A pocket guide to climate change or the basics of the science made easy

Discussion in 'Science' started by Bowerbird, Jan 13, 2020.

  1. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Define climate.

    That is weather, not climate.

    What "data"?

    Not climate, but weather.

    Yes, farmers care about weather. Weather affects their crops. That has nothing to do with climate.

    Purely a religious belief on your part...

    Define "climate change".

    I already did. Statistical Mathematics. You know, the thing that requires raw data, selection by randN, normalization by paired randR, elimination of biasing factors, declaration and justification of a variance, a margin of error calculation using that variance, all things which these "climate scientists" are not doing or adhering to...

    I AM taking the full range of methodologies into account. Magick satellites can't even tell us Earth's temperature.
     
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ARF. RAAA. (Argument by Repetition Fallacy. Repetitious Argumentation Already Addressed)
     
  3. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The radiance of the Earth's surface increases with temperature and there is no violation of the SB law. The average radiance as observed from the top of the atmosphere which includes the earth plus the

    atmosphere remains unchanged as greenhouse gas concentrations increase.

    Heat flows downhill if you consider both the flow from the surface to the atmosphere and the flow from the atmosphere to the surface.


    “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change” or
    "No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]

    The second law must be applied to both the atmosphere and the Earth's surface as a system. In the case of the atmosphere, heat is flowing from a colder body to a warmer body but there

    is "some other change" occurring simultaneously. That is the flow of heat from a warmer body (Earth's surface) to a colder body (atmosphere) that exceeds the reverse process in energy transfer.

    So, the sole result is not a transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body.


    The greenhouse effect is like a warm, cloudy night. https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=3725.

    Elevator Statement
    • At night clouds trap infrared radiation emitted from the ground, similar to greenhouse gases, and re-emit some of the absorbed radiation back to the ground.
    • More nighttime cloud cover means more trapped heat, and warmer temperatures near the ground, just as more CO2 in the atmosphere means more trapped heat, and warmer temperatures.
    • Because clouds are big and thick, their radiation-trapping effect is felt immediately, within a single night.
    • Because CO2 is diffuse, its effect is felt slowly, over many decades.
    • Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is like increasing the cloud cover at night: both warm the Earth by trapping infrared radiation.
    The greenhouse effect describes the trapping of energy by Earth’s atmosphere: infrared radiation from the ground is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere such as CO2, H2O, CH4, and others. Although the greenhouse effect is active 24/7, it is most apparent at night. This is because with no background solar radiation, nighttime warmth occurs mostly by greenhouse gases and clouds grabbing and storing some of the infrared radiation emitted from the ground that is trying to make it to outer space. This is partly why nighttime temperatures have been steadily increasing as greenhouse gases increase: more greenhouse gases implies more heating.
     
  4. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes. I wear one because the coat acts as a coupling reducer between my warmer body and the colder outside air, thus reducing heat. The coat traps air between myself and the outside air, assisting my body's efforts in keeping itself warm.

    No need to. All that is relevant are the theories of science themselves.
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science says that greenhouse gasses (co2, methane, etc.) slow heat from radiating to space.

    The coat example doesn't require consideration of heat being created. All the coat does is slow radiation.

    NASA says:
    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

    If you don't agree, please CITE a source of science that directly addresses this issue. Remembering the name of some law is NOT good enough.
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Climate is weather over time.

    As for the rest, pretending there is no data is seriously pathetic. You're trying to suggest the entire field of climatology, including all related disciplines, is one stupendous world wide conspiracy theory.

    But, you can cite NO evidence of that kind of conspiracy. Conspiracies require organization. Yet, science rewards those who don't follow.
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but you are struggling to apply those laws to issues of climatology.

    And, I'm suggesting that you are failing at that.

    So, I'm asking you to find and cite some credible scientific source that thinks your version is more than total crap.

    I cited my point.

    Now, it's your turn.
     
  8. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    [QUOTE="gfm7175, post: 1071357785, member: 79153
    Wrong. None of them get absorbed by Earth's surface. If the photon emitted is not of sufficient energy to elevate a body's energy state to a higher energy state, then that photon will not be absorbed. It will instead be reflected/refracted/transparent, ... "Energy state" meaning the amount of thermal energy associated with a particular black body. See Planck's Law./QUOTE]



    The earth absorbs photons over a wide range of photon wavelengths in the infrared spectrum because the earth emits photons over a wide range of photon wavelengths as seen in the graph below.

    The radiation emitted from the surface of the earth has been measured by satellites and if the earth was not absorbing photons from atmospheric greenhouse gases then the surface of the earth

    would be cooling rapidly and be out of thermal equilibrium. The surface of the earth is almost in thermal equilibrium but it is absorbing on the average about 0.6 watts per square meter more than it is

    emitting. The earth has to absorb a great deal of back radiation in order to account for this slight amount of warming that we observe. The idea that none of these photons emitted by the atmosphere

    gets absorbed at the earth's surface violates Kirchoff's law of radiation and is inconsistent with observations. There is no "energy state" associated with a particular blackbody; there are perhaps millions of energy

    states over a particular spectrum and the earth can absorb photons anywhere over that spectrum.

