Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

[Into the Night]

Given that you aren't aware of the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan Boltzmann law, or Planck's law, I should think you might be more modest about your "abilities" in this area.

He's ignored other theories of science besides just these.
Now he's ignoring mathematics.

 

[gfm7175]

Congratulations. You clearly know nothing about horticulture or biology in general.
Why don't you go ask a farmer why it matters when the ice goes out on lakes or when their ground thaws.

How does any of that change when Winter ends / Spring begins?

 

[Into the Night]

We don't even have to rely on temperature readings to see that the earth is warming.

Discard of the 0th law of thermodynamics.

We have over 600 years of records of ice forming and leaving lakes.

It's called 'seasons'.

We have records of bird migrations.

Are you following every bird? How do you have the time?

All of those point to winter arriving later and spring arriving earlier.

Nope. Spring arrives March 20, 2023 at 924pm UTC. Earth's orbital mechanics hasn't changed significantly in 600 years.

Explain why lakes are on average losing their ice 1 week earlier than they did 100 and 200 years ago.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are just making up numbers again.

Was there a change in the temperature at which ice melts in that time frame?

RQAA. Attempted conclusion based on randU.

 

[Into the Night]

So it sounds like you don't know how data is processed in science. Have you ever been in a laboratory?




You are just posting random statistically sounding words now. You have no clue what any of them mean.

Science isn't data or a 'process' of data. Science isn't a laboratory (and yes I have been in one...I OWN two of them!). It is YOU that is discarding statistical, probability, and random number mathematics. Science is not mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh, look it's the Stefan Boltzmann law bullshit again.
Does the Stefan Blotzmann law apply to all matter or not? This is where we see you fail in your arguments since you only apply it for some matter and when it disproves your bullshit then you say it doesn't apply.

It applies to all matter and all the time.
gfm7175 is not applying it only to some matter.

You are just discarding this theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

Wow. Those are EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS IntoTheNight complain about.

Wow. It is EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE you discard.

Which law of thermo do you think I don't know? (Go ahead, say the Second Law...and then try defining it for the class)

RQAA.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

How does any of that change when Winter ends / Spring begins?

Go find a farmer and ask them since you clearly are ignorant.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It applies to all matter and all the time.
gfm7175 is not applying it only to some matter.

You are just discarding this theory of science.

I guess you forgot that this is your position.

Science is not mathematics.

 

[IBDaMann]

I have to somewhat disagree on the "grace of God" bit. The grace of God is very much real, as I have experienced it for myself, through Jesus Christ,

Yes, as Into the Night astutely noticed, it looks like I owe Christians everywhere an apology. It is totally inappropriate to imly equivalence between a deliberate Marxist scam (global climate) that does not exist with someone's very real experience (the grace of God). Just because I have not experienced it myself obviously does not mean that others have not. I should have caught that before posting. I did not mean to offend.

 

[Into the Night]

Hahahahahahahahaha this is such a profound statement of faith if I ever did see one. Thank you for this. Thank you for openly and clearly making the OP's point (about GW being a faith based belief) all on your own.

IOW, you are hereby telling this forum that valid temperature measurements are not necessary in order to conclude that the temperature of the Earth is rising. "Just BELIEVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"!!!!!!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha this is pure GOLD right here!


So?


So?


Seasons are not determined by ice formation/melting, nor are they determined by bird migration. The winter solstice and the spring equinox occur at roughly the same respective time every year.


I don't have to explain anything. You have to explain why any rational adult should believe that the Earth is warming. If that's your faith, then believe whatever you want, but don't pretend that your faith is science.

The Spring and Autumn equinox occur at exactly the same moment each year. The moment when the Sun appears to cross Earth's equator.
That moment varies slightly from day to day (and time to time) since our current calendar is not evenly divisible by these moments. Earth completes one orbit around the Sun in 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 27.936 seconds.
So the day of equinox appear to drift slightly later each year on our calendar. A leap year is added every four years to compensate for this. This adds too much time (accumulative), so every 400 years we fail to have to leap year. These compensations keep the drift minimal on our current calendaring system.

This year Spring equinox will occur at March 20, at 9:24pm UTC (or 4:24pm CDT for you, or 2:24pm PDT for me, and at 5:24pm EDT for IBDaMann).

 

[Into the Night]

You are confusing meterological winter and spring with astrological winter and spring. They are not the same thing.
Why is the ice forming on lakes later and leaving lakes earlier?

