Science from the other side of Climate Change

ADreamOfLiberty said:
I was not describing the greenhouse effect. I was describing the insulation that atmosphere provides even if there was no greenhouse effect (no IR absorbing gasses).
I would be curious to see your references on this.
If you provide it I will look at it.
Find supporting references then we can talk.
I'll quickly resumerize the mechanism I described, I will called it IR transparent insulation for the purposes of this discussion:

1.) Solar radiation passed through atmosphere, strikes planet geology, warms terrestrial surface
2.) IR transparent atmosphere near surface is warmed by conduction, a phase changing gas-liquid could also greatly increase this absorption of energy
3.) IR transparent atmosphere undergoes convection, randomly directed thermal radiation photons in the IR spectrum are emitted from the atmosphere, roughly half of which would return to the planet and be absorbed at the terrestrial surface.

Conclusion: This will insulate the surface as it removes some of the power that would have been directly radiated out and redirects a portion of it back towards the planet forcing more interactions before it can escape.

Now what part did you need a reference on?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can conduct heat?
Do you doubt that IR transparent gasses emit thermal radiation?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can form convection currents?
Do you doubt that IR emissions are randomly directed?
Do you doubt that impeding the flow of energy away from a system will insulate it?

These are your options for doubting this mechanism. These are your options for requiring references.


Yes and it's depleted in C13 and C14.
How do you know carbon trapped in the carbonate ooze (for example) is not similarly depleted?


You can point to whatever fractionation process in the bicarb-->carbonate reactions.
You misunderstand. I don't need to claim bicarbonate equilibrium fractionates isotopes. It needs merely to be capable of storing carbon from previous epochs where the isotope ratios were different (such as when the hydrocarbons were buried) in order to have a different ratio.

It is capable, thus without accounting for it as a source of carbon dioxide you do not have enough variables to solve the equation for man made sources.


It only appears to be a mess if you don't know the science.
But you didn't. You only claimed you did.
Non-responsive.


I believe I provided you with an explainer from a couple different sources explaining this to you.
You also claimed that your original posts contained everything needed. If that is not the case I will respond to your original arguments. Copy paste if you wish, but only if you are willing to defend what you copy paste as if it was your own thoughts.


Clearly you have a major disagreement with the experts on the subject.
Nope. Again, your primary fight is with physics and the experts.
I've spent about 40 years working in the sciences.
Appeal to authority fallacy


The impression I'm getting is you want to just say "It's all so complicated NO ONE can understand it! SO it must not be true!"
Complicated is neither true nor false. I am merely pointing out that you have not accounted for the variables you would need to in order to prove the assertions you have made.


If you don't even really know anything about it how do you have any opinion on it?
I have no opinion on "climate sensitivity" the unknown but apparently calculable quantity except that it must be derived from basic physical variables and real world measurements to have any validity and that however useful it may be it cannot contradict other sound physical analyses such as IR transparent insulation.


Again, you are so uneducated in the topic that you only THINK you have.
Well, we know you lack any real training in any of these topics.
Poisoning the well fallacy
 
I'll quickly resumerize the mechanism I described, I will called it IR transparent insulation for the purposes of this discussion:

1.) Solar radiation passed through atmosphere, strikes planet geology, warms terrestrial surface
2.) IR transparent atmosphere near surface is warmed by conduction, a phase changing gas-liquid could also greatly increase this absorption of energy
3.) IR transparent atmosphere undergoes convection, randomly directed thermal radiation photons in the IR spectrum are emitted from the atmosphere, roughly half of which would return to the planet and be absorbed at the terrestrial surface.

Conclusion: This will insulate the surface as it removes some of the power that would have been directly radiated out and redirects a portion of it back towards the planet forcing more interactions before it can escape.

Now what part did you need a reference on?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can conduct heat?
Do you doubt that IR transparent gasses emit thermal radiation?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can form convection currents?
Do you doubt that IR emissions are randomly directed?
Do you doubt that impeding the flow of energy away from a system will insulate it?

These are your options for doubting this mechanism. These are your options for requiring references.



How do you know carbon trapped in the carbonate ooze (for example) is not similarly depleted?



You misunderstand. I don't need to claim bicarbonate equilibrium fractionates isotopes. It needs merely to be capable of storing carbon from previous epochs where the isotope ratios were different (such as when the hydrocarbons were buried) in order to have a different ratio.

