T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
No, your examples weren't a definition, they were examples. By the way, right now in Phoenix it is cool and dry.
Science from the other side of Climate Change
- Thread starter ZenMode
- Start date
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You should learn what a red herring fallacy is as well. What I posted is an aside.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Red Herring Fallacy, Explained
The red herring fallacy, one of the many logical fallacies you might encounter in essays, speeches,…
www.grammarly.com
ZenMode
Well-known member
ZenMode
Well-known member
And the word games roll on....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yeah, you and your ilk do play games ... like ignoring FACTS that don't fit your narrative. Post #242 is a prime example.
Into the Night
Verified User
Fallacy fallacy. No redirection, strawman, or 'red herring' occurred.
Into the Night
Verified User
RQAA. Go back and read it again, bozo.
Into the Night
Verified User
LIF. Grow up.
Into the Night
Verified User
Don't play word games, bozo. He defined climate once again for you.
Into the Night
Verified User
Fallacy fallacy. Hallucination.
Red Herring Fallacy, Explained
The red herring fallacy, one of the many logical fallacies you might encounter in essays, speeches,…
Into the Night
Verified User
You can't laugh your way out of your problem, Void.
Into the Night
Verified User
As is typical, the thread has been derailed by idiots playing word games and arguing over logic they deny, all while claiming that climate can somehow 'change'.
The very phrase 'climate change' doesn't even make any sense, and is a replacement synonym for the Church of Global Warming.
Climate is a subjective word, giving a general description only. There are NO value in any climate. It has no temperature, no precipitation value, no cloud cover value, no barometric pressure, NOTHING. A climate contains NO objective values. It cannot change.
A desert climate will always be a desert climate. A marine climate will always be a marine climate.
The Church of Global Warming believes that 'terraforming' (a term from a science fiction show) is actually possible.
It tries to describe an increased temperature of the Earth (which requires more energy) by a mere presence of a Magick Gas or Vapor. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U, where 'E' is energy, and 'U' is work (or force over time). The presence of a gas or vapor is not a force, so 'U' is zero.
It tries to 'trap' heat, as if 'heat' were some form of energy (it isn't). It goes on to describe Magick Blankets that let energy in, but don't let it out. This is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and humunculus fallacy. The 2nd law: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is 'entropy', or available energy for work, and 't' is time. You can never decrease entropy in any system, open or closed.
Heat cannot be trapped, or slowed, or contained in anything. Heat is NOT energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Since energy always dissipates, heat always flows from 'hot' to 'cold'...NEVER the reverse. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas...EVER.
It tries to 'trap' light, preventing a material from radiating light in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It tries to impose a 'frequency' component on the light, or claims some Magickal Value for 'albedo', which isn't even used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4, where 'r' is light radiated in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature in deg K.
To measure emissivity (how well a surface absorbs or emits light), you must first accurately know the temperature of the surface. It is not possible to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to measure temperature.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The very phrase 'climate change' doesn't even make any sense, and is a replacement synonym for the Church of Global Warming.
Climate is a subjective word, giving a general description only. There are NO value in any climate. It has no temperature, no precipitation value, no cloud cover value, no barometric pressure, NOTHING. A climate contains NO objective values. It cannot change.
A desert climate will always be a desert climate. A marine climate will always be a marine climate.
The Church of Global Warming believes that 'terraforming' (a term from a science fiction show) is actually possible.
It tries to describe an increased temperature of the Earth (which requires more energy) by a mere presence of a Magick Gas or Vapor. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U, where 'E' is energy, and 'U' is work (or force over time). The presence of a gas or vapor is not a force, so 'U' is zero.
It tries to 'trap' heat, as if 'heat' were some form of energy (it isn't). It goes on to describe Magick Blankets that let energy in, but don't let it out. This is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and humunculus fallacy. The 2nd law: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is 'entropy', or available energy for work, and 't' is time. You can never decrease entropy in any system, open or closed.
Heat cannot be trapped, or slowed, or contained in anything. Heat is NOT energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Since energy always dissipates, heat always flows from 'hot' to 'cold'...NEVER the reverse. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas...EVER.
