Liberals Continue Their Assault On Anything That Casts Doubt on Climate Change

[IanC]

Your argument is valid only if you believe in quantum mechanics.

Yup. And QM only came into being because something was needed to explain the inconsistencies of Newtonian style thermodynamics.

I believe QM is the best explanation so far. The next explanation will encompass QM in the same way that QM refined Newtonian physics.

 

[Wuwei]

Your argument is valid only if you believe in quantum mechanics.

Yup. And QM only came into being because something was needed to explain the inconsistencies of Newtonian style thermodynamics.

I believe QM is the best explanation so far. The next explanation will encompass QM in the same way that QM refined Newtonian physics.

Actually I was implying that if you are trying to pin down SSDD on anything, he will deny the tenets of QM, but I suppose you already know that. Of course it's useful as general knowledge for those who don't yet understand the issues.

 

[IanC]

Your argument is valid only if you believe in quantum mechanics.

Yup. And QM only came into being because something was needed to explain the inconsistencies of Newtonian style thermodynamics.

I believe QM is the best explanation so far. The next explanation will encompass QM in the same way that QM refined Newtonian physics.

Actually I was implying that if you are trying to pin down SSDD on anything, he will deny the tenets of QM, but I suppose you already know that. Of course it's useful as general knowledge for those who don't yet understand the issues.

Oh yeah, I have discussed things many times with him. He simply Stonewall's when painted into a corner. I find it ludicrous that he continually gives EMR the same properties as matter. Light simply does not have the same constraints as matter. He talks about things like 'air out of a tire'. There is no restriction on light going both ways at the same time through a bottleneck.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?

What is this, international simplistic arguments day?

If I make a weather forecast and say it's going to rain 11 hours in the day, and it rains 10 hours, does this mean it didn't rain?


The climate is extremely complex, so complex that no one can predict it properly.

People are making attempts at understanding it.

Others are saying that until we 100% understand it, there is no climate change.

The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?

No, it means what is being said is not correct and it's time to find something that can be validated. That's all, but of course you wouldn't know that would you, you just believe cause someone said believe. Brain dead is your position. Mine is mind wide open. And I know where I live, there ain't global warming. So factually I have observations on my side, you.....nope!

Yes, it means it's not 100% correct.

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

If the weather says it's raining outside, and you know there's only a 90% chance it's right, are you going outside in your raincoat, or are you going to say that it's wrong, stuff this, and go out in something non-waterproof?

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct

And it doesn't mean it is 90% correct now is it?

Me personally, I don't understand why warmers are afraid of data that may help explain the climate. What's it to you? you have no solution so what is it your fearful of? Are you really that susceptible to someone stating doom and gloom on something that isn't even validated? Really? Wow.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

what is worse is someone that doesn't know for sure to disregard data that may be important and might influence further studies. I don't care what the percentage is. Or are you saying that scientists can't be wrong? LOL

I can say everyday of my life that rain is possible with some percentage. You know why? Because weather isn't settled. because the earth is unpredictable.

No, it doesn't. I was giving an example, and used a figure.

You think I'm afraid of data? Why would you think that? You don't know me.

I want to understand the TRUTH. I've looked at lots of things and I've seen that there is a change in the climate. I also believe we should be going through a global cooling phase right now, though on that I'm never going to be certain.

But the biggest thing for me is that when humans start messing around with things, we find we're unable to stop them, and this causes massive problems.

I want to understand the TRUTH
It's all I want. It's a sad that people think they already know it. Now that is the problem. The science is not settled. AR5 states it. your IPCC not mine.

I've seen that there is a change in the climate.
what change in climate have you seen? how many years you been watching climate?

No, the science isn't settled. However on the one hand you have people looking for the truth, on the other people with agendas. Those with agendas might be on both sides of the debate, but lumping people with agendas with those looking for the truth is simply not fair, but happens too often.

