T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Then feel free to list some sources that back your claims up.
Science from the other side of Climate Change
- Thread starter ZenMode
- Start date
Into the Night
Verified User
A blanket works by reducing heat, Void.
Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.
Putting a blanket on a dead body does not make the dead body warmer.
There is no blanket around Earth.
You are AGAIN ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Into the Night
Verified User
Logic doesn't need 'sources'. It simply exists. You just want to deny logic, mathematics, and several theories of science.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Climate can change. Learn Mandarin.
You haven't presented any laws of thermodynamics
Equations aren't what they aren't.
Science isn't theories.
science and mathematics can't be discarded. Void.
Climate can change. Go learn Chinese. Words of any type are unable to work.
Science isn't laws. Science isn't theories. Learn Spanish.
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Yep. It's called a Definist fallacy or Socratic fallacy. It's a special form of begging the question.
Into the Night
Verified User
Climate cannot change. Go learn English.
Mandarin isn't used here.
Blatant lie.
Try English. It works better.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Yet you discard both both of them.
Climate cannot change. Go learn English.
Chinese is not used here.
Try English. It works better.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Any theory transcribed into mathematical form is called a 'law'. Go learn English.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Spanish isn't used here.
Into the Night
Verified User
Fallacy fallacy. Denial of logic. Random phrases. No apparent coherency.
No matter what you do, the 1st law of thermodynamics which you ignore is still there.
Attempting to deny logic and mathematics won't help you.
ZenMode
Well-known member
climate can change. Go learn Aramaic.
Mandarin is used here. Void.
Obvious truth.
English isn't work.
Science isn't theories. Go learn Chinese.
Blatant lie. Void.
Climate can change.
Chinese is used here
English isn't work.
Science isn't theories in any language. Void.
Into the Night
Verified User
Random phrases. No apparent coherency. I guess your anger makes you incapable of posting anything sensible.
ZenMode
Well-known member
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And no matter how many detours laden rabbit holes they dive into, our resident climate change deniers STILL cannot/will not honestly and succinctly explain answer a simple question: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/t...er-side-of-climate-change.224895/post-6247877
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Well, I'm in the anthropogenic CO2 is not a serious cause of climate change camp but that doesn't mean I believe the climate can't change and that human activity plays no role. That's just for clarity.
Anyone claiming "The climate cannot change" is either a moron or a fool--and likely both.
Daylight63
Verified User
Based on what, exactly?
Here's what we KNOW for certain:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing IR (that has been known since the early 1800's)
2. CO2 and other greenhouse gases make up a small part of the atmosphere but are the reason the surface of the earth is about 30degC hotter than if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
3. There is currently an increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
4. We know chemically that the majority of this additional added CO2 is coming from human activities.
So why WOULDN'T it lead to more warming?
Agreed.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
And has been around for 4.5 billion years on Earth. What's your point?
On a geologic timescale, that isn't true. It can be demonstrated that CO2 levels and planetary temperatures don't share any strong correlation.
CO2 and temperature decoupling at the million-year scale during the Cretaceous Greenhouse - Scientific Reports
CO2 is considered the main greenhouse gas involved in the current global warming and the primary driver of temperature throughout Earth’s history. However, the soundness of this relationship across time scales and during different climate states of the Earth remains uncertain. Here we explore...
www.nature.com
A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today
Scientists have produced a new curve of how atmospheric carbon dioxide affects climate. It makes clear that its effects can be long lasting.
news.climate.columbia.edu
Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. paper
Guest post by Michael Pacnik Especially in the context of recent discussion of the Shakun et al. paper, a look at other sources for temperature history versus CO2 can be helpful, examining timescal…
wattsupwiththat.com
There is also a massive increase in contrails since the 1940's resulting in cirrus and altocirrus cloud cover at 80+% of the northern hemisphere (persistent spreading contrails) and slightly less in the southern hemisphere, as but one alternative to that. Water vapor in the form of clouds overwhelms CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Or not.
Because slightly more of nothing is still nothing. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Daylight63
Verified User
It goes up and down and the earth's temperature goes up and down as well because of it. Not always the only reason for climate changes but one that is real.
