 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » The Earth Without GreenHouse Gases... |
|
Page 6 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dawlish... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 20, 7:49 pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:02:25 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:45 am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:24 am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in
climate science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and
silly.- Hide quoted text -
No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which is a
very different thing. At least be honest about what is driving you
when you post in this newsgroup about what you consider to be "CO2
hysteria". I did say it drives everything you post on here and all
through your talk about a hypothetical planet without GHGs, you
cannot split yourself from your need to press home your driver.
Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your denialist
schema
What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Most skeptics seem to
believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
predictable. In view of the amount of resources that have been spent
by "experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the obvious failure
to do so, it seems a completely justifiable position.
Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you expect the side
that holds climate is currently unpredictable to make predictions?
and you can't explain why
It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. It's up to proponents to
make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way,
explaining their logic, the data they think supports it, and the data
that seems not to support it. When you've done that, then there can be
a discussion of the merits of the hypothesis, and skeptics can question
the points of disagreement. Until you can precisely state your
hypothesis, with a simple, lucid explanation of the mechanisms
involved, there's nothing to discuss.
- which is why you'll resort to
anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global proportions,
that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of, to justify your
writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of course. It always
is from those that haven't the capability to explain when things are
not going the way they *know* that they should.
You are clearly projecting your own inability to explain when things
are not going the way you *know* that they should. Your models don't
predict future climate. It's likely no model can ever do so, since
climate is chaotic.
Hiding behind a strawman argument won't help. You need to make your
case, not expect others to comment on a hypothesis and mechanism you
can neither define nor defend.
The conspiracy aspect of the issue goes to the motives behind the
hypothesis, not the science.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course models predict future climate. It's their accuracy and their
amount of possible error that you are referring to.
You could say the same about a Ouija board. I claim a model in which the
accuracy is no better than a random guess is no better than a scary mask
on a witch doctor.
As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
governments for reasons that only he knows.
There are a lot of people who can see obvious conflicts of interest in
governments redistributing wealth by raising taxes on the basis of a
bogus "emergency". Blindness to the obvious is not a survival trait.
There is no strawman there.
There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on the other
thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories like that
Specifically what theory are you talking about? His gedanken experiment
considering a transparent atmosphere?
and
if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument when things get
difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A very reasonable
standpoint, don't you think?
Not to me. It looks to me like you were trying to intimidate him. I
don't always agree with him, but I have seen no "abuse" from him. Go
back and read your posts, pretending they were directed at yourself, and
see what you think.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
"stupid" Bill? Not the nicest of epithets to call me when the
questions I posed couldn't be answered. And that from someone who says
this:" I don't need anybody's support, I develop physics concepts as I
need them". Mind-bogglingly dismissive. Not much respect in that for
scientists then?
And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see
few of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid
you are in a very small minority there with that view. You can thus
expect to criticise without any explanation of why you feel the
science is wrong (not that you personally do that, but your standpoint
on that one would allow that and absolve denialists from answering any
of the difficult questions that could be put to them about their
beliefs). I'm afraid not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises. That's why so many
climate scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those
rises and why I feel >90% sure that is the case. It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint, why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm
out of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is
stupid (directed at the concept, not the person, of course). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dawlish... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 20, 9:19 pm, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg... at (no spam) hotmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 20, 7:49 pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:02:25 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:45 am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:24 am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in
climate science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and
silly.- Hide quoted text -
No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which is a
very different thing. At least be honest about what is driving you
when you post in this newsgroup about what you consider to be "CO2
hysteria".
Why did that one paragraph ring your bell,
I haven't looked much before for support for my
skepticism, but the first link I found just now is
far more verbal than I have been;
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
I did say it drives everything you post on here and all
through your talk about a hypothetical planet without GHGs, you
cannot split yourself from your need to press home your driver.
Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your denialist
schema
What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Most skeptics seem to
believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
predictable. In view of the amount of resources that have been spent
by "experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the obvious failure
to do so, it seems a completely justifiable position.
Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you expect the side
that holds climate is currently unpredictable to make predictions?
and you can't explain why
It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. It's up to proponents to
make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way,
explaining their logic, the data they think supports it, and the data
that seems not to support it. When you've done that, then there can be
a discussion of the merits of the hypothesis, and skeptics can question
the points of disagreement. Until you can precisely state your
hypothesis, with a simple, lucid explanation of the mechanisms
involved, there's nothing to discuss.
- which is why you'll resort to
anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global proportions,
that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of, to justify your
writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of course. It always
is from those that haven't the capability to explain when things are
not going the way they *know* that they should.
You are clearly projecting your own inability to explain when things
are not going the way you *know* that they should. Your models don't
predict future climate. It's likely no model can ever do so, since
climate is chaotic.
Hiding behind a strawman argument won't help. You need to make your
case, not expect others to comment on a hypothesis and mechanism you
can neither define nor defend.
The conspiracy aspect of the issue goes to the motives behind the
hypothesis, not the science.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course models predict future climate. It's their accuracy and their
amount of possible error that you are referring to.