Well, even within my own life time I've seen things get warmer. When I was a kid we used to have lots of snow, my father would have to dig out the roads in order to attempt to get to work. Now the only chance of getting stuck is when there is flooding.

But that's besides the point. This is science, this is far to complicated to see with the human experience. We're talking GLOBAL WARMING. Not localized warming.

 

[SSDD]

Your argument is valid only if you believe in quantum mechanics.

Yup. And QM only came into being because something was needed to explain the inconsistencies of Newtonian style thermodynamics.

I believe QM is the best explanation so far. The next explanation will encompass QM in the same way that QM refined Newtonian physics.

Actually I was implying that if you are trying to pin down SSDD on anything, he will deny the tenets of QM, but I suppose you already know that. Of course it's useful as general knowledge for those who don't yet understand the issues.

Oh yeah, I have discussed things many times with him. He simply Stonewall's when painted into a corner. I find it ludicrous that he continually gives EMR the same properties as matter. Light simply does not have the same constraints as matter. He talks about things like 'air out of a tire'. There is no restriction on light going both ways at the same time through a bottleneck.

Never stop lying do you ian....one day you will wake up and be as bad as crick....I point out air escaping from a tire...and rocks rolling down hill to point out that all energy transfer is a slave to the second law....and energy doesn't move in a direction of less entropy.....ever....not even statistically...never has been nor never will be observed.

 

[jc456]

The thing is, if you can't prove something, does that mean the opposite is the case?

No, it means what is being said is not correct and it's time to find something that can be validated. That's all, but of course you wouldn't know that would you, you just believe cause someone said believe. Brain dead is your position. Mine is mind wide open. And I know where I live, there ain't global warming. So factually I have observations on my side, you.....nope!

Yes, it means it's not 100% correct.

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

If the weather says it's raining outside, and you know there's only a 90% chance it's right, are you going outside in your raincoat, or are you going to say that it's wrong, stuff this, and go out in something non-waterproof?

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct

And it doesn't mean it is 90% correct now is it?

Me personally, I don't understand why warmers are afraid of data that may help explain the climate. What's it to you? you have no solution so what is it your fearful of? Are you really that susceptible to someone stating doom and gloom on something that isn't even validated? Really? Wow.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

what is worse is someone that doesn't know for sure to disregard data that may be important and might influence further studies. I don't care what the percentage is. Or are you saying that scientists can't be wrong? LOL

I can say everyday of my life that rain is possible with some percentage. You know why? Because weather isn't settled. because the earth is unpredictable.

No, it doesn't. I was giving an example, and used a figure.

You think I'm afraid of data? Why would you think that? You don't know me.

I want to understand the TRUTH. I've looked at lots of things and I've seen that there is a change in the climate. I also believe we should be going through a global cooling phase right now, though on that I'm never going to be certain.

But the biggest thing for me is that when humans start messing around with things, we find we're unable to stop them, and this causes massive problems.

I want to understand the TRUTH
It's all I want. It's a sad that people think they already know it. Now that is the problem. The science is not settled. AR5 states it. your IPCC not mine.

I've seen that there is a change in the climate.
what change in climate have you seen? how many years you been watching climate?

No, the science isn't settled. However on the one hand you have people looking for the truth, on the other people with agendas. Those with agendas might be on both sides of the debate, but lumping people with agendas with those looking for the truth is simply not fair, but happens too often.

Well, even within my own life time I've seen things get warmer. When I was a kid we used to have lots of snow, my father would have to dig out the roads in order to attempt to get to work. Now the only chance of getting stuck is when there is flooding.

But that's besides the point. This is science, this is far to complicated to see with the human experience. We're talking GLOBAL WARMING. Not localized warming.

and global warming can't be found because there aren't enough stations around the globe to make that call. Unless of course you think there are and I would merely claim BS. But, convection and pressure systems moves heat around. Do you deny that? So the heat in Texas is moved to the north, do you agree with that? If not, there are very many Meteorologists that you are calling liars. And if you do agree, how do you find the actual local temperature if heat is moved, same for cold?