    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
    WillReadmore likes this.
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct. This is how it actually works. This is not what you are arguing though. You argumentation (well, the argumentation that you are stealing from others, anyway) is attempting to trap heat. That is a reduction of radiance.

    Under your theory (well, the theories you are stealing from others anyway), yes there is.

    So the increase in GHG concentrations is not slowing/trapping the flow of thermal energy from the surface out into space? Good to know.

    There is no such thing as "net heat". Heat only flows from hot to cold.

    Okay.

    Okay, so you are defining Earth as the system. Got it.

    Nope. Heat does not flow back toward the surface. Heat only flows from hot to cold.

    There is no "net flow". Doesn't happen.

    It is not possible to trap heat.
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It says quite the opposite actually. It is not possible to slow or trap heat.

    The coat acts as a coupling reducer between the body and the outside air. Convection is limited. CO2 (or any other "magick gas") does not act as a coupling reducer. It does not limit convection.

    NASA is a government agency, not science. False Authority Fallacy.

    I've already cited them for you. The laws of science themselves ARE the authoritative sources.
     
  11. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yup, that's the general definition of climate. That's what results in our calling one area a "tropical climate" and another area a "desert climate". It is subjective and not quantifiable.

    Strawman. Never said there was no data. I said there is no data for the temperature of the Earth.

    It is.

    Already cited it.
     
  12. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I'm applying them just fine. You are simply choosing to reject science, as it is a requirement for all followers of the Global Warming faith.

    No, you are.

    Already did.

    You have cited multiple false authorities while ignoring the correct authority.

    Already did.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is getting boring.

    Until you cite actual climate science that supports how you are attempting to apply various laws, you have nothing.

    I'm not interested in more of your claim that you are so much smarter than the entire field of climatology that people should just accept your word.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Experimental science says you are simply wrong on that.

    And, you have no cite from ANY work of experimental science to support your contention.
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ahhh, the IPCC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Now there is an unbiased organization. It would be like expecting the American Cancer Society to reject that something causes cancer.

    The group which has had it's procedures and data challenged many times over the years, is who you are saying is the group that sets the terms and definitions.
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't that exactly how we should want it to be - an organization that includes scientists in related fields from around the world, challenging each with the most accurate info available being right there on the table??
     
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But they challenge nothing. They only publish information from scientists that agree with them, and that is not science.

    We hear all the time that the "consensus" is what matters,and they only want scientists who agree with them. And as one famous doctor and scientist said:

    The idea of science is to challenge, not follow along in lockstep because that is where the funding comes from.

    And no, what should matter is that they actually challenge and research. Not simply agree with each other. There is no challenge when all of the IPCC agrees with their findings. Especially when those findings always keep changing, and not with more research but as more data is collected.

    They have predicted a great many things. Like temperature increases of .3-.8c per decade, even though it is maintaining it's steady climb of .1 per decade. They predicted that the Arctic Ice Pack would vanish, and that winters in North America would be largely ice free by 2020. Well, it's 2020 and none of those have happened. By 2024 all of the ski areas in Scotland would close as they would have no more snow. That millions would die due to lack of water. That hurricanes would get worse and worse every year. Even that the warming would affect the rotation of the Earth and make days shorter.

    That polar bears would be near extinction by 2030 (the population has actually increased int he last decade), that between 1993 and 2018 sea level would rise by at least 4 feet (it increased by 3 inches, the same rate it has increased for the last century), the Maldives and Diego Garcia would be underwater by 2025, that 50 million drought refugees would be wandering the planet by 2015, lack of food and water turning entire countries into deserts. It just goes on and on and on.

    All of their chicken little screams of destruction have been utter lies, yet they still want people to believe that they "know the truth".

    Maybe they should forget about the climate, and predict things like sporting event winners or stocks. Then I know if I want to get rich, just do the opposite of their predictions.
     
  18. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, you are simply denying the relevant laws of science.

    A "work of experimental science" is not the laws of science themselves. The laws of science themselves are the only sources that I will accept, as they are the authoritative sources.
     
  19. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yet, here you are... still replying to my posts. Whenever I get bored with what someone is posting, I stop responding to them.

    The laws themselves are all that I need. They speak for themselves.

    It seems to me like you are interested, otherwise you would stop responding. Don't take my word for it... Read those laws of science for yourself. They are available for all to see. They aren't hidden anywhere.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When a group of scientists who study a specific issue come together to make a report, that is significant. In no way does that turn the science into "not science".

    If a body of physicists issued a report that includes support for relativity theory, that doesn't make relativity theory "not science".

