What Climate Crisis? And what is it?

[Into the Night]

Men had very little impact on the environment since the dawn of humankind. The fact that I agree with you on that one seems to send you off on the rails.

Define 'The Environment'. You were alive at the dawn of humankind??

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

You whined about defining "climate crisis". Now you're whining about how we are in a climate crisis.

There is no pleasing you.

You do know that Truth Deflector is a professed weather genius don't you?

Just because he still lives at home in Mommy and Daddy's basement and spends 12 hours here everyday verbally terrorizing and trolling the other forum members, is no reason to start doubting him now.

 

[AProudLefty]

Define 'The Environment'. You were alive at the dawn of humankind??

LOL

 

[McRocket]

They are factual are they not? They were compiled from internet searches. If they are incorrect, show me which ones are and I will look at it.

How the fuck can we know they are 'factual' if you won't give us a link to their source?

DUH!!!

How can you not grasp this simple premise?

 

[McRocket]

A meaningless number. Argument from randU fallacy.

Not the definition of 'smart' or 'brilliant'.

The only legitimate question. It is, however, a trivial question. It makes no difference what his answer is.

These are not legitimate questions. They are triviality and insult.

I was not talking to you.

Bye now.

 

[McRocket]

Apparently you don't choose to make it the topic. You choose to just throw insults and fixate on triviality.

Wrong.

Asking a question is not an insult.

I realize you hate dictionaries.
But you REALLY should try reading one.

Bye now.

 

[McRocket]

Define 'climate change'.

How do you know? You haven't defined what you are talking about!

What has this got to do with 'climate change'?? Define 'climate change'.

'Climate change' is a group of people??

Define 'cleaner sky'. Cleaner than what?

I think you are talking in a vacuum.

Mr. Mega Quote is at it again.

You do have a life right?
Outside of this place?

At almost 1,000 posts a month for 3+ years?
One has to wonder.

 

[McRocket]

^THIS, is why you cannot argue with an idiot. Carry on simple minded wonder dunce.

And yet again...he runs away from answering why he uses large type.

He is obviously having a tremendous problem reasoning this out.
Or he is afraid to tell the real reason.

Could it be manhood related?
Surely not.

 

[Into the Night]

The climate has been a continuous state of change since a climate came to be. Change is it's very nature.

Define 'climate change'.

You have been shown the comparative nature of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its basically a trace element.

So?

CO2 is one of many so-called green house gasses. Far and away the most common one is H2O (sadly this does not appear in the atmosphere breakdown above). It can actually perform the actions attributed to green house gasses because it has the unique ability to change it's state (solid/liquid/gas) in free atmosphere. This allows it to trap and redirect energy. None of the others have this capability.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
NO gas or vapor has the magick ability to set aside the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The Earth has a very long scale cycle of warming and cooling (Ice Ages being the cooling end).

How do you know? Were you there?

It is very long running and surprisingly consistent.

How do you know? Were you there?

It has been proven that solar emissions drive this process.

Attempted proof by void.

Over the past several decades we happen to have been in a warming pattern

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. How many decades is 'past several'? Why is this point in time significant? Why is any other point in time NOT significant?

which begs the question is it not possible that this proven natural cycle is responsible for the very thing it is known to do ?

What proven natural cycle? Void argument fallacy. Define 'The Natural Cycle' you are referring to.

There have been some events that can interfere with the solar cycles such as volcanos blowing massive amounts of particulate into the atmosphere

Volcanoes cannot affect the output of the Sun or the solar cycle.

which can and do absorb solar energy and redirect it back into space thereby cooling the planet by preventing it from seeing this energy.

Absorption is not reflection.

Large meteor strikes do much the same thing.

The 'same thing'? What 'thing' is that?

This is thought to explain the end of dinosaurs.

So you are talking about a theory, and not even a scientific one.

So to recap
- climate change is nothing new
- CO2 is an unlikely player given it's scarcity

Define 'climate change'. NO gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing, reduce entropy, or trap light, heat, or thermal energy. See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Its hard to ignore that none of the cataclysmic events predicted as a result of "climate change" have come to pass.

Define 'climate change'.

The claims of more severe weather have been demonstrated to be false despite the president claiming otherwise and being reminded by his own experts that he was incorrect.

The number and intensity of storms on Earth is unknown.

And as a bonus, scientists ascribing to the solar based evidence tell us that we are due up for a "little Ice Age" in the near future.

So you are talking about a religious belief.