 

[IanC]

Your argument is valid only if you believe in quantum mechanics.

Yup. And QM only came into being because something was needed to explain the inconsistencies of Newtonian style thermodynamics.

I believe QM is the best explanation so far. The next explanation will encompass QM in the same way that QM refined Newtonian physics.

Actually I was implying that if you are trying to pin down SSDD on anything, he will deny the tenets of QM, but I suppose you already know that. Of course it's useful as general knowledge for those who don't yet understand the issues.

Oh yeah, I have discussed things many times with him. He simply Stonewall's when painted into a corner. I find it ludicrous that he continually gives EMR the same properties as matter. Light simply does not have the same constraints as matter. He talks about things like 'air out of a tire'. There is no restriction on light going both ways at the same time through a bottleneck.

Never stop lying do you ian....one day you will wake up and be as bad as crick....I point out air escaping from a tire...and rocks rolling down hill to point out that all energy transfer is a slave to the second law....and energy doesn't move in a direction of less entropy.....ever....not even statistically...never has been nor never will be observed.

I'm lying now? Hahahaha

You apparently agree that an object radiates according to its temp, p=kT^4

But if two objects are radiating at each other you say that they radiate less, only the net radiation exists, that the portion that balances out never exists due to some sort of voodoo magic of smart photons or smart emitters that test the environment, also by voodoo magic.

When I point out that there are consequences to energy disappearing into some sort of void you simply run away and start up the whole thing again elsewhere.

I think we all know who is being dishonest here.

 

[IanC]

For those who are perplexed as to how it appears that energy is going in the opposite direction without warming the hotter object, you must remember that these are simultaneous events. The warmer object is always radiating more, and at a higher average energy wavelength than the cooler one.

Temperature is basically the average kinetic energy of all the particles in the object. There is a wide range of speeds. That is why it is ridiculous for SSDD to say that photons can test their destination and decide whether to exist or not.

 

[Wuwei]

For those who are perplexed as to how it appears that energy is going in the opposite direction without warming the hotter object, you must remember that these are simultaneous events. The warmer object is always radiating more, and at a higher average energy wavelength than the cooler one.

Temperature is basically the average kinetic energy of all the particles in the object. There is a wide range of speeds. That is why it is ridiculous for SSDD to say that photons can test their destination and decide whether to exist or not.

I think you will get two thoughts on that:

1. Yes, I agree.
2. You moron, you have no proof. Show me the quantified, measured, repeatable experiment.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Granddaughter of Exxon scientist who warned about climate change four decades ago shows up with questions at company’s annual meeting:

It’s good to have the opportunity to speak to you. So, my name is Anna Kalinsky.And my grandfather, James F. Black, was a scientist for Exxon for over 40 years. He started with Standard Oil during World War II, later earned dozens of patents for Esso and, later, Exxon. In 1977, he briefed the company’s top executives on the scientific realities of climate change. He said that present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical, like you acknowledged on your slides. This is over 30, almost 40, years ago.

Anna Kalinsky: Absolutely. So, like I said, my grandfather worked for Exxon for about 40 years. And in 1977, he gave a presentation to top Exxon management. And he laid out very clearly that the planet was warming, that this was because of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and that those levels were rising because of the burning of fossil fuels. And at the time, he told Exxon that humankind had five to 10 years to start really making the hard decisions regarding climate change or else the situation could become dire.

 

[IanC]

For those who are perplexed as to how it appears that energy is going in the opposite direction without warming the hotter object, you must remember that these are simultaneous events. The warmer object is always radiating more, and at a higher average energy wavelength than the cooler one.

Temperature is basically the average kinetic energy of all the particles in the object. There is a wide range of speeds. That is why it is ridiculous for SSDD to say that photons can test their destination and decide whether to exist or not.

