Is Climate Change Possible Redux

[Into the Night]

The Church of Global Warming denies mathematics as well:

Statistical mathematics requires closed dataset. It should be published so people can check the work. Selection is done by randN, or the same kind of random number as used for a deck of cards. Once you select an item, it cannot be selected again. It cannot weighted, it cannot be interpolated. The data used must be raw data (and published). Quoting global temperature numbers from government or any other source is a randU (a made up number).

Further, a variance must be declared and justified. This is used to calculate the margin of error value. For temperature, this can be as high as 20 deg/mile. This sort of variance can be easily seen across weather fronts, changes in surface or topology, mountain wave effects, localized convective activity (thunderstorms), available current flow, etc.

Measuring points must be uniformly distributed as well. Thermometers aren't. They are concentrated in cities and along roads (they must be serviced!), along shipping lanes, and are at the surface only (very few measure anything above or below the surface, all part of Earth).

Statistical math also makes use of random numbers (such as randN and paired randR). This takes away the natural ability to predict inherent in mathematics in general. Statistical math is NOT a crystal ball by any stretch of the imagination. It's a summary method only. Indeed, a statistical analysis conducted on the SAME data and using the same chosen variance will produce a different result (because of the nature of randN).

When applied across the globe, the number of thermometers used (if uniformly placed) will result in one thermometer for an area about the size of Virginia.

Mathematically, then, one can say that any attempt to calculate a global temperature from available thermometer data is GUESSING.

But WAIT, I here the Believer cry...what about satellites?

Turns out that satellites are NOT Magick Boxes. They cannot measure the temperature of Earth. The only method available to a satellite is making use of the light radiating from Earth, and attempting to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Unfortunately, you don't know the emissivity of Earth, so you don't know how much of that light is reflection, refraction, or is emitted from Earth according to Stefan-Boltzmann.

The only way to measure the emissivity of any surface is to first accurately know the temperature of that surface, then compare it to idealistic black bodies and white bodies (perfect absorbers and emitters, or perfect reflectors).

Infrared cameras, used to measure temperature in industry, cannot measure absolute temperature. They can only show whether something is warmer or colder than something else. They are great for looking for leaks in insulation in a house, or to spot an engine cylinder that isn't firing, and other such handy uses, but relative temperature (comparing one temperature to another at the same time) is not an absolute temperature, which is required to measure the temperature of the Earth.

In other words, it is simply not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We simply don't have enough thermometers, and it's not possible to build enough thermometers. And who would read them all?

Yet the Church of Global Warming claims to know the temperature of Earth (but never actually say what it is!).

 

[gfm7175]

So full of shit. It must be hard to breathe

Apparently Dimlight refuses to accept the truth.

 

[Daylight63]

Apparently Dimlight refuses to accept the truth.

No dimlight isn't as bad at science as you guys are.

 

[Daylight63]

So I take it you deny Democrats telling people what toilet to buy, what stove to buy, what light bulb to buy, or what car to buy? Are you REALLY going to try to deny all your own posts???

LOLOLOL. Why not go fill your car's tank up with leaded gasoline. Then go buy some asbestos wall board at the store for your home. Then buy some cocaine laced Coca Cola while you're at it.

LOL.

 

[Into the Night]

"Climate, of course, cannot change."

That's your opinion, not a fact.

I did not define the word 'climate'. Here you are showing your own ineptitude of the English language, inferring that climate somehow has a temperature that can 'change'.

The word 'climate' comes from Latin 'climatis', and first appeared in the English lexicon around 1300. The word means 'slope' or 'region'.
The root word prefix is 'klei-' which means 'to lean'. At the time is was first used, 'climate' referred to a general description of a latitude of Earth. It has always been a subject description of conditions (whether weather related, or politically related, or money related such as rich and poor climate).

Climate has no values associated with it. It is a subjective description only. It contains NO objective information at all. It has no temperature, no wind speed of direction, no precip measurement, no sky cover measurement, no barometric measurement; NOTHING.