It is capable, thus without accounting for it as a source of carbon dioxide you do not have enough variables to solve the equation for man made sources.




Non-responsive.



You also claimed that your original posts contained everything needed. If that is not the case I will respond to your original arguments. Copy paste if you wish, but only if you are willing to defend what you copy paste as if it was your own thoughts.





Appeal to authority fallacy



Complicated is neither true nor false. I am merely pointing out that you have not accounted for the variables you would need to in order to prove the assertions you have made.



I have no opinion on "climate sensitivity" the unknown but apparently calculable quantity except that it must be derived from basic physical variables and real world measurements to have any validity and that however useful it may be it cannot contradict other sound physical analyses such as IR transparent insulation.



Poisoning the well fallacy
I really have to insist at this point that you provide just any support for your conjectures.
 
I really have to insist at this point that you provide just any support for your conjectures.
Now what part did you need a reference on?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can conduct heat?
Do you doubt that IR transparent gasses emit thermal radiation?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can form convection currents?
Do you doubt that IR emissions are randomly directed?
Do you doubt that impeding the flow of energy away from a system will insulate it?

These are your options for doubting this mechanism. These are your options for requiring references.
 
Now what part did you need a reference on?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can conduct heat?
Do you doubt that IR transparent gasses emit thermal radiation?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can form convection currents?
Do you doubt that IR emissions are randomly directed?
Do you doubt that impeding the flow of energy away from a system will insulate it?

These are your options for doubting this mechanism. These are your options for requiring references.

I’ve already explained to you what I consider your weakest points.
 
What are some examples of my eco-fascist doom views?
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
Same as you. Got it.So that more people will become scientifically literate and see both sides.
Science has no sides.
I would point out that you've been using religion wrong, but you just make up your own definitions of words, anyway.
Inversion fallacy.

The definition of a religion can be defined by a common factor of all religions. ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith. The circular argument by itself is NOT a fallacy. Trying to prove one True is a circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. Religion is not science.
 
no I don't. correct. Science isn't religion. Nice work!

science isn't theories.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Science is science. science isn't theories.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You just want to ignore them.
Science is science.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You just want to ignore them.
science has no level of transparency.
Random words. No apparent coherency.
you can't misuse any theory of science.
You ignore theories of science.
correct science can't be ignored. It exists everywhere, at all times.
Yet you discard several theories of science.
 
I assume you're trying to end the debate in a less than honest fashion. Take the last word if you wish.

No, I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to follow the debate with you, but you will NEED to become more familiar with the actual science.

For instance, why focus on bicarb all the time? SURELY you must understand that there are other carbonate species in those equilibria.

This "insulation" effect you seem to think that a blanket of O2/N2 would provide seems to lack any real definition or evidence. I'd be interested to see your references.


Here's what it looks like to me (please accept this as simply my impressions):

You don't seem really knowledgeable about the topic even at a basic level (you don't even know about climate sensitivity which is pretty critical). You seem to be trying to load the posts up with as many buzzwords as you can remember (bicarbonate, differential equations, etc.) but no real indication that you even know what those would be or how they would be utilized other than to try to make some point that it is all too complex for anyone to understand.

It IS complex. And indeed there are parts we are LESS SURE about, but the science is NOT as confused as you would characterize it. Confusion arises from a lack of actual understanding of the basics.

I'm not claiming any special knowledge of the super-deep details of this, at least when I make a point I can and do support it with an actual reference.

You never do so. So it is therefore UNLIKELY that anything you think your are talking about could be found in the literature.

That's why I keep asking you for your references. You don't seem to be operating off of any references.
 
those are all true, even if you continue to misuse them.
There is no 'misusing' them. These theories are what they are. You simply choose to ignore them.
science isn't religion. I say that knowing that you make up definitions of words define religion.
there are several of them. that's a better one. Again, grifting doesn't change science. define religion so I know what were talking about, since you don't recognize any source for definitions except those you make up in your mind.When did I say I wanted to? Nice straw man.
Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Denial of self argument. Irrational.
 
No, I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to follow the debate with you, but you will NEED to become more familiar with the actual science.
Your religion is not science. You discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Kirchoff's law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
For instance, why focus on bicarb all the time? SURELY you must understand that there are other carbonate species in those equilibria.