I think you will get two thoughts on that:

1. Yes, I agree.
2. You moron, you have no proof. Show me the quantified, measured, repeatable experiment.

You are right about that. The chain of deductive reasoning is pretty hard to break though. For instance, evaporation is strong proof that molecules have varying speeds, because only randomly fast molecules have the needed energy to break through the surface tension barrier. Can we detect single molecules? No, but we know it happens. Can we prove that it also happens in the other direction? Probability and statistics say it does but how could anyone measure it?

 

[RollingThunder]

Liberals Continue Their Assault On Anything That Casts Doubt on Climate Change

Braindead Rightwingnuts Continue Their Assault On Any And All Science And Evidence That Confirms Human-Caused Global Warming/Climate Changes

Having no science to back their demented denial of the reality of AGW/CC, rightwingnuts desperately resort to crackpot conspiracy theories about virtually all of the world's scientists. Sane people laugh at them.

 

[easyt65]

RT, I know the climate changes, in some places 4 times a year. You can 'yell' all you want, but when the news reports liberal school administrators ban books offering different views than global warming and a liberal administration considers prosecuting those who disagree with them, there is nothing 'right wing intolerant' going on. The intolerance is owned by liberals.

As I said earlier, 'evil' / the left TEACHES tolerance until it has the power / control to begin silencing their opposition / good. We are seeing that in action now.

 

[Wuwei]

You are right about that. The chain of deductive reasoning is pretty hard to break though. For instance, evaporation is strong proof that molecules have varying speeds, because only randomly fast molecules have the needed energy to break through the surface tension barrier. Can we detect single molecules? No, but we know it happens. Can we prove that it also happens in the other direction? Probability and statistics say it does but how could anyone measure it?

My counter argument is that "quantified, measured, repeatable experiments" were done over the centuries at a very basic level that led to mathematical models that are consistent with those measurements. You don't need to repeat multitudes of experiments that are easily derived. The counter argument to that of course is a disbelief in the fantasy of quantum mechanics models etc. Finally of course, I believe the complex models of atmospheric physic is too chaotic to even begin to make detailed conclusions, but isolated properties of atmospheric CO2 can be gleaned to an approximate level.

 

[RollingThunder]

RT, I know the climate changes, in some places 4 times a year. You can 'yell' all you want, but when the news reports liberal school administrators ban books offering different views than global warming and a liberal administration considers prosecuting those who disagree with them, there is nothing 'right wing intolerant' going on. The intolerance is owned by liberals.

Braindead nonsense!!!

Your so-called "differing views" amount to lies written by those who are making huge profits selling the fossil fuels that have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere and oceans.

Keeping those fossil fuel industry lies out of textbooks is very sound policy....just like keeping the tobacco companies lies about the supposed health benefits of smoking tobacco out of textbooks was the only sane thing to do after medical science proved the deadly health risks of smoking tobacco.

You are stooging for the Koch brothers, you ignorant retard.

Liberals are proudly "intolerant" of the bogus bullshit pseudo-science concocted by corporations that uneducated stooges like you have been gullible enough to swallow whole.

 

[IanC]

You are right about that. The chain of deductive reasoning is pretty hard to break though. For instance, evaporation is strong proof that molecules have varying speeds, because only randomly fast molecules have the needed energy to break through the surface tension barrier. Can we detect single molecules? No, but we know it happens. Can we prove that it also happens in the other direction? Probability and statistics say it does but how could anyone measure it?

My counter argument is that "quantified, measured, repeatable experiments" were done over the centuries at a very basic level that led to mathematical models that are consistent with those measurements. You don't need to repeat multitudes of experiments that are easily derived. The counter argument to that of course is a disbelief in the fantasy of quantum mechanics models etc. Finally of course, I believe the complex models of atmospheric physic is too chaotic to even begin to make detailed conclusions, but isolated properties of atmospheric CO2 can be gleaned to an approximate level.