A desert climate will always be a desert climate. A marine climate will always be a marine climate. A mountain climate will always be a mountain climate. There is NO temperature information...not even for a 'hot' climate or a 'cold' climate.

In other words, there is nothing that can change.

 

[Into the Night]

No dimlight isn't as bad at science as you guys are.

Still trying to deny these three theories of science, eh?

Okay...explain how the Earth is warming (use your own words, Holy Links are useless here). How does carbon dioxide (or any other Magick Holy Gas or vapor) cause the Earth to warm simply by existing?

 

[gfm7175]

No dimlight isn't as bad at science as you guys are.

You've already displayed your failure of science on this forum, Dimlight.

 

[Into the Night]

LOLOLOL. Why not go fill your car's tank up with leaded gasoline.

No need. I already have my tank mostly full, and I don't need to charge my car to drive it.

Then go buy some asbestos wall board at the store for your home.

Gypsum works better for wallboard, and it was also used as plaster in older buildings.

Asbestos is great around very hot areas, like fireplaces, steam pipes, etc.
It isn't used much as insulation for homes because there are better products such as spun glass.

Just wear a dust mask when you apply it or remove it to eliminate the danger of silicosis. It is completely safe once applied. For that matter, is a good idea to wear a dust mask (and gloves!) when handling spun glass insulation (such as Corning Pink) as well, due to the danger of inhaling glass fiber.

I use gloves even when handling fiberglass weave for the same reason. Those little glass fibers make nasty slivers; but since it's woven (usually a tabby weave, some are knit) a dust mask isn't really necessary.

Then buy some cocaine laced Coca Cola while you're at it.

LOL.

Coca Cola removes the cocaine from their drink. It's a waste product. It is incinerated in a secure manner since some people like to sniff or inject this industrial waste.

 

[Daylight63]

Okay...explain how the Earth is warming (use your own words, Holy Links are useless here).

You don't really want me to do that. You have no intention of discussing it, and besides, you yourself don't know enough to understand it. So why should I waste my time?

Either way. I'll try but you'll just puke out your usual shit so I'll not bother reading your response if you're OK with that.

The earth is warming because humans are pumping gigatons of excess CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which causes the level at which the re-radiation of the incoming solar energy makes it back out into space higher and higher altitudes. This causes a warming effect at the surface.


The sun warms the earth primarily through short-wave high energy radiation on the UV end of the spectrum. This energy is absorbed by rocks and the earth's surface and is "down-converted" to IR (long wave length, lower energy radiation) which is re-emitted as heat from the surface of the earth. The IR photons (heat) then starts its path out through the atmosphere back into space to keep the planet in equilibrium with regards to energy.

On its way out of the atmosphere it encounters molecules like CO2 which have the proper chemical bonds to ABSORB IR (things like O2 and N2 which make up the majority of our atmosphere do not absorb IR in any real significant manner). The greenhouse gases delay the IR photons from escaping. The IR photon absorbed by one CO2 molecule is then re-radiated back out and absorbed by another etc etc. The level at which the IR photon makes it back out into space is pushed higher and higher in the atmosphere where there are fewer gas molecules and the transmission out into space is less efficient.

Et voila we have global warming.

We know this is our fault because the CHEMISTRY OF THE EXCESS CO2 has a fingerprint we can measure to show human origin. We also know this from satellite studies of earth's emission spectra showing the CO2 and other greenhouse gas absorption bands in action.

We know this isn't primarily a NATURAL effect because all the natural effects we know of have been characterized sufficiently such that we can't explain the warming using ONLY the natural effects.

Now, please ignore this or puke out your usual bullshit, but don't expect any more from me. You aren't smart enough for any of it.

 

[Into the Night]

You've already displayed your failure of science on this forum, Dimlight.

He's a failure at mathematics and at engineering as well. He still never learned what 'climate' means.

 

[Into the Night]

You don't really want me to do that.

Can't, eh? I gave you a fair chance.