You could say the same about a Ouija board. I claim a model in which the
accuracy is no better than a random guess is no better than a scary mask
on a witch doctor.
As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
governments for reasons that only he knows.
There are a lot of people who can see obvious conflicts of interest in
governments redistributing wealth by raising taxes on the basis of a
bogus "emergency". Blindness to the obvious is not a survival trait..
There is no strawman there.
There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on the other
thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories like that
Specifically what theory are you talking about? His gedanken experiment
considering a transparent atmosphere?
and
if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument when things get
difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A very reasonable
standpoint, don't you think?
Not to me. It looks to me like you were trying to intimidate him. I
don't always agree with him, but I have seen no "abuse" from him. Go
back and read your posts, pretending they were directed at yourself, and
see what you think.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"stupid" Bill? Not the nicest of epithets to call me when the
questions I posed couldn't be answered. And that from someone who says
this:" I don't need anybody's support, I develop physics concepts as I
need them". Mind-bogglingly dismissive. Not much respect in that for
scientists then?
I am not a parrot, I have patents, but you are wrong
about "respect for scientists", it is their useful work that I
respect, and I research it thoroughly.
AGW is not science in any sense of the word,
it is a gossip fad, period, made so every time an
alarmist says, "it is warmer than ever before".
And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see
few of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid
you are in a very small minority there with that view. You can thus
expect to criticise without any explanation of why you feel the
science is wrong (not that you personally do that, but your standpoint
on that one would allow that and absolve denialists from answering any
of the difficult questions that could be put to them about their
beliefs). I'm afraid not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises. That's why so many
climate scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those
rises and why I feel >90% sure that is the case. It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint, why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm
out of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is
stupid (directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
You are way off base unloading on Bill, he and
Alan actually think CO2 has some effect on climate,
I haven't named those I consider to be AGW nutcases
very often, they know who they are, they mostly use
one line retorts, and some use language unacceptable
in mixed company.
If you want sincere discussion of Global Warming,
fine, if you want to chew out anybody that is skeptical
of the calamity the computer models predict, forget it,
join the delete message writers.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
"Whatever", basically. Yuo can't answer simple questions about recent
temperatures and you wish to redefine physics. Ok, but no-one is
listening. Me neither. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 20, 2:05 pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:"
All you'd need"
to do is convince bill with evidence he refuses to see, from
information sources he wont read, and oh yeah, one more thing anybody
who disagrees with him is held to a much higher standard than he holds
himself, thats it, whats so wrong with that? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Leonard wrote:
[quote]
On 10/19/09 8:44 AM, in article
d2b82ffb-b396-4b80-8cdc-4df7262244a9 at (no spam) p4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "Dawlish"
pjgno1 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:01 pm, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
Sorry to rock the boat, give me a month of
temperatures that are not way below normal and
maybe I can support the agenda.
There hasn't been a month of global temperatures that has been below
average, never mind "way below normal" for >30 years. Whatever has
happened in the UK, of course, doesn't count on that global scale, so
however warm, or cold, you feel it may be in your neck of the woods
doesn't actually count.
€ Sorry Bud, there has been a whole
string of them over the past decade.
€ Your 120 year 0.7°C gain has been
erased redoubled in spades.
Hadley, GISS/NASA, NOAA do
not release real data. Everything is vetted by the
political bosses to meet the policy figures.
Either way short term or long term the data
doesn't support man made global warming?
short term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
[/quote]
Have you analyzed that short term data that you quote? I mean
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt
?
The linear regression of all the samples shows a positive trend, around
0.1-0.2°C per decade from 1970 to present.
[quote]long term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005l
.htm
Error 404.[/quote]
T. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:02:25 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
[quote]On Oct 20, 10:45Â am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:24Â am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
    For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in
climate science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and
silly.- Hide quoted text -
No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which is a
very different thing. At least be honest about what is driving you
when you post in this newsgroup about what you consider to be "CO2
hysteria". I did say it drives everything you post on here and all
through your talk about a hypothetical planet without GHGs, you
cannot split yourself from your need to press home your driver.
Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your denialist
schema
What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Â Most skeptics seem to
believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
predictable. Â In view of the amount of resources that have been spent
by "experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the obvious failure
to do so, it seems a completely justifiable position.
Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you expect the side
that holds climate is currently unpredictable to make predictions?
and you can't explain why
It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. Â It's up to proponents to
make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way,
explaining their logic, the data they think supports it, and the data
that seems not to support it. Â When you've done that, then there can be
a discussion of the merits of the hypothesis, and skeptics can question
the points of disagreement. Â Until you can precisely state your
hypothesis, with a simple, lucid explanation of the mechanisms
involved, there's nothing to discuss.
- which is why you'll resort to
anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global proportions,
that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of, to justify your
writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of course. It always
is from those that haven't the capability to explain when things are
not going the way they *know* that they should.