This "insulation" effect you seem to think that a blanket of O2/N2 would provide seems to lack any real definition or evidence. I'd be interested to see your references.


Here's what it looks like to me (please accept this as simply my impressions):

You don't seem really knowledgeable about the topic even at a basic level (you don't even know about climate sensitivity which is pretty critical).
Climate has no sensitivity.
You seem to be trying to load the posts up with as many buzzwords as you can remember (bicarbonate, differential equations, etc.) but no real indication that you even know what those would be or how they would be utilized other than to try to make some point that it is all too complex for anyone to understand.

It IS complex.
Complexity fallacy.
And indeed there are parts we are LESS SURE about, but the science is NOT as confused as you would characterize it. Confusion arises from a lack of actual understanding of the basics.
So you are confused. Gotit.
I'm not claiming any special knowledge of the super-deep details of this, at least when I make a point I can and do support it with an actual reference.
A reference to your religious scripture is pointless.
 
I'll quickly resumerize the mechanism I described, I will called it IR transparent insulation for the purposes of this discussion:
There is no such thing. Buzzword fallacy.
1.) Solar radiation passed through atmosphere, strikes planet geology, warms terrestrial surface
2.) IR transparent atmosphere near surface is warmed by conduction, a phase changing gas-liquid could also greatly increase this absorption of energy
3.) IR transparent atmosphere undergoes convection, randomly directed thermal radiation photons in the IR spectrum are emitted from the atmosphere, roughly half of which would return to the planet and be absorbed at the terrestrial surface.
You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
Conclusion: This will insulate the surface as it removes some of the power that would have been directly radiated out and redirects a portion of it back towards the planet forcing more interactions before it can escape.
Heat never flows from cold to hot. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Thermal insulation reduces heat...it does not reverse it's direction.
Now what part did you need a reference on?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can conduct heat?
Do you doubt that IR transparent gasses emit thermal radiation?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can form convection currents?
Do you doubt that IR emissions are randomly directed?
Do you doubt that impeding the flow of energy away from a system will insulate it?
ALL materials absorb infrared light.
You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

These are your options for doubting this mechanism. These are your options for requiring references.

How do you know carbon trapped in the carbonate ooze (for example) is not similarly depleted?
Carbonate is not a chemical.
You misunderstand. I don't need to claim bicarbonate equilibrium fractionates isotopes.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
It needs merely to be capable of storing carbon from previous epochs where the isotope ratios were different (such as when the hydrocarbons were buried) in order to have a different ratio.
Carbon has no identifier. Learn what an isotope is. Carbon is not hydrocarbon. The Earth naturally produces hydrocarbons. Both oil and natural gas are renewable resources.
It is capable, thus without accounting for it as a source of carbon dioxide you do not have enough variables to solve the equation for man made sources.




Non-responsive.



You also claimed that your original posts contained everything needed. If that is not the case I will respond to your original arguments. Copy paste if you wish, but only if you are willing to defend what you copy paste as if it was your own thoughts.





Appeal to authority fallacy



Complicated is neither true nor false. I am merely pointing out that you have not accounted for the variables you would need to in order to prove the assertions you have made.



I have no opinion on "climate sensitivity" the unknown but apparently calculable quantity except that it must be derived from basic physical variables and real world measurements to have any validity and that however useful it may be it cannot contradict other sound physical analyses such as IR transparent insulation.



Poisoning the well fallacy
 

Your religion is not science. You discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Kirchoff's law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Climate has no sensitivity.

Complexity fallacy.

So you are confused. Gotit.

A reference to your religious scripture is pointless.

Your point is not worth a thoughtful response. Please accept this in lieu thereof:
white-american-standard-two-piece-toilets-719aa101-020-64_1000.jpg
 
No, I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to follow the debate with you, but you will NEED to become more familiar with the actual science.
Let's put this in perspective. Anthropocentric catastrophic global climate change is a positive assertion. It incurs a burden of proof to whoever asserts it.

There was a time when the phrase "climate deniers" was spit with vehement hatred, but as time goes on fewer and fewer people take it seriously. It now follows the pattern of Christianity in Europe or Buddhism in Japan. Many people claim to believe in it, casually, in a 'don't make them give up their favorite breakfast' kinda way.