You have no intention of discussing it,

That IS what this thread is about, isn't it?

and besides, you yourself don't know enough to understand it. So why should I waste my time?

I just gave the three theories of science you discard. Deal with it.

Either way. I'll try but you'll just puke out your usual shit so I'll not bother reading your response if you're OK with that.

You are describing yourself again.

The earth is warming because humans are pumping gigatons of excess CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which causes the level at which the re-radiation of the incoming solar energy makes it back out into space higher and higher altitudes. This causes a warming effect at the surface.

There is no 're-radiation' of solar energy. A photon that is absorbed is destroyed. The Earth is not the Sun.
You are attempting to trap light again. This is an attempt at reducing entropy. e(t+1) >= e(t). You cannot reduce entropy for any length of time...ever...anywhere in the known universe.

The sun warms the earth primarily through short-wave high energy radiation on the UV end of the spectrum. This energy is absorbed by rocks and the earth's surface and is "down-converted" to IR (long wave length, lower energy radiation) which is re-emitted as heat from the surface of the earth. The IR photons (heat) then starts its path out through the atmosphere back into space to keep the planet in equilibrium with regards to energy.

r = C * e * t^4. There is no frequency component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. All frequencies are considered. You cannot try to reduce entropy by attempting to rewrite the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

On its way out of the atmosphere it encounters molecules like CO2 which have the proper chemical bonds to ABSORB IR (things like O2 and N2 which make up the majority of our atmosphere do not absorb IR in any real significant manner). The greenhouse gases delay the IR photons from escaping. The IR photon absorbed by one CO2 molecule is then re-radiated back out and absorbed by another etc etc. The level at which the IR photon makes it back out into space is pushed higher and higher in the atmosphere where there are fewer gas molecules and the transmission out into space is less efficient.

There is no sequence to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot reduce entropy.

Et voila we have global warming.

Only by ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

We know this is our fault because the CHEMISTRY OF THE EXCESS CO2 has a fingerprint we can measure to show human origin.

CO2 is not chemistry. It's a chemical. It has no Magick Fingerprint.

Now...let's take the assumption that CO2 is somehow increasing. What does that mean?
Well, plants certainly like it! They 'breath in' CO2 and 'exhale' oxygen. The basic chemistry of any plant is to combine carbon dioxide from the air with water (from the soil), and light (in the blue range mostly, some in the red range) to produce a carbohydrate (plant sugar) that is used to feed the plant. This is an endothermic reaction, requiring the light to run. The waste product is free oxygen gas.

If a plant can't get enough CO2, the plant starves.

Without plants, all life starves (including us!).

CO2 is absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth.

The more CO2, the better plant growth. In other words, the better for plants, and the more CO2 is converted to oxygen. So, you have MORE food, and you still have oxygen to breath.

See Carbon Cycle.

We also know this from satellite studies of earth's emission spectra showing the CO2 and other greenhouse gas absorption bands in action.

Satellites aren't Magick Boxes. They can't differentiate between reflected light, refracted light, or emitted light. A satellite cannot measure Earth's temperature. You are also continuing to ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ALL masses radiate light according to this law, as long as temperature is above absolute zero.

We know this isn't primarily a NATURAL effect

Really? CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere.

because all the natural effects we know of have been characterized sufficiently such that we can't explain the warming using ONLY the natural effects.

What warming? Are you about to discard mathematics again?

Now, please ignore this or puke out your usual bullshit, but don't expect any more from me. You aren't smart enough for any of it.

Nah. I gave your a fair shot. You wasted it. You can try again, if you like. Just don't mindlessly repeat the same chant.

 

[ZenMode]

I did not define the word 'climate'. Here you are showing your own ineptitude of the English language, inferring that climate somehow has a temperature that can 'change'.

The word 'climate' comes from Latin 'climatis', and first appeared in the English lexicon around 1300. The word means 'slope' or 'region'.
The root word prefix is 'klei-' which means 'to lean'. At the time is was first used, 'climate' referred to a general description of a latitude of Earth. It has always been a subject description of conditions (whether weather related, or politically related, or money related such as rich and poor climate).

