'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Bro, you are not listening. Mathematical methodology of the statistical T-cs does not change the laws I recited. The same is true for quantum mechanics. The main problem of scientists is that they do not understand that.

The paper points:

“It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory is providing the base for a derivation of macroscopic quantities.

It is misleading to visualize a photon
as a simple particle or wave packet travelling from one atom to another for example.

On the other hand, the macroscopic thermodynamic quantities contain a lot of information and can be measured directly and accurately in the physics lab.”

The professors are very polite.

I cannot overemphasize this basic and simple truth which is epressed by the professors and which has never been read to you because it is not known to scientists. Whoever read T-cs to you was grossly illiterate himself... or you did not listen.

The laws are written in stone and there is no “net” there. There is no scientist who can comprehend that or the laws themselves.


No matter what is the mathematical representation on the microscopic level it is misleading to visualize it on the macroscopic level, and it never abolishes or changes “macroscopic thermodynamic quantities measured directly and accurately in the physics lab.”

The underlying mechanism of thermodynamics as well as all physics is “measured directly and accurately in the physics lab.”

All my statements are accurate. You want to be a scientist and not to listen, so be one. No reality matters to scientists. People who try to make sense from the scientific beliefs get grossly confused and misled.

Laws of Tcs do not exist separately or cannot be taken separately.
In a simple form made up by me personally for you, bro:

0th law tells what we are talking about
1st law tells what’s going on
2nd law tells where it is going and what we can get out of it
3th law tells where we start counting

They all are one thing.


G&T paper counts on basic comprehension and understanding of a reader. Unfortunately scientists cannot get even over the 0th law.

The meaning of the 2nd law is that it all is going on in one direction in nature. It cannot be overemphasized the direction of a process is the most important and original interest of T-cs. Scientists have no direction in their heads.

 

it is self evident from poor understanding and knowledge of basic physics demonstrated by all climtologists in all countries all the time. metereologists on other hand often cannot afford such ignorance, laziness and inability for the simple reason that they can get fired. Unless a metereolist is hooked up with climotologism any metereologist will tell you that AWG is a hoax. Those who are hooked up will not tell but they all know it is a hoax.

 

The 2nd point is that Gerlich & Tscheuschner are correct and accurate pointing to illiteracy of all scientists, as well as pointing to the same thing I have repeated many times and everyone in physics know, - scientific consensus exists only in politics particularly in fascism for AWG.

The 1st point is that when you say “All of those listed are scientists skeptical of the consensus, and all of those listed accept the greenhouse effect as being real” most likely you lie as usual and they or many of them don’t.

 

Just because something is difficult to learn does not mean it requires large amounts of faith.

Which sounds like it requires more faith?

That something followed the laws of physics to create the universe? Or some all powerful being created matter out of nothing and then created man out of dirt.

 

over 500 start another!!

 

Lol, logic. You beg the question and confirm the conclusion. Cherrypicking? Conspiracy theories? sigh... please read Karl Popper.

 

CO2 by itself does not cause a reversal in thermodynamics, a delicate processing involving CO2 does. You are missing a crucial piece of the puzzle when analyzing the science. It is clear that Global Warming requires an increase in CO2 but that does not conclusively mean it is the cause. For example in General Relativity a black hole requires a Schwarzschild Radius that is outside of the radius of the mass but the Schwarzchild Radius does not cause a black hole. Is it possible that increased solar activity along side with an increase in CO2 could cause Global Warming or is this too a conspiracy theory in your world? If true, logically mankind is not the cause of Global Warming, increased solar activity and mankind are the cause.

 

No it wont. Reradiation is long wave. You cant determine if it came from CO2.

That is consistent with any warming.

Nope; You are quoting the old preliminarily Harries study you got from Skeptical science. Later studies by Harries didn't' find change in the CO2 band.

There is a reason John Cook chose to use Harries 2001 instead of Harries 2006 when he wrote that trash. 2006 doesn't support his conclusions.

Also consistent with other forms of warming especially warming caused by ocean currents.