Those people don't follow the science, but in the back on their minds they don't really believe because in the privacy of their heart or subconscious they know there have been too many failed predictions. Too many doomsdays come and gone.

Now if you're happy with the way things are going, you don't need to be here talking about this. Let me be a dirty skeptic, after all I'm on the wrong side of history right?

If however you think the science is really on your side, if you could just "educate" those skeptics then maybe things would turn around, you won't find a better case study than myself (IMO). If that's what you're here for, to win the debate, it more than defeats the purpose to throw up your hands and say "you're ignorant".

I'm going to assume you're the one who is ignorant, you're using terms you don't understand, and then we will go out separate ways. We can skip right to that if you're not willing to define concepts you rely on in your arguments.


For instance, why focus on bicarb all the time?
I didn't focus, I made a point, you responded, I kept responding until you ran out of relevant things to say.


SURELY you must understand that there are other carbonate species in those equilibria.
Sure, if you go to my original point I used very broad language including porous geology even.


This "insulation" effect you seem to think that a blanket of O2/N2 would provide seems to lack any real definition or evidence. I'd be interested to see your references.
Now what part did you need a reference on?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can conduct heat?
Do you doubt that IR transparent gasses emit thermal radiation?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can form convection currents?
Do you doubt that IR emissions are randomly directed?
Do you doubt that impeding the flow of energy away from a system will insulate it?

These are your options for doubting this mechanism. These are your options for requiring references.


Here's what it looks like to me (please accept this as simply my impressions):

You don't seem really knowledgeable about the topic even at a basic level (you don't even know about climate sensitivity which is pretty critical). You seem to be trying to load the posts up with as many buzzwords as you can remember (bicarbonate, differential equations, etc.) but no real indication that you even know what those would be or how they would be utilized other than to try to make some point that it is all too complex for anyone to understand.
No comment. Not sure what you expect, I'm not going to get into a mud pit with you and start boasting about qualifications neither of us can prove and which themselves do not win the argument since that would be an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy in root context debate.


It IS complex. And indeed there are parts we are LESS SURE about, but the science is NOT as confused as you would characterize it. Confusion arises from a lack of actual understanding of the basics.
I did not say science was confused. I said there are chaotic dynamics in the system (mathematically chaotic, no analytic solutions), and that there are relevant measurements (data) that have not been made.

If I have a ball of unknown composition and I put it on a counter and ask a scientist what it's made of and he says "it could be many things, it's certainly more dense than air" and then further he is asked whether the ball will emit alpha radiation towards the moon in the next five minutes to which the scientist shrugs.

That's not "the science being confused", that's a knowledgeable man knowing that due to the complexity of the physical world some things require more experiments than have been done to learn and other things remain unpredictable no matter how much data you gather.

In my opinion you have an overly simplistic view of the physical world. Your science isn't confused it's just so incomplete as to be making false predictions.


I'm not claiming any special knowledge of the super-deep details of this, at least when I make a point I can and do support it with an actual reference.

You never do so.
For example it is the hallmark of the pseudoscientist to confuse referencing a study with a successful argument. This is a ritual that students are taught in universities, but has very little to do with genuine science.

References are for experimental results. Where no results are contested, no references are relevant.

The only results that have been contested between us is your claim that we have sufficient data to rule out deep sea carbon dioxide sources as being contributors to the recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

It's therefore YOU alone who has incurred the burden of producing a reference, but you have not.


That's why I keep asking you for your references. You don't seem to be operating off of any references.
Ask me for data relevant to a claim I made, otherwise you're betraying your ignorance about the epistemological foundation of science.
 
Let's put this in perspective. Anthropocentric catastrophic global climate change is a positive assertion. It incurs a burden of proof to whoever asserts it.

I noted from the fullness of your post that you have opted to not bother with finding any evidence in support of your claims. I will assume you have none.

I, on the other hand, have provided countless links and detailed explanations supported by other references. That means I actually HAVE data in support of the proposition. All you seem to have is buzzwords and the hope that it is all to confusing to understand.

There was a time when the phrase "climate deniers" was spit with vehement hatred, but as time goes on fewer and fewer people take it seriously.

Are we still talking about the science or are now in the "grievance" portion of the discussion where non-scientists whine about science not being easy for them to understand without any work on their part?