You are clearly projecting your own inability to explain when things
are not going the way you *know* that they should. Â Your models don't
predict future climate. Â It's likely no model can ever do so, since
climate is chaotic.
Hiding behind a strawman argument won't help. Â You need to make your
case, not expect others to comment on a hypothesis and mechanism you
can neither define nor defend.
The conspiracy aspect of the issue goes to the motives behind the
hypothesis, not the science.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course models predict future climate. It's their accuracy and their
amount of possible error that you are referring to.
[/quote]
You could say the same about a Ouija board. I claim a model in which the
accuracy is no better than a random guess is no better than a scary mask
on a witch doctor.
[quote]As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
governments for reasons that only he knows.
[/quote]
There are a lot of people who can see obvious conflicts of interest in
governments redistributing wealth by raising taxes on the basis of a
bogus "emergency". Blindness to the obvious is not a survival trait.
[quote]There is no strawman there.
There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on the other
thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories like that
[/quote]
Specifically what theory are you talking about? His gedanken experiment
considering a transparent atmosphere?
[quote]and
if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument when things get
difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A very reasonable
standpoint, don't you think?
[/quote]
Not to me. It looks to me like you were trying to intimidate him. I
don't always agree with him, but I have seen no "abuse" from him. Go
back and read your posts, pretending they were directed at yourself, and
see what you think. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjgno1 at (no spam) hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 20, 7:49Â pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:02:25 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:45Â am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:24Â am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
    For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in
climate science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and
silly.- Hide quoted text -
No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which is a
very different thing. At least be honest about what is driving you
when you post in this newsgroup about what you consider to be "CO2
hysteria".
[/quote]
Why did that one paragraph ring your bell,
I haven't looked much before for support for my
skepticism, but the first link I found just now is
far more verbal than I have been;
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
[quote]I did say it drives everything you post on here and all
through your talk about a hypothetical planet without GHGs, you
cannot split yourself from your need to press home your driver.
Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your denialist
schema
What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Â Most skeptics seem to
believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
predictable. Â In view of the amount of resources that have been spent
by "experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the obvious failure
to do so, it seems a completely justifiable position.
Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you expect the side
that holds climate is currently unpredictable to make predictions?
and you can't explain why
It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. Â It's up to proponents to
make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way,
explaining their logic, the data they think supports it, and the data
that seems not to support it. Â When you've done that, then there can be
a discussion of the merits of the hypothesis, and skeptics can question
the points of disagreement. Â Until you can precisely state your
hypothesis, with a simple, lucid explanation of the mechanisms
involved, there's nothing to discuss.
- which is why you'll resort to
anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global proportions,
that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of, to justify your
writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of course. It always
is from those that haven't the capability to explain when things are
not going the way they *know* that they should.
You are clearly projecting your own inability to explain when things
are not going the way you *know* that they should. Â Your models don't
predict future climate. Â It's likely no model can ever do so, since
climate is chaotic.
Hiding behind a strawman argument won't help. Â You need to make your
case, not expect others to comment on a hypothesis and mechanism you
can neither define nor defend.
The conspiracy aspect of the issue goes to the motives behind the
hypothesis, not the science.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course models predict future climate. It's their accuracy and their
amount of possible error that you are referring to.
You could say the same about a Ouija board. Â I claim a model in which the
accuracy is no better than a random guess is no better than a scary mask
on a witch doctor. Â
As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
governments for reasons that only he knows.
There are a lot of people who can see obvious conflicts of interest in
governments redistributing wealth by raising taxes on the basis of a
bogus "emergency". Â Blindness to the obvious is not a survival trait.
There is no strawman there.
There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on the other
thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories like that
Specifically what theory are you talking about? Â His gedanken experiment
considering a transparent atmosphere?
and
if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument when things get
difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A very reasonable
standpoint, don't you think?
Not to me. Â It looks to me like you were trying to intimidate him. Â I
don't always agree with him, but I have seen no "abuse" from him. Â Go
back and read your posts, pretending they were directed at yourself, and
see what you think.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"stupid" Bill? Not the nicest of epithets to call me when the
questions I posed couldn't be answered. And that from someone who says
this:" I don't need anybody's support, I develop physics concepts as I
need them". Mind-bogglingly dismissive. Not much respect in that for
scientists then?
[/quote]
I am not a parrot, I have patents, but you are wrong
about "respect for scientists", it is their useful work that I
respect, and I research it thoroughly.
AGW is not science in any sense of the word,
it is a gossip fad, period, made so every time an
alarmist says, "it is warmer than ever before".
[quote]And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see
few of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid
you are in a very small minority there with that view. You can thus
expect to criticise without any explanation of why you feel the
science is wrong (not that you personally do that, but your standpoint
on that one would allow that and absolve denialists from answering any
of the difficult questions that could be put to them about their
beliefs). I'm afraid not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises. That's why so many
climate scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those
rises and why I feel >90% sure that is the case. It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint, why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm
out of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is
stupid (directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
[/quote]
You are way off base unloading on Bill, he and
Alan actually think CO2 has some effect on climate,
I haven't named those I consider to be AGW nutcases
very often, they know who they are, they mostly use
one line retorts, and some use language unacceptable
in mixed company.