That sounds about right. I believe increased CO2 has a warming influence. Even if temps were going down the influence would still be there. There are too many poorly understood factors and unknown factors involved.

 

[Wuwei]

That sounds about right. I believe increased CO2 has a warming influence. Even if temps were going down the influence would still be there. There are too many poorly understood factors and unknown factors involved.

I believe that CO2 is a strong and fast perturbation to the atmosphere and we should be worried about the ramifications, but I have no stance on just what those ramifications are. Why do you think that AGW is not a real threat? I am curious about your reasoning in light of the fact that climate is perhaps too complex to have anything but a gut feeling.

 

[IanC]

That sounds about right. I believe increased CO2 has a warming influence. Even if temps were going down the influence would still be there. There are too many poorly understood factors and unknown factors involved.

I believe that CO2 is a strong and fast perturbation to the atmosphere and we should be worried about the ramifications, but I have no stance on just what those ramifications are. Why do you think that AGW is not a real threat? I am curious about your reasoning in light of the fact that climate is perhaps too complex to have anything but a gut feeling.

Perturbation is a good word. The increase in CO2 is artificially induced. Uncharted waters. It would be much more 'dangerous' if it was due to natural conditions. Earth's homeostasis has proven to be robust in the past and I see no reason to doubt it now. Apparently there has already been a greening of the planet in response. The 1C warming influence per 2xCO2 is not going to bump us up to a 'tipping' point in my opinion and realistically I see no way of making a significant change with our current technology. Actually that is not true. If we wanted to cool the planet we could easily accomplish that. Unintended consequences make that a decision to be made carefully and only after we reach a state where demonstrably negative impacts come to fruition, if they ever do.

 

[Wuwei]

Perturbation is a good word. The increase in CO2 is artificially induced. Uncharted waters. It would be much more 'dangerous' if it was due to natural conditions. Earth's homeostasis has proven to be robust in the past and I see no reason to doubt it now. Apparently there has already been a greening of the planet in response. The 1C warming influence per 2xCO2 is not going to bump us up to a 'tipping' point in my opinion and realistically I see no way of making a significant change with our current technology. Actually that is not true. If we wanted to cool the planet we could easily accomplish that. Unintended consequences make that a decision to be made carefully and only after we reach a state where demonstrably negative impacts come to fruition, if they ever do.

Why do you think we will not reach a tipping point? All the potential ingredients are there - freeing methane hyrate in the ocean, permafrost decay, etc. You once said you think H2O will have a moderating influence. There is very little water vapor in the arctic, but CO2 is still there and results in a much larger perturbation in an area that is very sensitive to heat. Furthermore anthropic CO2 will continue exponentially, because it takes more and more energy to mine the buried energy resources. (See EROEI articles). We may not reach a tipping point very soon if at all, but I'm not worried - no grandkids.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, it means it's not 100% correct.

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

If the weather says it's raining outside, and you know there's only a 90% chance it's right, are you going outside in your raincoat, or are you going to say that it's wrong, stuff this, and go out in something non-waterproof?

That doesn't mean it's not 90% correct

And it doesn't mean it is 90% correct now is it?

Me personally, I don't understand why warmers are afraid of data that may help explain the climate. What's it to you? you have no solution so what is it your fearful of? Are you really that susceptible to someone stating doom and gloom on something that isn't even validated? Really? Wow.

Now, which is worse, saying something that is 90% correct, or shouting that everything is wrong because it's not 100% correct. How correct is someone who says it's all wrong and we should not do anything to solve the problem, because it's only 90% correct?

what is worse is someone that doesn't know for sure to disregard data that may be important and might influence further studies. I don't care what the percentage is. Or are you saying that scientists can't be wrong? LOL

I can say everyday of my life that rain is possible with some percentage. You know why? Because weather isn't settled. because the earth is unpredictable.

