer observed. Theory scientifically confirmed.

 

There is none. A climatologist us usually someone who doesn't have a university education in meteorology, then often are have some more shallow tangential education like General Earth Science, yet wants to make a career in climate despite not being adequately educated. They are the scientific equivalent of a paralegal.

We often wonder why Climatologists tend to so over simplify the atmosphere. Well the answer is simple. When they were in their 20s they chose to study earth science over meteorology. That means that the 20s something version of them were both too stupid and too lazy to study meteorology so they chose the easier path. Guess what they may be older but there are still the same stupid and lazy person who was scared to try and grasp meteorology.

 

Proof? Linky??

And of course you can categorically state that this applies to all countries throughout the world...........