@NoelFuller

The "Some Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment (1979)" report's authors included R. Revelle the spiritual father of Al Gore, and B. Bolin first chairman of IPCC. A basic example of circular logic:



Let nevertheless reduce the whole §:
Quote:

The value 4W m^-2 is obtained by several methods of calculating infrared radiative transfer.

Value initially based on work by Ramanathan et al. (1979) using computer models, thus having no real world value per se.

Quote:

These methods have been directly tested against laboratory measurements and, indirectly,

No 1 reference given, thus arm-waving demonstration.

Quote:

it should be emphasized that the accurate calculation of this term has required a careful treatment of the thermal radiative fluxes...

Confirmation of model based research (no one does such calculation by hand), thus at best guesstimate and no real world value per se.

Quote:

Crude estimates may easily be in error by a large factor. Thus, in an interim report, MacDonald et al. (1979) obtain a ΔQ of 6 to 8 W m−2, a value about 1.5 to 2 times too large. Greater uncertainties arise in estimates of the resulting change in global mean surface temperature...

My points exactly.

Quote:

...A plausible assumption, borne out qualitatively by model studies, is that the relative humidity remains unchanged.

Confirmation of model based research. Was then demonstrated to be false but still currently implemented on models.

And so on...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The "Some Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment (1979)" report's authors included R. Revelle the spiritual father of Al Gore, and B. Bolin first chairman of IPCC. A basic example of circular logic:

A typical diversionary and meaningless adhominem tactic plus the usual incomprehension of the function of models. You make two notable omissions: One of your own gurus was also on the panel; second, do your arguments about models apply to the model you derive your arguments from?

Face it, your tactic in misusing the 2nd law of thermodynamics has properly failed.

Noel

@TMTisFree

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I also know how to play this game: it does not disprove that 0°K objects do not exist.

This isn't this hard to understand. When I said all objects radiate you tried to advance the concept to some scientific statement instead of the commonly used venacular.

Quote:

Where is it stated that thermal temperature has not be measured?

Egads another he said she said thread? This time on your own statements? Quote:

note that the 'temperature' of dark matter one can find in literature is really the velocity of matter and has nothing to do with 'thermal' temperature

Quote:

Reread. I did not write dark matter: 1/ is an object :

I wrote all objects radiate. You are trying to prove your darnest that some objects don't and used dark matter as your example. Now you tell us that you really didn't claim dark matter is an object?

Quote:

the 2nd Law and other Laws are sufficiently clear for normal scientists and extensively used everyday.

Of course it's clear. It's just unclear when you falsely claim that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't comply.

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Dandy ... What is your thinking on this matter?

Co² is dangerous to man's health - if its concentration in the breathing air is too high...


EDIT:
Fixed typooo...

Last edited by Dandy on 24-Jul-2009 at 06:09 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@NoelFuller

You do have problem understanding circular reasoning, don't you? A hint: Socrates maintained that there are two kinds of ignorance. Simple ignorance is that which consists of not knowing, which is usually acknowledged and easily remedied by learning. The other kind is ignorance of one's ignorance, usually translated as compound ignorance. The latter is a far more difficult thing to rectify, if it can be rectified at all, because the people afflicted are unlikely to invest the effort needed to fix the problem since, per definition, they are unaware of any problem that needs fixing.

Quote:

One of your own gurus

Not possible: I have no religion or religion-like belief in Science. I am convinced by evidences, not authority.

Quote:

do your arguments about models apply to the model you derive your arguments from

It is obvious you don't appreciate the difference between a bunch of lines of FORTRAN code including the unavoidable bugs, misconceptions, errors, improper linearization of NSE, lack of engineering, lack of control quality, lack of scientific validation, failure to quantify uncertainty, numerous ad hoc adjustments and parametrizations to the taste of modellers, known unknowns not implemented (not to speak of unknown unknowns), etc and on the other side, the simple application of some well proven and applied laws of Physics. So yes, models, with all their imperfections, still can be useful tools and give highlights if appropriately used (as all tools) but they will never prove anything and certainly can not support the comparison with any physical law they are eventually based on

Quote:

Face it, your tactic in misusing the 2nd law of thermodynamics has properly failed.

