Science from the other side of Climate Change

[Into the Night]

ITN said it, not me. He keep repeating it. Also he repeat that one cannot trap heat.

Wearing a blanket can trap heat.

Blankets don't trap heat.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, you are.

LIF. Grow up.

scroll down to 3.1.2

Surface Temperature of the Earth | Physics in a Nutshell

www.physics-in-a-nutshell.com

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Are you really trying to say that optical pyrometers don't work and that the whole field of spectroscopy is wrong? Are you really trying to tell us that?

You can't use spectroscopy to measure temperature of a planet.

Ask Astro: How do scientists determine the chemical compositions of the planets and stars? | Astronomy.com

categories:Exoplanets, Planets | tags:Ask Astro, Magazine, Planetary Science

www.astronomy.com

You can't use spectroscopy on a reflective object.

You really are delusionally insane here.

Mantra 1d. Lame.

If that were true, nobody would bother using satellites.

Satellites aren't Magick, dude. They cannot measure the temperature of the Earth.

Thankfully, you are full of shit and smarter people than you--by far--do use them to get accurate measurements.

Satellites cannot measure the temperature of Earth.

No, you would be wrong. Dead flat wrong. The science of spectroscopy proves it and has for over 100 years now.

You cannot use spectroscopy to determine temperature of a reflective object. You are denying Wien's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law now.

 

[ZenMode]

Blankets don't trap heat.

according to you, a blanket should have no impact on the temperature of the air between the blanket and the person wearing a it.

 

[Into the Night]

You should start by actually learning the science you are claiming to use because right now, you're not using it and just spewing nonsense.

I have already posted the equations for you. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

And here's what climate deniers and the "scientist" on the Big Oil pay rolls STILL can't deal with:

Post in thread 'Science from the other side of Climate Change'

Dec 2, 2024

Bottom line: natural stabilizing doesn't account for about 3 centuries of increasing artificial deforestation, urbanization and industrial pollution of the air and water on a global scale. The latter greatly effects the former, whether the myopic research of climate change deniers accept it or not.

• Taichiliberal

You can't create energy out of nothing. Climate cannot change. So-called 'big oil' has nothing to do with this.

 

[ZenMode]

LIF. Grow up.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

You can't use spectroscopy to measure temperature of a planet.

You can't use spectroscopy on a reflective object.

Mantra 1d. Lame.

Satellites aren't Magick, dude. They cannot measure the temperature of the Earth.

Satellites cannot measure the temperature of Earth.

You cannot use spectroscopy to determine temperature of a reflective object.

@T.A. Gardner

"It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth."

This is what IBDaMannWhoIsConfused and Into the Ignorance do. They state opinion as fact so that they never have to actually defend their position.

"According to scientists, the climate is changing"

- climate can't change

"According to scientists, the temperature of the Earth is rising".

- It's not possible to measure the temperature of the earth

"You think you know more than NASA/climate scientists"

- There are no NASA/climate scientists

That is a short list of a very, very, very long list of examples and it's not an exaggeration.

It's the height to delusion and confirmation bias.

 

[Into the Night]

I accept both.

Blatant lie.

That doesn't mean I accept YIUR interpretation or application of them.

There is no 'interpretation' of an equation. It's just the equation. You simply choose to ignore it.

You and ITN have a version of science

Science has no versions.

which you claim is correct and you claim it's correct

based on YOUR understanding and application which I have absolutely no reason to accept as accurate.

Okay...what is incorrect about any of the equations I have presented?

The mental gymnastics you both have to go through to make your interpretation and application work is honestly embarrassing, which is why you consistently have to a) avoid questions b) stop the conversation at specific points.

There is no 'interpretation'.

ITN believes, apparently based on nothing but his own imagination, that the Earth's atmosphere currently has no impact on high and low temps.

You cannot create energy out of nothing, Void. Strawman fallacy.

That claim flies in the face of what actual scientists around the world believe to be true, not only about the Earth but other planets.

You don't get to speak for everyone, Void. Omniscience fallacy.

If you're going to make that claim, you need to back it up,

Already did. RQAA.

because what sane person is going to believe a baseless claims

Theories of science are not baseless.

made by some internet forum keyboard jockey

I didn't write the theories of science that you ignore.

or what ACTUAL scientists believe?