Also consistent with other forms of warming and totally inconsistent with the method. If it is AGW the warming should run from tropopause to stratosphere cooling. It does not. You cant separate he stratosphere out when it is supposed to be an after effect of what is happening in the tropopause. It is the very warm tropopause traps trapping the heat from getting to the stratosphere that causes the cooling. You cannot have one without the other in AGW theory.

Also again totally consistent with other forms of warming especially warming cause by oceanic currents. Once again when there is an absence of sun the driver of temperature is the ocean.

You will notice that this cherry picked list ignores the big one. The lack of a tropospheric hotspot with in itself falsifies AGW. No hotspot no AGW its not physically possible.

 

No that is the definition of peer-review. If a journal is peer-reviewed than the paper will be reviewed by experts in the field selected based on the contents of the paper not the type of journal. The word "meaningful" is subjective and cannot be objectively defined.

So you believe Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts to be Climatologists?

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 116, Issue D14, July 2011)
- Souleymane Fall, Anthony Watts, John Nielsen-Gammon, Evan Jones, Dev Niyogi, John R. Christy, Roger A. Pielke Sr.

 

You misread that, my reply was that G&T were not the only ones making that argument.

 

Respond to me when you pass your first year exams.

 

You are not fooling anyone buddy.

 

Yes. Einstein was wrong and Newton was right. And Einstein was right and Newton was wrong. Depends what we are discussing. Please go read some philosophy of science.

 

Is "Philosophy of Science" one of your first-year text books?!?!

Good on you for actually reading it. When I was a spotty little first year I spent my time getting drunk and shagging chicks. You must be one of those other types of students. The ones I ignored.

Here's a hint - next time you read it, try to actually understand it. It may help stop you from writing crap on the internet. Special relativity does not does falsify Newtonian mechanics. You are going to need better lines that that if you want to impress the girls.

 

You have posted as a poster, so I am replying to you as to a poster.

I understand that you start feeling as being duped in the global hoax and interested to see how things go. But you are a mod. Rules are rules. Unless you are an Obama supporter to bend all rules, morals and ethics close the tread. It is a good moment… to close it by TheTaoOfBill/bugalugs’ trolling. And don’t punish the trolls and personal insults of warmists. Obama supporters have nothing else but trolling and insulting, if you go after them for that there would be no forum, no discussion.

 

At least I have a ranch of unicorns.

 

that explains a lot.

it really does

 

Can increased solar activity cause global warming? Of course. That's not in dispute at all.

Is increased solar activity responsible for the current warming? Of course not, because solar activity has declined in recent decades.

So if we're looking for the cause of the current warming -- and we are -- the Sun is out of the picture. Think of something else.

Wrong on three levels:
1. This cannot logically be true unless solar activity is actually increasing. It's not.
2. Even if solar activity were increasing, it's possible that solar activity could be a minor component, while CO2 could be the major component. That's why we study the forcing of CO2 and other greenhouse gases: to easily compare that to changes in solar activity.
3. Even if solar activity were increasing (it's not), and were a major cause (it's not), the Sun changes cyclically: it goes up, then it goes down. At century timescales, CO2 only goes up, and we are the cause of that. So CO2 changes the climate for the long term, i.e., centuries. Therefore CO2 is something to worry about for the long term in the way solar changes are not.

 

You are simply wrong. Solar activity is NOT simply calculated by sunspots, as some seem to think. TSI, or Toatal Solar Radiance has been nearing a high level as has been shown in these Threads... Again, for those slow on the uptake...

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm

 

Since it is still open let me try to illustrate my point in another way making it as simple as my humble abilities allow, bro.

The distinguished professors from Germany refered to contains heat exchange in combustion chambers among other things.

When we talk about heat exchange we talk and calculate how much heat has been transferred from one body to another (from the flame in the chamber (including hot CO2) to the walls of the chamber).

There are a few types of exchange, and radioactive is one of them.

It may look like something new but it is not. Ancient people were very well familiar with it and exactly made graphs and tables and equations from direct and accurate measurements both in a physical lab and in combustion chambers constructed and operating.

In the ancient book at my hand I referred to radioactive heat exchange between CO2 and a wall is all given.