If however you think the science is really on your side, if you could just "educate" those skeptics then maybe things would turn around, you won't find a better case study than myself (IMO). If that's what you're here for, to win the debate, it more than defeats the purpose to throw up your hands and say "you're ignorant".

But yet you cannot muster any support for your claims.

I'm going to assume you're the one who is ignorant, you're using terms you don't understand, and then we will go out separate ways. We can skip right to that if you're not willing to define concepts you rely on in your arguments.

That's why I provided links and references. So you could check my points out for yourself.



Now what part did you need a reference on?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can conduct heat?

Explain how. Show supporting evidence.


I did not say science was confused.

Yes you did. You kept saying that in order to understand the carbon isotope fractionation we would need some mysterious analysis of all the muds all over the ocean floor. You kept saying that water vapor couldn't be understood without diff eq's, etc. etc.

You blathered on about bicarbonate as if it was the only species of carbonate in the associated equilibria. I mean, honestly, this is something we teach in EVERY intro chemistry class in high school!


For example it is the hallmark of the pseudosciencest to confuse referencing a study with a successful argument.

Is this why you can't find any support for your points?


References are for experimental results. Where no results are contested, no references are relevant.

Damn. I honestly thought you might know SOMETHING about science. I apologize for wasting my time. Yikes!




Ask me for data relevant to a claim I made, otherwise you're betraying your ignorance about the epistemological foundation of science.

You have no data and you can't support you arguments.

Prove me wrong.
 
You kept saying that in order to understand the carbon isotope fractionation we would need some mysterious analysis of all the muds all over the ocean floor.
Fractionation is the separation of isotopes, that is something you brought into it. I did claim that to make a positive identification of the origin of the carbon in the atmosphere you would need a complete survey of all potential sources.

That includes all the muds all over the ocean floor.

This is not "confused science", this is complex science about a complex world and complex models require lots of data to fully define and make predictions. Even with perfect theory there is no guarantee that a particular variable can be determined by practical experiment.


You kept saying that water vapor couldn't be understood without diff eq's, etc. etc.
I said that the water cycle on Earth is chaotic. Whether or not all chaotic systems are described by differential equations I will not claim, but most known chaotic systems are the result of mechanisms which are described by differential equations

Temperature affects evaporation and condensation
Evaporation and condensation affects temperature

Input is output, output is input

That's means there are differential equations in the solution to the system.

This insight IS science, not confused science. Confused science would be not understanding that some systems are chaotic.


Nothing else in your post was of relevance.
 
Fractionation is the separation of isotopes, that is something you brought into it. I did claim that to make a positive identification of the origin of the carbon in the atmosphere you would need a complete survey of all potential sources.

Why? Please feel free to refer to a stable isotope geochemistry textbook.

Nothing else in your post was of relevance.

And STILL you are unable to support your points with ANY external scientific references. Strange.
 
Fractionation is the separation of isotopes, that is something you brought into it. I did claim that to make a positive identification of the origin of the carbon in the atmosphere you would need a complete survey of all potential sources.
Why? Please feel free to refer to a stable isotope geochemistry textbook.
If the average C13/C12 ratio of the other potential sources was within the error of measurement for the C13/C12 ratio of the additional atmospheric carbon then those sources cannot be ruled out regardless of whether the C13/C12 ratios of man-released carbon also match.

Recall that it is you who made this original assertion and I who doubted your argument:

4. We know chemically that the majority of this additional added CO2 is coming from human activities.
This is not known for certain.

I filled in the gaps and assumed by "chemically" you meant isotope ratios. People sometimes say "nuclear chemistry" so it's not flat out wrong. If you didn't mean isotopes I have no idea what you were claiming and the burden of proof remains on you to support your assertion.

Here are references to the concepts I just relied upon

Here is something you didn't single out (because you don't understand what's being said), but I was wondering just how old some of this ooze is, and apparently these people are saying 16 million years ago for some of it.

I'll just randomly pick google results since you don't want to be specific.
 
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
Better luck next time.
Science has no sides.
You wouldn't know science if it were licking your balls right now.
Inversion fallacy.
Inversion fallacy fallacy.
The definition of a religion can be defined by a common factor of all religions. ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith. The circular argument by itself is NOT a fallacy. Trying to prove one True is a circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. Religion is not science.
Where is the circular argument?
 
Back
Top