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You only get to speak for you.

Nobody would, unless you're gullible or just not very smart.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

That claim is one of 20 he, and you, state as fact without support.

Learn what 'fact' means. I have already presented you with the theories that you desperately try to ignore.

That's not how this works.

You can't nullify any theory of science that way, Void!

 

[Into the Night]

You've given me no reason to believe you understand 1)climate change,

Climate cannot change. Go learn English.

2) Any of the law of thermodynamics

I have already presented the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics to you. You just want to ignore them.

or 3) any of the other scientific laws you reference.

The equations are what they are.

Since you've provided nothing but repeated, unsupported claims,

A theory of science supports itself, Void.

I will continue to not believe your claims.

You therefore deny and discard science and mathematics.

You can't prove, as you have done repeatedly, that you don't understand how Climate Change is believed to work

Climate cannot change. Go learn English. Buzzwords don't work.

and then also claim that it violates any of the laws you claim it does. You're just piling ignorance upon ignorance.

I already know you discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have also denied Kirchoff's law.
You deny science.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

"It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth."

This is what IBDaMannWhoIsConfused and Into the Ignorance do. They state opinion as fact so that they never have to actually defend their position.

"According to scientists, the climate is changing"

- climate can't change

"According to scientists, the temperature of the Earth is rising".

- It's not possible to measure the temperature of the earth

"You think you know more than NASA/climate scientists"

- There are no NASA/climate scientists

That is a short list of a very, very, very long list of examples and it's not an exaggeration.

It's the height to delusion and confirmation bias.

Yea, I know. That's why I generally take George Carlin's advice on this:

 

[Into the Night]

No. I don't buy Gorebal Warming either. That is, I don't accept that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a serious and runaway increase in global temperatures.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Albedo and emissivity of black bodies encompasses the same science. It is you that is listening to the actual science here.

Albedo is not used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured.

What I am specifically saying is you are a scientific illiterate.

Inversion fallacy.

No, I'm not humiliated at all.

You should be.

Gorebal Warming is almost certainly a farce.

Yet you say it happens. You are still locked in paradox.

And while human activity probably does have some impact on planetary climate,

There is no such thing as a 'planetary climate'. Go learn English.

it isn't due to a single cause and the solution shouldn't be based on equally bad science, economics, and politics. That's what the Gorebal Warming crowd is doing.

There is no such thing as 'bad' science. Science has no emotion. Religion isn't science.

You clearly don't understand logic either.

I am an expert.

Nor do you understand the use of satellites for observing climate, environment, etc.

No satellite has the capability to measure the temperature of Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured. Satellites don't observe any climate. There is nothing to observe. Go learn English.

They have seriously good uses in those areas while you dismiss them out of hand as worthless without evidence.

False dichotomy fallacy.

Satellites are not worthless (except the dead ones!). They provide navigation, telecommunications, make a great camera (including weather satellites, which are taking pictures of clouds and storms). No satellite can measure temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not Magick.

 

[Into the Night]

The sad truth is pseudoscience was given equal footing with real science on TV and the news.

Religion is not science, Sybil.

I remember when PBS was giving anti-vaxxers equal time with real medical professionals.

'Expert' worship. Void reference fallacy.

I thought it was dangerous, but did not realize how dangerous it would be.

Puhleeze. Your Church of Covid fear mongering doesn't work, Sybil.

Fuck, Daffy Donald is nominating a weird anti-vaxxer to run our healthcare.

It's sad that you live in so much fear and paranoia.

Over 97 percent of scientists say global wanting is real and a bad problem.

You don't get to speak for everyone, Sybil. Argument from randU fallacy. Omniscience fallacy.

What 'global warming'? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, or to create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring statistical mathematics and the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

That goofball 3 percent gets the floor to express their crazy beliefs. It was a mistake.

Science isn't religion. Argument from randU fallacy. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Albedo is not used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured.

Inversion fallacy.

You should be.

Yet you say it happens. You are still locked in paradox.

There is no such thing as a 'planetary climate'. Go learn English.

There is no such thing as 'bad' science. Science has no emotion. Religion isn't science.