Climate has no values associated with it. It is a subjective description only. It contains NO objective information at all. It has no temperature, no wind speed of direction, no precip measurement, no sky cover measurement, no barometric measurement; NOTHING.

A desert climate will always be a desert climate. A marine climate will always be a marine climate. A mountain climate will always be a mountain climate. There is NO temperature information...not even for a 'hot' climate or a 'cold' climate.

In other words, there is nothing that can change.

The fact that there isn't a single measure for something doesn'tean it can't change. There's no single measure of "health" but a person's health can change.

 

[Into the Night]

The fact that there isn't a single measure for something doesn'tean it can't change. There's no single measure of "health" but a person's health can change.

You're just playing a word game again.

The word 'health' is also a subjective description. It contains no objective information of any kind. There is no value associated with 'health' anymore than any value associated with 'climate'.

Health doesn't change. Neither does climate.

This thread is about Global Warming (otherwise known as the buzzphrase 'climate change').

Now, do you want to present a mechanism by which the Earth is warming? Do you think you can do better than Daylight?

 

[gfm7175]

You don't really want me to do that.

I want SOMEBODY, ANYBODY to do it. So far, nobody has been able to do it.

You have no intention of discussing it, and besides, you yourself don't know enough to understand it. So why should I waste my time?

Ahhhhh, the ol' "you're too stupid to understand" mantra. Isn't that one getting a bit wore out by now?

Either way. I'll try but you'll just puke out your usual shit so I'll not bother reading your response if you're OK with that.

So, IOW, YOU have no intention of discussing it.

The earth

Okay, so you're referring to the WHOLE PLANET (so this includes its surface AND its atmosphere... IOW, this includes ANY AND ALL PARTS OF Earth).

is warming

Great. Now this is where you need to explain to the class from WHERE is the additional thermal energy coming from that is required in order to warm Earth.

because humans are pumping gigatons of excess CO2 and other greenhouse gases

"Excess CO2" and "greenhouse gases" are both meaningless buzzwords. There is no such thing as "excess CO2". A colder gas (CO2) cannot increase the temperature of a warmer surface. The direction of heat is 'hot to cold', not vice versa.

into the atmosphere

"The atmosphere" is a part of Earth, remember......

which causes the level at which the re-radiation

Yet ANOTHER meaningless buzzword.

of the incoming solar energy makes it back out into space higher and higher altitudes.

Nonsensical thought based on a meaningless buzzword.

This causes a warming effect at the surface.

1) You have yet to tell anyone where the ADDITIONAL THERMAL ENERGY that is required to increase Earth's temperature is coming from.

2) "The surface" is a part of Earth, remember... So what you have proposed so far is that, since there's "too much" of a magick "greenhouse gas" (e.g. CO2) in "the atmosphere", that is causing "re-radiation" which is causing "the surface" to get increasingly warmer. --- Essentially, you are attempting to redistribute thermal energy from "the atmosphere" to "the surface" and then claim that this redistribution of thermal energy from one part of Earth to another part of Earth somehow magickally increases Earth's temperature as a whole. --- You can't redistribute 3 apples from one basket to another basket and then claim that you now have 3 more apples than you did before.

The sun warms the earth

If you would've stopped here, then you would've been correct.

primarily through short-wave high energy radiation on the UV end of the spectrum.

There is no 'wavelength' criteria in the Stefan Boltzmann Law, so this is irrelevant. The SB Law applies to ALL wavelengths.

This energy is absorbed by rocks and the earth's surface and is "down-converted"

This is yet ANOTHER meaningless buzzword.

to IR (long wave length, lower energy radiation) which is re-emitted as heat from the surface of the earth.

There is no "re-emitting" happening. The photons that were absorbed are already destroyed. And you have no clue what 'heat' is.

The IR photons (heat)

Those are not interchangeable terms.

then starts its path out through the atmosphere back into space to keep the planet in equilibrium with regards to energy.