And I wont even get into how the green house gas theory fails the 2nd law of thermodynamics (thermal energy may only pass from a warmer to colder object without "external work" such as being enclosed in a box,

A box is not work nor a source of energy.

you know like a greenhouse is a box

A greenhouse can be any shape. It allows infrared electromagnetic energy in, which is absorbed and converted into thermal energy, but restricts convective heating. Radiative and conductive heat are not affected. All the energy gained by the greenhouse is lost again at night.

to be fair its rather difficult to create a free atmosphere to test this).

Makes no difference.

Or that no one has demonstrated that it even is a scientifically proven thing.

Science has no proofs.

Some stuff to chew on.

Cliche.

Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. It does not use consensus. It has no beliefs or religion. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less. That's it. That's all.

The 'greenhouse gas theory' that you mention isn't even defined. It's a void argument, and not even a valid theory (which is an explanatory argument).

All theories (scientific or otherwise) MUST be valid arguments. No fallacies allowed. This is known as the internal consistency check.
No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both theories must be falsified. This is known as the external consistency check.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.
It IS possible to show a theory of science to be False. That is NOT possible with a nonscientific theory.

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. That means it must withstand an attack via the null hypothesis, that is, a test designed to destroy that theory. That test must be specifiable, it must be practical to conduct, it must be specific, and it must produce a specific result. This is why most theories of science have been formalized into mathematical form.

The 1st law of thermodynamics:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force over time). This is for any given system.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. This is also for any given system. The Church of Global Warming literally tries to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot trap heat.

It is also not possible to conflate two systems as if they were the same system. This kind of nonsense is common in the Church of Global Warming.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law:
r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance over a given area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant known as 'emissivity', or how well a surface absorbs or emits light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

To measure emissivity, you must first accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface.

The temperature of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured. Therefore, the emissivity of Earth is unknown, and cannot be measured.

If temperature goes up for any reason, radiance MUST also go up. It NEVER goes down if temperature goes up.

You cannot trap light.

NO gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. Not by a single degree.

 

[Into the Night]

You're expending a lot of effort on someone who apparently wants to remain stupid and ignorance. Just saying!

Again, I realize their religion is inherently fundamentalist and there is no changing them. I post here to enlighten others of the science, mathematics, logic, engineering, history, or important documents they ignore, and the holes in their arguments.

 

[McRocket]

Define 'climate change'.

So?

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
NO gas or vapor has the magick ability to set aside the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

How do you know? Were you there?

How do you know? Were you there?

Attempted proof by void.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. How many decades is 'past several'? Why is this point in time significant? Why is any other point in time NOT significant?

What proven natural cycle? Void argument fallacy. Define 'The Natural Cycle' you are referring to.

Volcanoes cannot affect the output of the Sun or the solar cycle.

Absorption is not reflection.

The 'same thing'? What 'thing' is that?

So you are talking about a theory, and not even a scientific one.

Define 'climate change'. NO gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing, reduce entropy, or trap light, heat, or thermal energy. See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Define 'climate change'.

The number and intensity of storms on Earth is unknown.

So you are talking about a religious belief.

A box is not work nor a source of energy.

A greenhouse can be any shape. It allows infrared electromagnetic energy in, which is absorbed and converted into thermal energy, but restricts convective heating. Radiative and conductive heat are not affected. All the energy gained by the greenhouse is lost again at night.

Makes no difference.

Science has no proofs.

Cliche.

Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. It does not use consensus. It has no beliefs or religion. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less. That's it. That's all.

The 'greenhouse gas theory' that you mention isn't even defined. It's a void argument, and not even a valid theory (which is an explanatory argument).

All theories (scientific or otherwise) MUST be valid arguments. No fallacies allowed. This is known as the internal consistency check.
No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both theories must be falsified. This is known as the external consistency check.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.
It IS possible to show a theory of science to be False. That is NOT possible with a nonscientific theory.

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. That means it must withstand an attack via the null hypothesis, that is, a test designed to destroy that theory. That test must be specifiable, it must be practical to conduct, it must be specific, and it must produce a specific result. This is why most theories of science have been formalized into mathematical form.

The 1st law of thermodynamics:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force over time). This is for any given system.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. This is also for any given system. The Church of Global Warming literally tries to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot trap heat.

It is also not possible to conflate two systems as if they were the same system. This kind of nonsense is common in the Church of Global Warming.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law:
r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance over a given area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant known as 'emissivity', or how well a surface absorbs or emits light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

To measure emissivity, you must first accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface.