If you want sincere discussion of Global Warming,
fine, if you want to chew out anybody that is skeptical
of the calamity the computer models predict, forget it,
join the delete message writers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:37:41 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
[quote]On Oct 20, 7:49Â pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:02:25 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:45Â am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:24Â am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
    For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in
climate science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and
silly.- Hide quoted text -
No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which
is a very different thing. At least be honest about what is
driving you when you post in this newsgroup about what you
consider to be "CO2 hysteria". I did say it drives everything you
post on here and all through your talk about a hypothetical planet
without GHGs, you cannot split yourself from your need to press
home your driver.
Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your
denialist schema
What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Â Most skeptics seem
to believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
predictable. Â In view of the amount of resources that have been
spent by "experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the obvious
failure to do so, it seems a completely justifiable position.
Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you expect the
side that holds climate is currently unpredictable to make
predictions?
and you can't explain why
It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. Â It's up to proponents
to make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way,
explaining their logic, the data they think supports it, and the
data that seems not to support it. Â When you've done that, then
there can be a discussion of the merits of the hypothesis, and
skeptics can question the points of disagreement. Â Until you can
precisely state your hypothesis, with a simple, lucid explanation of
the mechanisms involved, there's nothing to discuss.
- which is why you'll resort to
anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global
proportions, that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of,
to justify your writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of
course. It always is from those that haven't the capability to
explain when things are not going the way they *know* that they
should.
You are clearly projecting your own inability to explain when things
are not going the way you *know* that they should. Â Your models
don't predict future climate. Â It's likely no model can ever do so,
since climate is chaotic.
Hiding behind a strawman argument won't help. Â You need to make your
case, not expect others to comment on a hypothesis and mechanism you
can neither define nor defend.
The conspiracy aspect of the issue goes to the motives behind the
hypothesis, not the science.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course models predict future climate. It's their accuracy and
their amount of possible error that you are referring to.
You could say the same about a Ouija board. Â I claim a model in which
the accuracy is no better than a random guess is no better than a scary
mask on a witch doctor.
As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
governments for reasons that only he knows.
There are a lot of people who can see obvious conflicts of interest in
governments redistributing wealth by raising taxes on the basis of a
bogus "emergency". Â Blindness to the obvious is not a survival trait.
There is no strawman there.
There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on the
other thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories like
that
Specifically what theory are you talking about? Â His gedanken
experiment considering a transparent atmosphere?
and
if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument when things get
difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A very reasonable
standpoint, don't you think?
Not to me. Â It looks to me like you were trying to intimidate him. Â I
don't always agree with him, but I have seen no "abuse" from him. Â Go
back and read your posts, pretending they were directed at yourself,
and see what you think.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"stupid" Bill? Not the nicest of epithets to call me when the questions
I posed couldn't be answered. And that from someone who says this:" I
don't need anybody's support, I develop physics concepts as I need
them". Mind-bogglingly dismissive. Not much respect in that for
scientists then?
[/quote]
Better get a thicker skin if you think being called "stupid" is abuse.
Are you new here? Maybe you should think about the questions you asked.
[quote]And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see few
of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid you are
in a very small minority there with that view.
[/quote]
You don't get around much do you? That's the default position in real
science. If you claim you're in contact with ET, you have to prove it, I
don't have to prove you didn't. If you claim to be able to predict
climate, the same principle holds.
[quote]You can thus expect to
criticise without any explanation of why you feel the science is wrong
[/quote]
How would I criticize without explaining errors I see in the proffered
explanation? Ad hominem attacks? I think you've got the positions
reversed, as that seems to be almost exclusively the AGWer fallback
position. (Attacks on Al Gore excepted.)
[quote](not that you personally do that, but your standpoint on that one would
allow that and absolve denialists from answering any of the difficult
questions that could be put to them about their beliefs). I'm afraid
not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises.
[/quote]
Feelings are for religion. Science is data driven.
[quote]That's why so many climate
scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises and
why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
[/quote]
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
[quote]It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
[/quote]
How do you influence people who rely on feelings instead of logic? Write
a folk song?
[quote]If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
[/quote]
True, only those who are capable of understanding can really listen.
[quote]That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint,
[/quote]
I would substitute the word "frustrated" for "intimidated". I think
you're projecting again. You expected to intimidate and it didn't work.
[quote]why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm out
of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is stupid
(directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
[/quote]
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be clarifying
the issue. Until then, you're just muddying the water. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dawlish... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 20, 10:05 pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
[quote]All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be clarifying
the issue. Until then, you're just muddying the water. - Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Trends Bill. Trends over time. Present day warm outcomes, despite
several cold forcings acting together. Factor in sceptical theories
(and there are many) and see that they are not producing the expected
results. Keep an open mind to the possibility that the majority is
wrong - as the IPCC did in its last report - but leave the extremists
and the terminally arrogant to their musings; but let them know from
time to time just how wrong they probably (note the word probably)
are. Attempts to patronise are a little poor, wouldn't you say, from
such a knowledgeable man of science? You don't post "here" generally.