I am still waiting for an argument that shows evidence that heat flows from a cold atmosphere to the hot Earth's surface. Face it: babbling will not help.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Co² is dangerous to man's health - if its concentration in the breathing air is too high...

True above about 30000-50000 ppm (current level is below 400 ppm), there is still margin and by large.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

India rejected key scientific findings on global warming Wow, someone takes a real stand on a none issue.

edit:fixed a copy/paste typo.

Last edited by damocles on 24-Jul-2009 at 09:41 PM.

_________________
Dammy

Exercise for readers how many problems can you find from this Anti-Global Warming claim?

@Dandy

Quote:

Co² is dangerous to man's health - if its concentration in the breathing air is too high...

Undoubtably such high concentrations of CO2 have an impact to life. Though we are a long way from killing off man due to CO2.

Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has impacts on life in various ways. Plants too have varied effects. It's not always positive. More CO2 has been found to reduce the nutrition in wheat, for example. Excessive CO2 has been found to reduce photosynthesis and stunts the plant's growth.

It appears everything has a limit of sorts. The older I get the more Ilike what the Temple of Apollo said -- everything in moderation...

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Interesting Quote: Interesting wrote: @Dandy ... What is your thinking on this matter? Co² is dangerous to man's health - if its concentration in the breathing air is too high... EDIT: Fixed typooo...

Co2 is a trace gas. it is nowhere near level that are toxic to humans or animals. Life actually seems to thrive during times of higher co2.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I am still waiting for an argument that shows evidence that . . .

You who have keenly demonstrated that you can find anything another can't on the web.

Perhaps you found this statement and felt yourself to be on safe ground:
Quote:

Looking for a complete explanation of greenhouse warming, equations and all? You won't find it here or anywhere on the Web: . . .

That should be enough to get most googlers on the track but I doubt you will. I have entertained the following hypotheses:

!. Behind the pseudoname you are really working on the next funding application for Heartland or one of their surrogates in which you must list your quotes on the web from the resources of say "CO2science", plus the readership and tally the responses, even this one . Thus your posting history is fully explained, including all the posturing.

2. You are really a horse, blinkered by a 19th century point of view (your basic science model); should you be led to water you cannot be made to drink!

3. Because you mistake your world view for reality you must deny anything that challenges it, you will poison Socrates, crucify Christ, shoot Abraham Lincoln, (metaphorically of course) in the interests of preserving your "reality". i.e. you are a denialist. An example of a denialist is given in the next post.

4. Your 1901 climate science model, your inherited world view, being mistaken for reality, completely prevents you from seeing the evidence or even understanding basic physics, you cannot visualize for instance a molecule of gas that has caught a photon of LWR being a hot object, nor can you see it releasing it's photon in some random direction, nor can you realise the photon will travel until it meets some other object and add its tiny mite of energy to that object, be it earth, the sea or most likely some other nearby molecule of atmospheric gas. You think correctly that the trend is from hot to cold but cannot visualise the radiative physics.

Thinking from the particular to the universal, with it's many enticing leads and dead ends, is the fundamental problem of science investigation. It is also the fundamental trap for most people, confusing weather and climate, simplistic application of "laws of physics". Perhaps a visualisation that links the parts to the whole is all that is needed for most people. Yet that is what is lacking in all the explanations of the putative greenhouse effect. I would that skilled animators tackle the verbal descriptions and render them into someting people can see in principle. I used to know some but they have left the amiga.

Just in case you are not described by hypotheses 1 to 3 and can overcome the limitations of the world view you exhibit, I provide a couple of links in the second post from me below.

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 24-Jul-2009 at 11:15 PM.

The case of a denialist

A boy of eight years was being taught to swim in a backwater of the local river. As part of the process he learned at least to float on the surface face down while he had breath. The instructor then asked him to open his eyes and describe afterward any objects he could see on the bottom. The boy swore that he looked and saw nothing. The instructor then said he would hold a hand before the boy's eyes under water. The boy claimed he did not see the hand and indeed had his eyes open. While the instructor went through the exercise with the hand again, I swum on my back below where i could clearly see the boy kept his eyes tightly shut the whole time underwater. Even after my report the boy insisted his eyes were open and he saw nothing.