I am an expert.

No satellite has the capability to measure the temperature of Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured. Satellites don't observe any climate. There is nothing to observe. Go learn English.

False dichotomy fallacy.

Satellites are not worthless (except the dead ones!). They provide navigation, telecommunications, make a great camera (including weather satellites, which are taking pictures of clouds and storms). No satellite can measure temperature of the Earth. Satellites are not Magick.

Nothing like being proven right almost immediately!

 

[Into the Night]

I can explain tenets just fine. People who aren't pretending to be dumb can still understand them even if they don't agree.

I understand the tenets of your religion. They are why you discard science and mathematics.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Nothing like being proven right almost immediately!

Note, there is no such thing as an "inversion fallacy." I pointed that out to ITN earlier. The closest two fallacies are:

Denying the Antecedent or Confusion of the inverse

These take the form of:

If A then (or implies) B
Not A
Therefore, not B

Example:

If you are homeless, then you are a bum.
You are not homeless
Therefore, you are a bum.

 

[Into the Night]

You want me to engage in this one side monument to obtusity?

Fine:



You committed a strawman, or else your mind operates on a narrow scope (as I said of autistic people) so you can't keep two physical laws in your head at the same time.

Fallacy fallacy. IBdaMann never used a strawman at all. Others have, though.

Gardner never claimed albedo appeared in the stefan boltzmann equation.

YES HE DID!

He was expanding on a basic point you and ITN can't seem to grasp which is that there are other equations, other analyses, other phenomenon that must be considered to understand the behavior of the system.

Complexity fallacy. Void reference fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

You are the kid who heard "assume the surface is frictionless" in one problem (shortly before failing and dropping out of the school) and then declared that car brakes are myths.

Strawman fallacy. Mantra 30a. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

You really lack reading comprehension skills.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

I stated that the Earth's temperature is changing.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Why is open to question and research.

Science is not a 'research' or ' study'.

I clearly, and repeatedly stated, that I doubt it is due to anthropogenic CO2. I'll add, that I further question if it is due to changes in CO2 levels from all causes.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

That doesn't even make sense. Can you get someone to translate that from gibberish to English?

He is describing you.

I know the planet's climate changes over time.

Climate cannot change. Go learn English. There is no such thing as a 'planetary climate'. Go learn English.

That's clearly demonstrable.

Not possible. Climate cannot change. Go learn English.

What I believe beyond that is that the cause(s) of that change

Climate cannot change. Go learn English.

are poorly understood and that there is no single cause that can be pointed out.

Complexity fallacy.

Both are. Albedo is a well understood scientific principle.

Albedo is not a theory of science and is not used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Emissivity is related to albedo

Emissivity is not albedo. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.

when the energy being transferred to a body is external to that body.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Only a complete scientific illiterate would state "Albedo doesn't even exist."

'Albedo' is a buzzword. It has nothing to do with any theory of science.

Hello Bozo.
This is just dissembling in the form of an equivocation fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. No equivocation was done here. Equivocation is not a fallacy.

Now you try a demand for more proof fallacy also known as argument from ignorance.

He is not demanding anything. Fallacy fallacy.

Do break your arm patting yourself on the back. You're an idiot and proud of it. Good for you!

Mantra 1a. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

Yea, I know. That's why I generally take George Carlin's advice on this:

Mantra 1a. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

Nothing like being proven right almost immediately!

A fallacy is not a proof, Void. What do you think he 'proved'?

 

[Into the Night]

Note, there is no such thing as an "inversion fallacy."

There certainly is. Denial of logic.

I pointed that out to ITN earlier. The closest two fallacies are:

Denying the Antecedent or Confusion of the inverse

Redefinition fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Note, there is no such thing as an "inversion fallacy." I pointed that out to ITN earlier. The closest two fallacies are:

Denying the Antecedent or Confusion of the inverse

These take the form of:

If A then (or implies) B
Not A
Therefore, not B

Example:

If you are homeless, then you are a bum.
You are not homeless
Therefore, you are a bum.

Inversion fallacies exist. You don't understand English.

See how that works? I don't have to explain anything or defend my position... I just say it and, like the genie in the bottle, it becomes true!