Your interventions are mainly derived from cross posts from other
newsgroups and your interest "here" stems from that; not an interest
in weather. That's fine and dandy, but attempts at patronisation are
highly unlikely to deter me. You decided to step into this on behalf
of someone whose main driver appears to be the overturn of a global GW
conspiracy and that is your choice.
[quote]That's why so many climate
scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises and
why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
[/quote]
Good grief! They are all wrong and you know better because you have
more knowledge than they do. Now where have I heard that before ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dawlish... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 10:09 am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:21:18 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:05 pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be
clarifying the issue. Until then, you're just muddying the water. -
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Trends Bill. Trends over time. Present day warm outcomes, despite
several cold forcings acting together. Factor in sceptical theories (and
there are many) and see that they are not producing the expected
results. Keep an open mind to the possibility that the majority is wrong
- as the IPCC did in its last report - but leave the extremists and the
terminally arrogant to their musings; but let them know from time to
time just how wrong they probably (note the word probably) are. Attempts
to patronise are a little poor, wouldn't you say, from such a
knowledgeable man of science? You don't post "here" generally. Your
interventions are mainly derived from cross posts from other newsgroups
and your interest "here" stems from that; not an interest in weather.
That's fine and dandy, but attempts at patronisation are highly unlikely
to deter me. You decided to step into this on behalf of someone whose
main driver appears to be the overturn of a global GW conspiracy and
that is your choice.
That's a rambling, incoherent, mind-reading dodge, not any kind of
explanation of a hypothetical mechanism. It's a good demonstration of
trying to muddy the water to hide your deficiencies. How do you expect
anyone to take you seriously if you don't even understand enough to
explain what the position is that you're trying to defend?
Your rant tells us far more about you than it does me. Those are your
thoughts you're describing, not mine. It's called "projection".
That's why so many climate
scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises
and why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
Good grief! They are all wrong and you know better because you have more
knowledge than they do.
No, as you said (and snipped), they are going by feelings, not by data.
That's not science, it's theology. If you believe because you are told,
without understanding, you have faith. If you insist on trying to
convince others you are right, but can't explain why, you are simply
annoying, and unlikely to convince anyone.
Now where have I heard that before ?
Maybe it's here, in the context you silently snipped from my preceding
post:
begin reinsertion of snippage
[Dawlish]
And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see few
of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid you are
in a very small minority there with that view.
[Bill]
You don't get around much do you? That's the default position in real
science. If you claim you're in contact with ET, you have to prove it, I
don't have to prove you didn't. If you claim to be able to predict
climate, the same principle holds.
You can thus expect to
criticise without any explanation of why you feel the science is wrong
How would I criticize without explaining errors I see in the proffered
explanation? Ad hominem attacks? I think you've got the positions
reversed, as that seems to be almost exclusively the AGWer fallback
position. (Attacks on Al Gore excepted.)
(not that you personally do that, but your standpoint on that one would
allow that and absolve denialists from answering any of the difficult
questions that could be put to them about their beliefs). I'm afraid
not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises.
Feelings are for religion. Science is data driven.
That's why so many climate
scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises and
why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
How do you influence people who rely on feelings instead of logic? Write
a folk song?
If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
True, only those who are capable of understanding can really listen.
That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint,
I would substitute the word "frustrated" for "intimidated". I think
you're projecting again. You expected to intimidate and it didn't work..
why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm out
of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is stupid
(directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation of
the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature, derive a
quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be clarifying the issue..
Until then, you're just muddying the water.
end reinsertion
Trying to distort meaning by snipping never works. It's too easy to
reinsert the context you're trying to ignore. And it makes you look
desperate.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
It's incredibly difficult to make any sense of your post. It rambles.
Sorry to say that, but it does. A couple of things stick out.
Desperate? Not me Bill. Not with that weight of evidence supporting
my position and the sceptical science not adding up. There's no need.
Neither is there any "projection". Just a feeling that I'm being
talked at by someone who *may* have an over-inflated opinion of the
worth of his own science. Just a feeling that one, but the leap to the
defence of a self-confessed GW conspiracist-believer strikes me as
odd.
Anyway, please feel free to return to the discussion with ima on the
hypothetical question of a world without CO2. I'm sure there'll be a
rejoinder from you, but I'll dip out here if you don't mind. There are
two questions on another thread that you might like to support ima in
answering, however. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"I M at (no spam) good guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> wrote in message
news:t9fid5lavschv8k4lrtek5frra1qs4cj6b at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]
Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without
GreenHouse Gases and attempt some math?
..[/quote]
Without an equation relating this "greenhouse" property of a gas to the
thermodynamic properties of the real world (such as heat capacity, thermal
conductance, emissivity, etc), there can be no such thing as a greenhouse
gas.