That's possibly because CO2 is not the ONLY greenhouse gas and changes in earth surface temperatures are NOT solely due to greenhouse gases.
Gotta note here that H2O and CO2 behave VERY differently in the atmosphere.
When we have excess H2O in the atmosphere the excess can quickly be eliminated through the HYDROLOGIC CYCLE which acts quickly to rebalance the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. So any additional impact from it by itself would be limited. It is considered more of a FEEDBACK than a forcing.
CO2 on the other hand has to use the CARBON CYCLE to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. It is a much longer process which means excess CO2 stays in the atmosphere and maintains its warming.
Let's not get bogged down in your disbelief because a number looks small to you. You have no way to estimating what the actual forcing value is. Scientists, however, have done exactly that.
It is a measure called CLIMATE SENSITIVITY and it measures the amount of warming one would expect from a doubling of a given greenhouse gas. The climate forcing for CO2 is actually reasonably high. A doubling of this small amount of material will still be quite small but it will result in anywhere from a 1.5degC-4.5degC increase in average surface temperature.
That number may also look small to you. 1 to 4 degrees? Doesn't sound bad. But that's the GLOBAL AVERAGE meaning that it is actually ENORMOUS in effect. Moving the GLOBAL AVERAGE of the entire planet by 1-4 deg is almost unimaginable in scope of tragedy. Our society is pretty much toast if that happens.
Diogenes
You have insufficient privileges to post facts
The New York Times Magazine published an interview with Vaclav Smil, probably the world's greatest expert on energy-where it comes from, how we harness it, what it costs, and why it costs what it does.
Smil's new book, "How the World Really Works: The Science Behind How We Got Here and Where We're Going" occasioned the interview.
The article "This Eminent Scientist Says Climate Activists Need to Get Real" is delightful to read. (For climate realists.)
New York Times Magazine writer David Marchese squirms to escape the implications of everything Smil says. He tried desperately to get Smil to agree that climate change is a looming catastrophe and we simply must act now to avert it by replacing fossil-fuel energy with wind, solar, and other "renewable" sources.
But Smil won't take the bait.
He says emissions cuts "are unrealistic." They don't take into account the vast scale of the energy needed to serve even the basic needs of the world's roughly 8 billion people-food, clothing, shelter, transportation, protection from cold and heat, and all the industry that makes those things. And they don't consider what's necessary to produce and distribute all that energy.
Marchese persisted: "But aren't goals necessary for orienting our actions?" Smil parried, "What's the point of setting goals which cannot be achieved? It's misleading and doesn't serve any use because we will not achieve it, and then people say, What's the point? I'm all for goals but for strict realism in setting them."
Marchese tried again: "but aren't there credible pathways to decarbonizing the grid?"
A swing and a miss.
Smil replied: "Germany, after nearly half a trillion dollars, in 20 years went from getting 84 percent of their primary energy from fossil fuels to 76 percent. Can you tell me how you'd go from 76 percent fossil to zero by 2030, 2035? I'm sorry, the reality is what it is."
And then there's Smil's parting thought: "There are these billions of people who want to burn more fossil fuel. There is very little you can do about that. They will burn it unless you give them something different. But who will give them something different? You have to recognize the realities of the world, and the realities of the world tend to be unpleasant, discouraging and depressing."
We could sum up Smil's message in the words of Thomas Robert Malthus 200 years ago: "What cannot be done, will not be done."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/25/magazine/vaclav-smil-interview.html
Smil's new book, "How the World Really Works: The Science Behind How We Got Here and Where We're Going" occasioned the interview.
The article "This Eminent Scientist Says Climate Activists Need to Get Real" is delightful to read. (For climate realists.)
New York Times Magazine writer David Marchese squirms to escape the implications of everything Smil says. He tried desperately to get Smil to agree that climate change is a looming catastrophe and we simply must act now to avert it by replacing fossil-fuel energy with wind, solar, and other "renewable" sources.
But Smil won't take the bait.
He says emissions cuts "are unrealistic." They don't take into account the vast scale of the energy needed to serve even the basic needs of the world's roughly 8 billion people-food, clothing, shelter, transportation, protection from cold and heat, and all the industry that makes those things. And they don't consider what's necessary to produce and distribute all that energy.