Noel

Do you want to know about radiative heat transfer and greenhouse gases?

You could start with this undemanding but slightly mathematical approach:
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/#more-462

Or plunge into basic radiative calculations here
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm#molecule
Its not so tough but notice what is said in the box

Or if you want to really do some work then, following a link suggested in the box just referred to, you come to a draft climate book:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html

I suggest you leave the last to last and hope you get my moan about the lack of animations to convey the arguments and explain the physics visually.

Noel

@Tomas

Quote:

Life actually seems to thrive during times of higher co2.

Studies are accumulating to the contrary - lower protein, higher toxicity for example and that's not all, take a look around. There have even been recent references in this thread.

We, and the biosphere we depend on ,seem to be a great ice age phenomenon. We may be heading for, or are heading for a climate better suited to reptiles.

Noel

@NoelFuller

Hit a raw nerve it seems. I remind you of your: Quote:

A typical diversionary and meaningless adhominem tactic

some posts ago. Clearly you do not apply your complaints to yourself.

About your links, they just prove you don't understand circular logic. If I had to dis/prove something, I should at least find independent studies, critical work and/or original perspectives. But no, alarmists are entrenched with their consensual beliefs in their formatted mind, keeping repeating their mantra admonished by their 'gurus' and will stay so. No scepticism, no hope.

Edit: added a sentence and corrected typo.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 25-Jul-2009 at 12:41 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

True above about 30000-50000 ppm (current level is below 400 ppm), there is still margin and by large.

Yes, surprised that other things havn't been picked up from the example like:

1) Its a "natural" part of human life
2) His spacesuit brought functions the earth automaticly take care of
3) Man in space brings a "mini earth" with him
4) Look how simple breathing is very complex to duplicate in space, and we are trying to fix this "Climate change" problem on a global scale?

Can think of many more...

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@NoelFuller

@NoelFuller

Quote:

i.e. you are a denialist. An example of a denialist is given in the next post

I think this a good point of discussion. What is a skeptic and what is a denialist? A denialist is one that sees all contary evidence as a plus for their side. I believe TMTisFree has displayed this condition in droves. The acceptance of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's is one glaring example. There are so many logic errors let alone scientific ones it's sad to think someone thinks this truly proves that atmosphere has no impact to a planet's temperature.

@BrianK

Quote:

the concept to some scientific statement

Dark matter is more than a concept as it has been mapped.

Quote:

Egads another he said she said thread?

If you were properly reading what I precisely wrote, we would not be playing this ping-pong game.

Quote:

I wrote all objects radiate.

This is correct for objects with absolute temperature above 0°K.

Quote:

Now you tell us that you really didn't claim dark matter is an object?

Once again. What do you not understand in "I did not write dark matter: 1/ is an object"? I wrote "I then propose dark matter which can be detected only because of its gravitational perturbations and not directly because it emits no light, no IR, no EM, no radiation of any kind: thus dark matter is, per definition, at 0°K. As dark matter makes up about 85% of the known Universe, is it enough to win". No use and no need of undefined 'object' here. I hope you are deliberately obtuse to hide you are unfair.

Quote:

It's just unclear when you falsely claim that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't comply.

A black body radiates 100 W/m^2. One directs a 101 W/m^2 thermal radiation to the black body. What is the resulting radiation level by the black body?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

tQuote:

I think this a good point of discussion...

Working techniques to surreptitiously evade lacks of argument are OK.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Exercise for readers how many problems can you find from this Anti-Global Warming claim?

Some one was drawing pictures from imaginary visions of a place that had never been properly documented let alone visited at the time. (North and South Pole regions), then trying to draw real world conclusions from them. Though there is some text supporting the Viking's mis-adventures in Greenland. However are you trying to prop up your oun claims by referencing horridly flawed references? Maybe I miss interpet your example? Such shoddy material helps neither side.


Plaz