..
Of course, I'd be intrigued if anyone can prove the existence of greenhouse
gases by deriving the equation that quantifies the greenhouse property of a
gas with respect to its thermodynamic properties without neglecting the
differences between kinetic heat and electromagnetic heat.
..
Science is about evidence, not interpretation. One of the most important
pillars of science is testability. Therefore, without a definition upon
which a property testing experiment can be defined and conducted, the whole
concept of "greenhouse" gases is pseudoscientific poppycock.
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"I M at (no spam) good guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> wrote in message
news:85nld590rijggrbri3ptsjm2ll6n6u552r at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:56:04 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
{$news$} at (no spam) meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <0sjld5lgs8tloag9iqki2j2majl158g4ik at (no spam) 4ax.com>, "I M at (no spam) good
guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> writes
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:09:04 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
{$news$} at (no spam) meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <7khld5d71281og47ioamvhuap03416jp0n at (no spam) 4ax.com>, "I M at (no spam) good
guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> writes
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:55:10 -0700 (PDT), "leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com"
leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:56 pm, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:18:27 +0200, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd
wrote:
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:18:24 +0200, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd
wrote:
Tom P wrote:
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without GreenHouse
attempt some math?
Without GreenHouse Gases means no water either,
so most of
the surface would be rock, maybe
with fine sand due to the N2 and O2 winds.
The hill and mountain sides in sunlight would
have a considerable updraft, and those in the shade
would have a downdraft. But much of the surface would
be just hot
in sunlight with convection.
Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, the atmosphere
would be warmed by the sun, and would have
very little cooling, mainly on the shaded sides
of slopes and those where the sun never shines.
This dispells the parroted myth that the
Earth would have temperatures like the moon
without GreenHouse Gases.
It might be interesting to determine if
there would be any lapse rate at all, since
warm air rises, and there would be less or
no cooling in the upper atmosphere.
Wrong.
What do you mean , wrong, I said it would
be interesting to determine, obviously there would
be a temperature gradient due to cooling by expansion,
but as more warmer air rises, thermal energy would
be added, possibly causing an inversion.
Read up any textbook on atmospheric physics, or google
adiabatic+lapse+rate.
Why do you think a discussion of existing atmosphere
physics would apply to an N2 and O2 atmosphere without
GreenHouse Gases?
Because the physics applies not just to planet earth but any other
planet including the planets in our solar system and hypothetical
planets that don't even exist.
Well, if the discussion is about GreenHouse Gases
and the greenhouse effect, it would not apply to the
hypothetical Earth without Greenhouse Gases.
•• ROTFLMAO
– –
Either way short term or long term the data
doesn't support man made global warming?
Do you think I got too basic in that response
to Tom, I didn't know if he considers water vapor
to be a GHG, you know, the AGW people seem
to think CEE-OH-TWO is the major GHG.
In the light of this blatantly inaccurate statement I presume that you
haven't read the IPCC report, or any of the other literature about
climate change - in the current regime CO2 induced warming is a forcing,
and H20 induced warming is a feedback.
I have read them, they do not discuss any hypothetical
situation for the purpose of understanding what warms the
Earth and moderates the extreme temperatures seen on
the moon.
If I am discussing a hypothetical Earth without GHGs
why would I bother reading about an Earth with GHGs?
So you don't look like an idiot when you claim that people don't think
that H20 is a major greenhouse gas.
I don't claim that, it is apparent though that the major
emphasis in AGW is on CO2 since water vapor is not being
added to the atmosphere.
However, from the non-sequiturial nature of your response, I presume
that you are just trolling.
No, try to follow this, an N2 and O2 atmosphere
would be heated by hot rocks in sunlight, so an Earth
without GHGs would be warmer than the present
Earth.
GHGs cool the atmosphere by LWIR radiation,
[SNIP][/quote]
..
Ah, more so by thermal contact conduction at the tropopause. This is perhaps
why refrigerants are now counted amongst GHGs.
..
So far I don't see any math, and I don't think we will if, as I suspect,
greenhouse gases are not defined in terms of a quantifiable and measurable
thermodynamic greenhouse property. Even the expanding earthers (plate
tectonics deniers) are more adventurous when it comes to a little
mathemajicka.
..
For those of you who have difficulty reading, the OP is asking for someone
to prove the existence of the greenhouse property of gases by defining it
with a thermodynamic equation. Hardly surprising given that greenhouse is
putatively the subject of the science of thermodynamics and science is about
evidence, not interpretation or reputation. Of course, if you can't provide
a verifiable definition, you've got no right to claim the assertion is
scientific (because doing so would be dishonest given that science is the
study of physically *verifiable* evidence).
..
Until we see some science, I would suggest it is misleading to assert GHGs
are more than a myth - especially if the myth is the one based on a
conjecture debunked 100 years ago by the Wood Experiment.