So if Earth is "in equilibrium", as you admit here, then how is Earth "increasing in temperature"? Wouldn't an increasing temperature mean that Earth is no longer "in equilibrium"?

On its way out of the atmosphere it encounters molecules like CO2 which have the proper chemical bonds to ABSORB IR (things like O2 and N2 which make up the majority of our atmosphere do not absorb IR in any real significant manner). The greenhouse gases delay the IR photons from escaping. The IR photon absorbed by one CO2 molecule is then re-radiated back out and absorbed by another etc etc. The level at which the IR photon makes it back out into space is pushed higher and higher in the atmosphere where there are fewer gas molecules and the transmission out into space is less efficient.

So, IOW, you're essentially just rehashing the "magick blanket argument"? You cannot "trap heat", dude.

Et voila we have global warming.

Nope. You just have a wacky religion based on the acceptance of meaningless buzzwords and on the denial of logic, science, and mathematics.

You can't "trap" heat.
You can't create energy out of nothing.
You can't generate additional thermal energy by simply redistributing existing thermal energy.
You can't alter the terms of the SB Law.
You can't use a remote control to "pause" and "resume" physics.

We

Don't drag ME into your Marxist "we"......

know this is our fault

Your continued and willful denial of logic, science, and mathematics is YOUR fault and YOUR fault ALONE.

because the CHEMISTRY OF THE EXCESS CO2 has a fingerprint we can measure to show human origin. We also know this from satellite studies of earth's emission spectra showing the CO2 and other greenhouse gas absorption bands in action.

We know this isn't primarily a NATURAL effect because all the natural effects we know of have been characterized sufficiently such that we can't explain the warming using ONLY the natural effects.

Now, please ignore this or puke out your usual bullshit, but don't expect any more from me. You aren't smart enough for any of it.

Yeah, I'm sick of all of your meaningless buzzwords at this point. You're trying to sound smart, but you're not actually saying anything meaningful other than the fact that you're trying to increase Earth's temperature by redistributing already existing thermal energy from one part of Earth into another part of Earth. That doesn't increase Earth's temperature. Then you try to accept the fact that Earth is in equilibrium even though you've already denied that fact both before and after you brought that fact up.

 

[Daylight63]

I want SOMEBODY, ANYBODY to do it. So far, nobody has been able to do it.

Ahhhhh, the ol' "you're too stupid to understand" mantra. Isn't that one getting a bit wore out by now?

So, IOW, YOU have no intention of discussing it.

Okay, so you're referring to the WHOLE PLANET (so this includes its surface AND its atmosphere... IOW, this includes ANY AND ALL PARTS OF Earth).

Great. Now this is where you need to explain to the class from WHERE is the additional thermal energy coming from that is required in order to warm Earth.

"Excess CO2" and "greenhouse gases" are both meaningless buzzwords. There is no such thing as "excess CO2". A colder gas (CO2) cannot increase the temperature of a warmer surface. The direction of heat is 'hot to cold', not vice versa.

"The atmosphere" is a part of Earth, remember......

Yet ANOTHER meaningless buzzword.

Nonsensical thought based on a meaningless buzzword.

1) You have yet to tell anyone where the ADDITIONAL THERMAL ENERGY that is required to increase Earth's temperature is coming from.

2) "The surface" is a part of Earth, remember... So what you have proposed so far is that, since there's "too much" of a magick "greenhouse gas" (e.g. CO2) in "the atmosphere", that is causing "re-radiation" which is causing "the surface" to get increasingly warmer. --- Essentially, you are attempting to redistribute thermal energy from "the atmosphere" to "the surface" and then claim that this redistribution of thermal energy from one part of Earth to another part of Earth somehow magickally increases Earth's temperature as a whole. --- You can't redistribute 3 apples from one basket to another basket and then claim that you now have 3 more apples than you did before.

If you would've stopped here, then you would've been correct.