The equation :

Qradiactive=5.67Eefficient[Egas(Tgas/100)^4 – Agas(Twall/100)^4}Fareaof thewall

Or in other words

Qr= coefficients* T gas – coefficients*Twall

where coefficients are taken from experimental tables and diagrams for CO2 and the material and configuration of the wall. .

As you can see the amount of radiative heat Qr (absorbed or radiated) by the wall to CO2 gas or from flaming CO2 gas to the wall DOES NOT include any “net.”, but it is the positive difference between warmer and colder.

As you can see if Twall (earth surface) is higher than Tgas of CO2 you calculate only amount of heat transferred from the earth to CO2 only.

In the end the difference between radiative and molecular heat exchange in your house insulation is only in coefficients.

My book has data only for combustion chambers. I could only roughly extrapolate the numbers for T and material of the earth. The distinguished professors from Germany inform me that somebody actually made accurate enough calculations showing the same in its essence result as I had.


I don’t know how many people in the US know that. But I know all of them do not argue radioactive forcing and CO2 greenhouse effect and do not support skeptics. They know that science is horseshiit unless it is physics. What in horsesiit may be a subject of skepticism?

I agree with you questioning the term falsification. But, please be kind to notice that
1. This term is scientific and does not belong to physics.
2. The meaning may be lost in the translation from German. Germans may not be quite aware of Pooper.

If I may dare to give you an advice. Do not read Harry Potter or Popper. Read Newton, read Einstein. (Henry Poincare, the original author of the Theory of Relativity is quite good but I am afraid he is banned in the US by scientists). Their texts on the subject of the scientific method are 200 times shorter and 200 times simpler.

P.S. You may ask, -Why is it 5.67?
Ancient were wondering too. Once they went to heaven and the smartest of them was allowed to ask this question to God.

God went to a chalk board and silently started writing quantum equations.
The smartest one was following and silently nodding.
In the middle of third board he exclaimed, - it is a mistake!
-I know, - God answered humbly.

Since that time, in physics we do not ask stupid questions. We say , - In God we trust.
We say, - God is willing, the Sun will rise tomorrow.
We give the oath of physics Hypotheses non fingo.

Raise your right hand and repeat after me:

“DO NOT form hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction”

“The argument from the induction [God is willing the Sun will rise tomorrow] must not be evaded by hypotheses. “

 

No. Temperature and solar activity have been in sync until the 1970s. Since then TSI has decreased and temps have increased. I have already linked to it once.


source

 

Look at the "longer term" graph, that I have linked to many times now, and you will see what the long term effects of the water, here on Earth have to add to the equation...

Instead of just looking back some 120 years, try looking back into the 400 - 500 year range, and then the thousand year range, and so on. Then you will see the "pattern" that has changed the temperature here on Earth since the begining of time. You will also see "spikes" of on that go beyond the other, that is when a wave has spiked and is now turning the "other way. In other words, the Solar input may be "waning" but the amount of energy it has input over these years needs to dissipate, mainly through our oceans, and the heat remains longer than the input, which in turn hightens the GreenHouse Effect, which is actually to Human benefit, in my mind and not our detriment.

 

No - the observed warming is not due to increased solar activity. If it were, we would see the whole atmosphere warming. It isn't. The stratosphere is cooling.

 

Anyone that believes Al Gore or what he writes is nutty or very naive in my book. Likewise, anyone that denies climategate or was not a real assessment of the nearly criminal lengths that professional AGW proponents will go to is nutty naive or has an agenda similar to the professional AGW proponents IMO. So Hoosier you are correct in your rebuttal. I also agree that global warming if increased less than a degree or so will benefit mankind rather than harm us. Lastly if we go back millions of years (see graph) and put the temp spikes vs the CO2 levels in the atmosphere (determined from cores) CO2 has little correlation to temp spikes and the spikes and troughs look almost like a sine wave long before and after man arrived. If man really contributed to global warming to a pathological level one would see the sine wave of millions of years spike around the 1900's and go up and never down. That has not happened.




http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/grand-view-4-billion-years-climate-change


reva

 

Yes, the CO2 is an important contributor to global warming. How can one disagree with this? But new coal-burning plants are being built in many countries. What should be done to change this?
.