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dawlish" <pjgno1 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c13b408a-7153-46e2-ba0b-22219125ef34 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
[quote]short termhttp://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
long termhttp://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005l.htm- Hide quoted
text -
- Show quoted text -
Leonard; junk science, strangely, is not an arbiter. It's a blog with
an agenda. If I were you, I wouldn't set a great deal of store by it.
..[/quote]
Irrelevant ad hominem coprolite.
What has that got to do with what the evidence shows?
..
Look again at the evidence (without evading the evidence by attacking the
person presenting it):
short term:
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
long term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005l.htm
..
This data is all-important - and the satellite temps have a much
lower margin for error, which in the case of instrument data
exceeds the amount of claimed variation. The satellite data,
error range and all, plots entirely inside the range of instrumental
error (plus or minus 1.3 degrees K) so criticism raises such clichés
as "Those living in greenhouses" oops I mean "...glasshouses" - but I
presume you get the picture.
..
[quote]It just strikes me as odd that so many climate scientists don't come
to the same conclusion, looking at the same data. Now why could that
be?
..[/quote]
Would that be the same reason so many "scientists" supported eugenics 100
years ago?
It is amazing what government funding and propagandised prestige can do.
..
What strikes me is how everyone here is evading the OPs question - something
the eugenics loonies used to do too. What's the problem? Cat got your
keyboards? Can anyone answer the original question and prove that greenhouse
gases actually exist by defining the greenhouse property in terms of a
single thermodynamic equation - or am I to assume that the greenhouse
property of a gas is a hoax.
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:P9udnTwc_Pl07UbXnZ2dnUVZ_jFi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[SNIP]
[quote]Gedanken experiments can be useful. Einstein was said to have considered
the behavior of light in an accelerating elevator, so a planet with a non-
radiating atmosphere doesn't seem so far out. What fundamental physics
do you think Ima is ignoring?
..[/quote]
Kirchhoff's Law for a start. Unless we are talking about a material capable
of making a perfect white-body; all gases (no exceptions) will absorb and
reradiate to some degree in the presence of incident radiation.
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:21:18 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
[quote]On Oct 20, 10:05Â pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be
clarifying the issue. Â Until then, you're just muddying the water. Â -
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Trends Bill. Trends over time. Present day warm outcomes, despite
several cold forcings acting together. Factor in sceptical theories (and
there are many) and see that they are not producing the expected
results. Keep an open mind to the possibility that the majority is wrong
- as the IPCC did in its last report - but leave the extremists and the
terminally arrogant to their musings; but let them know from time to
time just how wrong they probably (note the word probably) are. Attempts
to patronise are a little poor, wouldn't you say, from such a
knowledgeable man of science? You don't post "here" generally. Your
interventions are mainly derived from cross posts from other newsgroups
and your interest "here" stems from that; not an interest in weather.
That's fine and dandy, but attempts at patronisation are highly unlikely
to deter me. You decided to step into this on behalf of someone whose
main driver appears to be the overturn of a global GW conspiracy and
that is your choice.
[/quote]
That's a rambling, incoherent, mind-reading dodge, not any kind of
explanation of a hypothetical mechanism. It's a good demonstration of
trying to muddy the water to hide your deficiencies. How do you expect
anyone to take you seriously if you don't even understand enough to
explain what the position is that you're trying to defend?
Your rant tells us far more about you than it does me. Those are your
thoughts you're describing, not mine. It's called "projection".
[quote]That's why so many climate
scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises
and why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
Good grief! They are all wrong and you know better because you have more
knowledge than they do.
[/quote]
No, as you said (and snipped), they are going by feelings, not by data.
That's not science, it's theology. If you believe because you are told,
without understanding, you have faith. If you insist on trying to
convince others you are right, but can't explain why, you are simply
annoying, and unlikely to convince anyone.
[quote]Now where have I heard that before ?
[/quote]
Maybe it's here, in the context you silently snipped from my preceding
post:
<begin reinsertion of snippage>
[Dawlish]
[quote]And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see few
of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid you are
in a very small minority there with that view.
[/quote]
[Bill]
You don't get around much do you? That's the default position in real
science. If you claim you're in contact with ET, you have to prove it, I
don't have to prove you didn't. If you claim to be able to predict
climate, the same principle holds.
[quote]You can thus expect to
criticise without any explanation of why you feel the science is wrong
[/quote]
How would I criticize without explaining errors I see in the proffered
explanation? Ad hominem attacks? I think you've got the positions
reversed, as that seems to be almost exclusively the AGWer fallback
position. (Attacks on Al Gore excepted.)
[quote](not that you personally do that, but your standpoint on that one would
allow that and absolve denialists from answering any of the difficult
questions that could be put to them about their beliefs). I'm afraid
not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises.
[/quote]
Feelings are for religion. Science is data driven.
[quote]That's why so many climate
scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises and
why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
[/quote]
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
[quote]It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
[/quote]
How do you influence people who rely on feelings instead of logic? Write
a folk song?
[quote]If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
[/quote]
True, only those who are capable of understanding can really listen.