The temperature of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured. Therefore, the emissivity of Earth is unknown, and cannot be measured.

If temperature goes up for any reason, radiance MUST also go up. It NEVER goes down if temperature goes up.

You cannot trap light.

NO gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. Not by a single degree.

Do you seriously expect ANYONE to read and answer every, single quote you break it down into?

Yes or no, please?

 

[Into the Night]

the "man made" meme required that ONLY CO2 be the boogyman behind it all which was the basic flaw in the argument. There is no way a trace element can be the principle driver. So this flaw proves the idea that the whole scheme is merely an attempt to separate people from their money.

NONE of the "solutions" pitched address ending CO2 worldwide.

ALL of the solutions involve trillions upon trillions in cost.

that kinda says it all.

It doesn't matter if it's a trace element or the main component of an atmosphere. CO2 simply has no capability to set aside the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It has NO capability to warm any planet.

The effect of warming by CO2 is zero, zip, nada, nan, NOTHING.

 

[Into the Night]

the "man made" meme required that ONLY CO2 be the boogyman behind it all which was the basic flaw in the argument. There is no way a trace element can be the principle driver. So this flaw proves the idea that the whole scheme is merely an attempt to separate people from their money.

NONE of the "solutions" pitched address ending CO2 worldwide.

ALL of the solutions involve trillions upon trillions in cost.

that kinda says it all.

If you look at the 'solutions' to this undefinable 'problem', you will see that the Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

 

[Into the Night]

You really are too stupid to know how stupid that was.

The climate in Toronto Canada is much colder than the climate in Miami Florida. Dumbass.

climate
1: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions

There is desert climate, marine climate, cold climate, warm climate, mountaintop climate, prairie climate, forest climate, etc.

Climate is a subjective word. It has no value associated with it. There is nothing that can 'change'.

 

[Into the Night]

DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE! DEFINE!

Still waiting for you to define 'climate crisis', 'climate change', and 'global warming'.

 

[Into the Night]

The internet. It's really not hard at all.

The internet??? That is not a source. It's a communications medium.

 

[McRocket]

It doesn't matter if it's a trace element or the main component of an atmosphere. CO2 simply has no capability to set aside the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It has NO capability to warm any planet.

The effect of warming by CO2 is zero, zip, nada, nan, NOTHING.

The CO2 is not what is warming the planet - on it's own.

The theory is that the CO2 is trapping the heat in the atmosphere.

And that is what is raising the planet's, climactic temperature - supposedly.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

 

[McRocket]

Again, I realize their religion is inherently fundamentalist and there is no changing them. I post here to enlighten others of the science, mathematics, logic, engineering, history, or important documents they ignore, and the holes in their arguments.

And insult people by accusing them of lying...without ANY, factual evidence to back it up.

 

[Into the Night]

They are factual are they not?

No. There are those that dispute them. They are not facts. They are arguments. 'Fact' does not mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'. A fact is nothing more than an assumed predicate. If the fact itself is in dispute, it is no longer a fact.

They were compiled from internet searches.

So...multiple sources?

Let's start with the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Where are you getting these numbers from?

If they are incorrect, show me which ones are and I will look at it.

I am not claiming any value for any number. It is not necessary for me to produce anything. It is YOUR burden to support any numbers you post. Burden fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

I ask again, where did you get the numbers you are using? Let's just start with the composition of the atmosphere for now.

Frankly, this whole thing came up as a pivot fallacy from Rocket. Since no gas has the capability to warm the Earth, I don't really consider the composition of the atmosphere to be important for the purpose here. However, you seem dead set on using these numbers to try to prove or show something. It is you that has made them important enough to ask for your source.

But it was unnecessary. Attempting to trivialize the effect of CO2 because of any low concentration of the atmosphere is pointless. It doesn't matter if the CO2 concentration is 80% or 0.314%. It simply is not capable of making any difference to the temperature of the atmosphere.

High CO2 concentrations are certainly dangerous, since CO2 displaces oxygen, but it has ZERO effect on temperature.

 

[McRocket]

It doesn't matter if the CO2 concentration is 80% or 0.314%. It simply is not capable of making any difference to the temperature of the atmosphere.

High CO2 concentrations are certainly dangerous, since CO2 displaces oxygen, but it has ZERO effect on temperature.

'Scientists know with virtual certainty that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. '

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/greenhouse-gases-and-the-climate.php'

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...tly-impact-extreme-weather-research-suggests/

Yet you seem to be saying - matter of factly - that this is wrong.

And where are your links to unbiased, factual evidence of this?