There is no such thing as meteorological (you mispelled it) winter and spring. Winter and spring are determined solely by astronomical events.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

ITN might want to include this doozy of a statement in his signature. You have now been reduced to asserting that "science is bullshit".


Is there a substance term in the SB law?


What is "my bullshit"? What are you even talking about?

YOU are the one who attempts to modify the SB law by adding in a wavelength term. YOU are the one who ignores it when it contradicts the AGW theory of "trapped heat" "reducing Earth's radiance" while simultaneously "increasing Earth's temperature".

This is YOUR issue, not mine. Own it.

Nah. Not good enough. I'm very picky about what goes into my signature.

While he is discarding the Stefan-Boltzmann law, he didn't try to apply a frequency term (at least recently). It IS a very common tactic of people discarding this law though, as if CO2 had some magickal special property concerning infrared light. Here, he is just utterly discarding this theory of science outright.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah and you have no clue what they mean in the current discussion.



LOL. No. Unlike you I've spent about 30 years processing data and running statistics on lab data.

He is part of the current discussion, dumbass.
You deny and discard statistical mathematics.

 

[IBDaMann]

You are confusing meterological winter and spring with astrological winter and spring. They are not the same thing.

... nor do they have any meaning that you care to explain ... obviously because astrology is not science and any grown adult should be ashamed to believe in it.

Why is the ice forming on lakes later and leaving lakes earlier?

It's not, but it reveals your underlying conceptual problem. You can't make up your mind what is the cause and what is the effect ... and you think "What the heck, I'll just conflate the two." First you ask what CAUSES the ice to form later, then you will discuss what is CAUSED by the ice forming later.

I get it ... you're confused. You have to be in the world's top 83% of intelligence to understand the whole CAUSE -> EFFECT concept, so it's not for everybody.

 

[Into the Night]

Why am I not surprised you can't talk about any of them in detail?

RQAA.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

He already has shown that he does.

Missed it.

Karl Marx didn't produce any work in 1980.

See? You don't even know the basic science around this topic. This stuff was from 1985. You really should learn more science.

No, it wasn't.

How would you know? YOu didn't even know about Karl et al's work. LOL.

Never happened. Location grouping also never was dealt with. You are trying to rationalize ignoring statistical math again. Thermometers are not uniformly spaced and are not read at the same time by the same authority. Both of these are introducing bias.

Your points are stale.

Base rate fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

More fake erudition on display.

Irrelevance fallacy. Location grouping is a biasing factor. It MUST be eliminated in the raw data collection.

Read Karl et al 1985.

You are not discussing science. Science is not mathematics. You are making serious mathematical errors.

No I'm not. There's been no explicit numbers thrown around in this discussion so there's no way I could be making "mathematical errors".

Do you know what math is? Are you familiar with "numbers"?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

RQAA.

Yes. The poster made it quite clear they don't know the first thing about Thermodynamics.

Such a pity.

 

[gfm7175]

Go find a farmer and ask them since you clearly are ignorant.

Spring starts at the spring equinox (this year March 20th) regardless of when the ground can be worked or when crops can be planted. That's what the plethora of farmers in the DAIRY STATE tell me.

In fact, certain "warmer weather" crops can't be safely planted here (unless using a greenhouse or starting them indoors) until mid to late May, or two whole months into Spring.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong. It is literally done all the time.

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

But the thing you don't seem to know about this topic is that we don't look at the raw temperature.

Math errors: failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Use of randU for dataset. Failure to designate variance. Failure to calculate margin of error.

You cannot use anything but unbiased raw data in statistical mathematics.

We look at what is called the "temperature anomaly" or the difference between the temperature (grid averaged) for a region and a baseline for that same region. (Feel free to tell NOAA and NASA and all the earth's climate scientists that this doesn't exist)

Base rate fallacy. Repeat of previous math errors. Attempted proof by name dropping. There is no such branch of science called 'climate'. There is no such thing as a 'climate scientist' in science. Science is not a high priest of a religion.

You'd know more if you read any science at all on this topic.

It is YOU denying mathematics here. Science is not mathematics. It is YOU denying science as well because you confuse the two.

 

[Into the Night]

When did I add in a wavelength term to the SB law?
I love your claim that the temperature of the troposphere is the same thing as the temperature of exosphere. Can you provide evidence to support that theory?

He never made any such claim. Wordstuffing.
At least recently, I did not see you add a wavelength or frequency term to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You just utterly discard it instead. Please forgive him. Many who discard the Stefan-Boltzmann law do so by changing the equation to add a frequency or wavelength term to it, so he's used to commenting on it.