It tries to 'trap' light, preventing a material from radiating light in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It tries to impose a 'frequency' component on the light, or claims some Magickal Value for 'albedo', which isn't even used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4, where 'r' is light radiated in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature in deg K.
To measure emissivity (how well a surface absorbs or emits light), you must first accurately know the temperature of the surface. It is not possible to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to measure temperature.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Your misunderstanding is rooted in your belief that whenever your short attention span causes you to become distracted, that it is somehow a "tactic" on somebody else's part.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Yeah, she actually did. And she is just the latest in a long line of intellectually void fools to say such things. Algore the Prevaricator is famous for his hocum and panicked claims.
Ah, just as "New York City would be underwater by 2000" (Albert Gore) That the Himalayan mountains would be snow free by 1998. (The lying fuckwads have revived this one and set the clock to 2100 now). That England would never again see snow after 2002
It's the kind of moronic bullshit that the doomsday scam always uses.
The problem with the AGW cult is stupid people who made no end of immediate predictions.
Hansen is a special kind of stupid fuck - he makes 10 year end of the world predictions every 5 years or so.
But as DUMB as James Hansen is, and he is dumb as a stone, those who actually believe his idiocy are far more stupid.
Then there is this fucking fraud:
Are you, since you are clearly stupid as a stump and have fallen prey to con artists who were proven frauds decades ago - but you still BLEEVE
Daylight63
Verified User
Then you'll show me exactly where she said the earth will end in 12 years.
And even then I need to remind you AOC is NOT a scientist. The scientists NEVER SAID IT. NOT ONCE. NOT ONE OF THEM.
I am fascinated, though, that you were able to COMPLETELY IGNORE THE SRES LINK I PROVIDED WHICH ACTUALLY TELLS YOU WHAT THE SCIENTIST THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE.
I guarantee you 10000000000000000000000000000% that at no point in it does it say ANYTHING about the world ending in 12 years.
NOT A THING.
Feel free to check for yourself (assuming you can actual read):
Or I can just continue humiliating your over your caveman religion.
The priests of AGW have nothing to do with actual science. These are frauds and crooks. Astrologers have more claim to science than these clowns.
I've been engaged with frauds and fools on this for 40 years.
Hey, at least you have a great track record - over 50 years the clown brigade has yet to get even ONE thing right...
But as long as the stupid keep giving them money, they'll be happy to keep feeding you utter shit.
Into the Night
Verified User
He already did. RQAA.
She thinks she is!
Correct. Only priests from the Church of Global Warming have.
Science is not a crystal ball or fortune telling device.
Argument from randU fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Word games.
Daylight63
Verified User
Please provide me with the ACTUAL paper. I can actually read science papers since I am a trained scientist. Please share the paper.
Because what I see here is NOT a prediction about the ultimate end of the earth, but rather something related to what scientists call a "Clathrate Gun". This is an idea that destabilizing clathrates (which form in deep cold water where ice recrystallizes in a cubic form encasing methane, a VERY VERY powerful greenhouse gas), could cause a massive pulse of extremely powerful (as in about 20X more powerful than CO2 as I recall) could very quickly speed up climate change in a CATASTROPHIC SENSE. (Don't worry if you don't understand crystallography or chemistry, I can help you find resources that will explain these things to you in a simple manner you will be able to grasp)
Of course I would need for you to share the full article with me, but you certainly don't understand the topic. Meanwhile I do.
Why do you run so fast to POP SCI articles rather than taking it directly from the horse's mouth? Why do you avoid what the SCIENTISTS say in preference to what some non-scientist journo in the UK thinks the scientists mean?
All you need to know about how your government REALLY feels about the reality of climate change you can determine by seeing what people who don't have a dog in the fight as to whether it is real or not are acting. The military clearly thinks it's a real thing. You don't.
The military is trying to protect you. I hope you'll let them.
And I've been a trained earth scientist and chemist for 42. I know more about this stuff than you do because I READ THE ACTUAL SCIENCE, not just the pop-sci shit dumbed down for non-scientists.