There is no 'wavelength' criteria in the Stefan Boltzmann Law, so this is irrelevant. The SB Law applies to ALL wavelengths.

This is yet ANOTHER meaningless buzzword.

There is no "re-emitting" happening. The photons that were absorbed are already destroyed. And you have no clue what 'heat' is.

Those are not interchangeable terms.

So if Earth is "in equilibrium", as you admit here, then how is Earth "increasing in temperature"? Wouldn't an increasing temperature mean that Earth is no longer "in equilibrium"?

So, IOW, you're essentially just rehashing the "magick blanket argument"? You cannot "trap heat", dude.

Nope. You just have a wacky religion based on the acceptance of meaningless buzzwords and on the denial of logic, science, and mathematics.

You can't "trap" heat.
You can't create energy out of nothing.
You can't generate additional thermal energy by simply redistributing existing thermal energy.
You can't alter the terms of the SB Law.
You can't use a remote control to "pause" and "resume" physics.

Don't drag ME into your Marxist "we"......

Your continued and willful denial of logic, science, and mathematics is YOUR fault and YOUR fault ALONE.

Yeah, I'm sick of all of your meaningless buzzwords at this point. You're trying to sound smart, but you're not actually saying anything meaningful other than the fact that you're trying to increase Earth's temperature by redistributing already existing thermal energy from one part of Earth into another part of Earth. That doesn't increase Earth's temperature. Then you try to accept the fact that Earth is in equilibrium even though you've already denied that fact both before and after you brought that fact up.

Glad to see you didn't understand any of it and you just reiterated the usual trash that Into the Night spouts.

THIS is why it is not worthwhile discussing these topics with you because you don't even know the basics.

 

[gfm7175]

Do you think you can do better than Daylight?

My money (a very safe bet) is going on no. He's already had 15 pages to inform this forum of the "inner workings" of "global warming".

 

[gfm7175]

Glad to see you didn't understand any of it

You can't fix your own issues by blaming ME for them......

and you just reiterated the usual trash that Into the Night spouts.

Science is not "trash", dude... and neither are the roughly 77 million people who voted for Trump.

THIS is why it is not worthwhile discussing these topics with you because you don't even know the basics.

Again, you can't fix your own issues by blaming ME for them.......

 

[Daylight63]

You can't fix your own issues by blaming ME for them......

Science is not "trash", dude... and neither are the roughly 77 million people who voted for Trump.

Again, you can't fix your own issues by blaming ME for them.......

I mean, c'mon dude. You said it was a "rehash of the magic blanket" idea when it was exactly anything BUT that. But you didn't understand what I wrote. You don't understand the topic.

if you did you'd know what I was talking about.

 

[Daylight63]

You're just playing a word game again.

The word 'health' is also a subjective description. It contains no objective information of any kind. There is no value associated with 'health' anymore than any value associated with 'climate'.

Health doesn't change. Neither does climate.

This thread is about Global Warming (otherwise known as the buzzphrase 'climate change').

Now, do you want to present a mechanism by which the Earth is warming? Do you think you can do better than Daylight?

What is it with your posts? Your posts are always so stupidly weird. Not weird in a fun way or insightful way. You just claimed health can't change.

Are you really high and you simply THINK these are deeeeeeep thoughts?

 

[ZenMode]

You're just playing a word game again.

The word 'health' is also a subjective description. It contains no objective information of any kind. There is no value associated with 'health' anymore than any value associated with 'climate'.

Health doesn't change. Neither does climate.

This thread is about Global Warming (otherwise known as the buzzphrase 'climate change').

Now, do you want to present a mechanism by which the Earth is warming? Do you think you can do better than Daylight?

Health is subjective to some degree, but there also things that we can objectively measure that are related to overall health.

Climate doesn't have one single measure, but we can objectively measure criteria that go into overall climate. Just like health can, and does, change, climate can and likely does change.

We've all had relatives whose health has changed. We see the change. Doctors, because of their knowledge and tools, are able to apply objective measures to the things non-doctors see and recognize as changing.