Marchese persisted: "But aren't goals necessary for orienting our actions?" Smil parried, "What's the point of setting goals which cannot be achieved? It's misleading and doesn't serve any use because we will not achieve it, and then people say, What's the point? I'm all for goals but for strict realism in setting them."
Marchese tried again: "but aren't there credible pathways to decarbonizing the grid?"
A swing and a miss.
Smil replied: "Germany, after nearly half a trillion dollars, in 20 years went from getting 84 percent of their primary energy from fossil fuels to 76 percent. Can you tell me how you'd go from 76 percent fossil to zero by 2030, 2035? I'm sorry, the reality is what it is."
And then there's Smil's parting thought: "There are these billions of people who want to burn more fossil fuel. There is very little you can do about that. They will burn it unless you give them something different. But who will give them something different? You have to recognize the realities of the world, and the realities of the world tend to be unpleasant, discouraging and depressing."
We could sum up Smil's message in the words of Thomas Robert Malthus 200 years ago: "What cannot be done, will not be done."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/25/magazine/vaclav-smil-interview.html
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You should have stated that your WACKY religious dogma obligates you to believe that the earth's temperature is changing. Of course, you have no rational basis for why any rational adult should also believe it.
Nope. Why you believe the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is changing is a psychological case study. You have no rational basis for such a belief.
I notice your qualification "anthropogenic" of the type of CO2 in question, as though CO2 molecules come with little XML tags denoting their source of origin. Too funny.
CO2 is CO2. There is no difference. Your position is that CO2 is using its magical superpower to defy thermodynamics to specifically increase earth's average global equilibrium temperature, and you believe this because your thought-masters have ordered you to believe it. You subsequently found some disinformation on the internet, written by fellow members of your congregation, that corroborates what you have been ordered to believe, and you naturally presumed that it was all true ... specifically because it was on the internet.
No, you don't "question" this whatsoever, because if you were to do so, you would be openly admitting that you have absolutely no reason for the WACKY beliefs that you have.
That's what I say about all of your posts.
You don't understand what I wrote because you are mathematically incompetent. I can't help you there. I will mention, however, that you claim a change in temperature, and you can only claim that after having "subtracted" one temperature from another and realized a non-zero result. Actually, nevermind, it is not my intention to force you to suddenly learn math that is several grades above your level. Just know that nobody knows the earth's temperature to any usable accuracy, and that no one can therefore know if the earth's temperature is changing to any usable accuracy.
This is where you emphatically assert, as all warmizombies do, that of course NASA knows the earth's temperature because ... ummmm .... because, uh, ... satellites!
Once you officially make that claim, the fun begins.
There is no such thing as a global/planetary climate, so no, you don't "know" that this nonexistent thing somehow changes. A "global climate" is just WACKY religious doctrine that you similarly cannot unambiguously define for scientific scrutiny, and no, you cannot somehow "demonstrate" it. You should be embarrased that you actually fell for the disinformation without calling booooolsch't.
Too funny. "Albedo" is a term for a quantity, it is not a "principle."
Emissivity is the efficiency of a body. "Albedo" is therefore simply the extent to which the body is not efficient. It is not needed and hence, is not included in black body science, but is used by scientifically illiterate morons who only know how to regurgitate what they have been ordered to believe.
All energy being transferred to a body is initially external to the body. You aren't making a very good showing.
Anyway, no. Emissivity is the quantity of importance.
"Albedo" doesn't exist in black body science. Only completely scientifically illiterate morons think that "albedo" somehow replaced emissivity.
Nope. You are required to define all of your terms, or your argument is discarded.
Your argument is discarded.
Nope. You have not stated any problem. You can't jump right to discussing "solutions" for which there is no problem without having your argument summarily dismissed.
So ... why don't you begin by explaining why you believe the WACKY Climate Change shit that you worship? Why don't you state this "problem" that you claim needs a solution? Is it because you are fully aware that you are the only one who can "see" your religious spirits and demons?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
There are nonetheless two problems with this book:
1. The title implies that science is discussed, but no science is discussed.
2. The term "climate change" is left completely undefined, like a religious term.