[quote]That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint,
[/quote]
I would substitute the word "frustrated" for "intimidated". I think
you're projecting again. You expected to intimidate and it didn't work.
[quote]why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm out
of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is stupid
(directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
[/quote]
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation of
the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature, derive a
quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be clarifying the issue.
Until then, you're just muddying the water.
<end reinsertion>
Trying to distort meaning by snipping never works. It's too easy to
reinsert the context you're trying to ignore. And it makes you look
desperate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 12:26 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote in messagenews:85nld590rijggrbri3ptsjm2ll6n6u552r at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:56:04 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
{$new... at (no spam) meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <0sjld5lgs8tloag9iqki2j2majl158g... at (no spam) 4ax.com>, "I M at (no spam) good
guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> writes
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:09:04 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
{$new... at (no spam) meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <7khld5d71281og47ioamvhuap03416j... at (no spam) 4ax.com>, "I M at (no spam) good
guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> writes
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:55:10 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7... at (no spam) gmail.com"
leonard7... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:56 pm, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:18:27 +0200, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd
wrote:
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:18:24 +0200, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd
wrote:
Tom P wrote:
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without GreenHouse
attempt some math?
Without GreenHouse Gases means no water either,
so most of
the surface would be rock, maybe
with fine sand due to the N2 and O2 winds.
The hill and mountain sides in sunlight would
have a considerable updraft, and those in the shade
would have a downdraft. But much of the surface would
be just hot
in sunlight with convection.
Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, the atmosphere
would be warmed by the sun, and would have
very little cooling, mainly on the shaded sides
of slopes and those where the sun never shines.
This dispells the parroted myth that the
Earth would have temperatures like the moon
without GreenHouse Gases.
It might be interesting to determine if
there would be any lapse rate at all, since
warm air rises, and there would be less or
no cooling in the upper atmosphere.
Wrong.
What do you mean , wrong, I said it would
be interesting to determine, obviously there would
be a temperature gradient due to cooling by expansion,
but as more warmer air rises, thermal energy would
be added, possibly causing an inversion.
Read up any textbook on atmospheric physics, or google
adiabatic+lapse+rate.
Why do you think a discussion of existing atmosphere
physics would apply to an N2 and O2 atmosphere without
GreenHouse Gases?
Because the physics applies not just to planet earth but any other
planet including the planets in our solar system and hypothetical
planets that don't even exist.
Well, if the discussion is about GreenHouse Gases
and the greenhouse effect, it would not apply to the
hypothetical Earth without Greenhouse Gases.
•• ROTFLMAO
– –
Either way short term or long term the data
doesn't support man made global warming?
Do you think I got too basic in that response
to Tom, I didn't know if he considers water vapor
to be a GHG, you know, the AGW people seem
to think CEE-OH-TWO is the major GHG.
In the light of this blatantly inaccurate statement I presume that you
haven't read the IPCC report, or any of the other literature about
climate change - in the current regime CO2 induced warming is a forcing,
and H20 induced warming is a feedback.
I have read them, they do not discuss any hypothetical
situation for the purpose of understanding what warms the
Earth and moderates the extreme temperatures seen on
the moon.
If I am discussing a hypothetical Earth without GHGs
why would I bother reading about an Earth with GHGs?
So you don't look like an idiot when you claim that people don't think
that H20 is a major greenhouse gas.
I don't claim that, it is apparent though that the major
emphasis in AGW is on CO2 since water vapor is not being
added to the atmosphere.
However, from the non-sequiturial nature of your response, I presume
that you are just trolling.
No, try to follow this, an N2 and O2 atmosphere
would be heated by hot rocks in sunlight, so an Earth
without GHGs would be warmer than the present
Earth.
GHGs cool the atmosphere by LWIR radiation,
[SNIP]
.
Ah, more so by thermal contact conduction at the tropopause. This is perhaps
why refrigerants are now counted amongst GHGs.
.
So far I don't see any math, and I don't think we will if, as I suspect,
greenhouse gases are not defined in terms of a quantifiable and measurable
thermodynamic greenhouse property. Even the expanding earthers (plate
tectonics deniers) are more adventurous when it comes to a little
mathemajicka.
.
For those of you who have difficulty reading, the OP is asking for someone
to prove the existence of the greenhouse property of gases by defining it
with a thermodynamic equation. Hardly surprising given that greenhouse is
putatively the subject of the science of thermodynamics and science is about
evidence, not interpretation or reputation. Of course, if you can't provide
a verifiable definition, you've got no right to claim the assertion is
scientific (because doing so would be dishonest given that science is the
study of physically *verifiable* evidence).
.
Until we see some science, I would suggest it is misleading to assert GHGs
are more than a myth - especially if the myth is the one based on a
conjecture debunked 100 years ago by the Wood Experiment.
.
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software:http://software-1011.com;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Securityhttp://web-design-1011.comhttp://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
so explain heat the different heat capacities for polyatomic vs
diatomic molecules.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:45 pm
|
|