    If a body of biologists issued a report that supported evolution, that wouldn't make evolution "not science".

    When a world wide group of climatologists agrees, that does not make anthropogenic warming "not science".

    The report in question here represents the science of scientists from around the world. You can suggest that the REPORT isn't science, but nobody has claimed that.

    What's claimed is that the results IN THE REPORT are the result of extensive world wide progress in climatology and that scientists in that field of science from around the world agree that it is a proper representation of progess in climatology.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2020
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,469
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Experimental science verifies whether laws are being properly applied. Let's remember that in science, a law is not proven. Experimental evidece is the gold standard, both becauuse laws aren't proven and because the validity of application of a law is a serious question.

    If your contention were true, you could cite evidence from experimental science, since how our climate works is a HUGE issue carefully studied by scientists from a range of disciplines.

    So far, you have failed at that.

    So far, you aren't pointing to ANY science that is based in scientific method.

    I've cited what climatologists at NASA are saying. You're disagreement is with THEM (as well as with all others doing actual science in climatology). And, you have ignored the need for evidence.

    You do need to cite something.
     
  22. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Trapping heat does not reduce the radiance of the earth's surface because it is the atmosphere that traps heat, not the earth's surface. The earth's surface temperature increases because of the back radiation in

    accordance with the SB law and therefore more heat is emitted from the earth's surface.

    Greenhouse gases close to the earth's surface do not radiate any energy back to space and it is only at very high elevations in the atmosphere where the carbon dioxide density is low that photons are radiated

    back to space. The temperature of the earth's surface must rise to make up for the decreased radiance from greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide when more CO2 molecules are added to the atmosphere

    because they are radiating at a colder temperature. Energy conservation occurs at the earth's surface and at every layer of the atmosphere when the earth's temperature is in equilibrium.

    It is not a simple matter to calculate a mean surface temperature for the earth because thermodynamic equations for all of the layers of the atmosphere influence the mean surface temperature of the earth.

    That assumes a calculation for the mean surface temperature by the usual method of dividing the earth's surface into many grids and assigning a weighted value to each.

    Heat does flow to the surface because the earth's surface is an excellent absorber of photons emitted by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

    There is net flow when you apply the second law of thermodynamics to the earth's surface and atmosphere together in order to calculate the change in entropy. One must consider both directions

    that heat flows.

    I don't like the phrase "trap heat" but it is correct if it means that greenhouse gases absorb photons and transfer some of that increased vibrational energy to kinetic energy through collisions with

    oxygen and nitrogen, and also radiate photons both downwards and upwards to greenhouse gases with the same absorption spectrum.That is an absorption of energy and a transfer of energy to

    other molecules in the atmosphere which slows the emission of radiation from the earth-atmosphere system.
     
  23. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct that laws are not proven. Laws are simply formalized theories.

    There's no need for me to do so. All I need are the theories of science themselves.

    Yes I am. YOU are the one rejecting science, not me.

    Whoopity doo... "climatologists" and NASA are not science.

    Correct. And also with yourself, since you keep appealing to them as an authoritative source.

    Science doesn't make use of supporting evidence; only conflicting evidence.

    I already have.
     
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes it does. You are not allowing approx 1/2 of those photons to escape. You are attempting to make them into "magick bouncing photons". You are also attempting to make the atmosphere into a "magick blanket" that somehow only insulates in one direction. You are denying science.

    It is not possible for a colder body to heat a warmer body.

    No, you are directly violating it by attempting to decrease radiance (via "trapping" heat) while increasing temperature.

    Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy.

    No such thing as a "greenhouse gas".

    Yes they do. Any body that is above an absolute zero temperature radiates.

    No, it is at any elevation. CO2 does not trap heat. It is not possible to trap heat.

    There is no "decreased radiance". There are no "greenhouse gases". CO2 cannot heat the Earth's surface.

    Not how one calculates Earth's temperature. You are denying mathematics.

    Heat cannot flow from cold to hot.

    Nope. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. It cannot flow from cold to hot. There is no such thing as "net flow" of heat.

    It is not possible to trap heat.
     
  25. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it is really hard to take some seriously who makes such a moronic and demonstrably false claim like the one you just made.

    https://www.livescience.com/37821-greenhouse-gases.html

    Your arguments consist of "nuh uh" and a total and complete lack of any scientific evidence to support them. You have been given dozens and dozens of peer reviewed scientific papers which include experimentation and data collection all showing you that your position is complete nonsense. In order to overcome that, you need to provide a peer reviewed paper that rebuts it, or at least show us your experimentation that supports it.

    Let's start with something simple. Show us an experiment that supports your claim that "there is no such thing as green house gas"

    Here is an example of an experiment showing how green house gasses work..................

    https://www.familyeducation.com/school/global-warming/greenhouse-effect-experiments
    https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf

    present your experiment that shows this to be false.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2020
    WillReadmore likes this.

Share This Page