No, it doesn't. I was giving an example, and used a figure.

You think I'm afraid of data? Why would you think that? You don't know me.

I want to understand the TRUTH. I've looked at lots of things and I've seen that there is a change in the climate. I also believe we should be going through a global cooling phase right now, though on that I'm never going to be certain.

But the biggest thing for me is that when humans start messing around with things, we find we're unable to stop them, and this causes massive problems.

I want to understand the TRUTH
It's all I want. It's a sad that people think they already know it. Now that is the problem. The science is not settled. AR5 states it. your IPCC not mine.

I've seen that there is a change in the climate.
what change in climate have you seen? how many years you been watching climate?

No, the science isn't settled. However on the one hand you have people looking for the truth, on the other people with agendas. Those with agendas might be on both sides of the debate, but lumping people with agendas with those looking for the truth is simply not fair, but happens too often.

Well, even within my own life time I've seen things get warmer. When I was a kid we used to have lots of snow, my father would have to dig out the roads in order to attempt to get to work. Now the only chance of getting stuck is when there is flooding.

But that's besides the point. This is science, this is far to complicated to see with the human experience. We're talking GLOBAL WARMING. Not localized warming.

and global warming can't be found because there aren't enough stations around the globe to make that call. Unless of course you think there are and I would merely claim BS. But, convection and pressure systems moves heat around. Do you deny that? So the heat in Texas is moved to the north, do you agree with that? If not, there are very many Meteorologists that you are calling liars. And if you do agree, how do you find the actual local temperature if heat is moved, same for cold?

What do you need to know the world is warming up? Readings from a station every two meters? No, you don't.

You can draw conclusions from less data. Perhaps that data won't be perfect, but it will tell you something.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? - Carbon Brief

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."

Here are the four groups who are studying the weather. The Japanese have lower global temperatures than others. Nasa has the highest. However they're pretty similar.

"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."

"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."

"Nasa’s GISTEMP uses statistical methods to fill in gaps using surrounding measurements. How much each measurement influences the final value depends on how close it is geographically to the missing point. NOAA follows a similar process for the MLOST dataset."

"HadCRUT4 is the only dataset to leave regions with missing data blank, rather than try to fill them in. This effectively assumes temperatures there are in line with the global average."

So, the British don't fill in the blanks. Nasa fills in the blanks with statistical probabilities. What's the difference? The British have a lower set of data. If the Arctic is warming faster and the British aren't making statistical probabilities and perhaps have less data from the Arctic, then they get lower temperatures than they otherwise would.

"Indeed, updates to an old version of the temperature record (HadCRUT3) to include better Arctic data saw northern hemisphere temperatures rise by 0.1 degrees Celsius."

"The NASA GISTEMP record is the most detailed of the four datasets, with grid boxes two degrees longitude by two degrees latitude."

"The other three have grid boxes measuring five by five degrees. They also differ in how many land stations they have around the world, too. HadCRUT4 has about 5,500, GISTEMP takes middle place with about 6,300, but MLOST has the most of all, with about 7,000 land stations."

So, Nasa has the most accurate in terms of size of the area used to measure this data. NOAA has the most land stations.

"But scientists can use lower troposphere measurements as a further evidence of a changing climate. Several different groups now keep track of tropospheric temperatures and all four show a warming trend in the last 30 years."

So, basically, there are four groups collecting this data, they have a variety of ways of collecting, a variety of coverage, they're not perfect, but they give us a reading shows us, more or less, what is happening.

Now, you're denying because it's not 100% perfect, which is kind of ridiculous.

If we take localized statistics, in most cases we're going to see a rise in temperatures.

Central England.

USA

Australian sea surface temperatures.

We're seeing a rise EVERYWHERE more or less. There are a few places which aren't.

All the data is point in one direction. And then you're looking at the data and saying it's not 100% perfect, so let's forget EVERYTHING it's saying.

Why?