[split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2017, 07:51 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(13-04-2017 08:14 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  LifeIsThermal -- Another troll added to ignore list.

So... questions about the scientific validity of your claims about the greenhouse and the creation of energy by increasing amounts of dry ice in already cold air, is trolling?

You mean that I should place my faith in the theory, and don´t question it?

Sorry, I thought you were an atheist,
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 07:54 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(13-04-2017 08:28 PM)ImFred Wrote:  
Quote:And this co2-stuff, the climate church holy spirit, how does that work?

It stays in the earth's atmosphere and traps heat from the sun.

Yeah, about that, can you provide a source showing the physics of cold air trapping heat. I know exactly how to trap heat(which is a silly way to talk about insulation), and cold, wet air with a small fraction of dry ice is not one of them. Actually, cold, wet air is one of the things you want to avoid if you are setting up a trap for heat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 07:57 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(13-04-2017 08:59 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  

Thread split.
That thread isn't a place for trolls to play. Adults are having discussions.

So, only mentioning that there are some questions about the claims of heating from air at -18C, warming a surface at 14C, is regarded trolling?

Do you know the second law of thermodynamics?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 08:00 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(13-04-2017 09:31 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Let me know if you need me to translate this for you.

[Image: 194_co2-graph-021116.jpeg]

Have you ever heard the saying:

Correlation is not causation?

And why do you talk about historic changes when the question of temperature is about instantaneous transfer of thermal energy, that enter & leave the system at the speed of light?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 08:06 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 04:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  Yo, OP, why're you here? If you're so hot-shot scientist, go fucken well publish and get your name in lights.

We don't need evangelism. Convincing a non-expert means diddly-fucking-squat in terms of whether or not your pet theory is correct. If you can't cite real science to back up your views, you're a charlatan. End of story.

Oh, you want me to cite real science, I thought you were believers in here. Where should I start?`

I know, lets start at the beginning of thermodynamics and the subject heat in relation to radiating bodies. There was a guy studying the problem of heat and they had found the draper point, which show that practically all solids start glowing at the same temperature. Fascinating, isn´t it?

He said: the emission from a body depends on the internal state solely.

The internal state is what we measure in temperature. Everything surrounding a thermometer is included in temperature, all parts of that volume contribute to the temperature.


Now, Is the atmosphere part of the surface internal state? Or is it exactly the opposite, the external state?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 08:09 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 07:51 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  You mean that I should place my faith in the theory, and don't question it?

I quoted information from other sources in the climate change discussion, and provided the links to yet more information. An abundance of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change is available online. If you are really interested, let me suggest this as a starting point:

https://climate.nasa.gov/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 08:10 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 05:21 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  So... Why is it getting warmer then?

Remember "the pause" that went away by introducing changes to temperature records? Reasons for changes is a bit muddy to say the least. Anyway, are you sure that it is really getting hotter? And if it is, why would air at -18C be the cause of that when we are standing on a glowing ball heated by a glowing enormous ball?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 08:16 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 05:44 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Nice try at faking scientific ignorance, but these days so many poes and trolls just dont get that its a very thin line you have to walk, and not overdo it. Remember: as a poe you have to have some credibility left for it to work.

Is the line thinner than the one were you lean on heat flowing from cold air by creation of energy? The heat flow from cold air is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and the creation of energy is a violation of the first. The whole argument about how the atmosphere heats the surface, is a violation of the foundation of temperature, where Prevost stated:

The emission of a body logically depends on the internal state solely.

Since the atmospheres existance is an expression of an external state exactly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 08:36 AM
[split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 07:00 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
Quote:First of all, too much of anything is a bad thing.

What about love?Thumbsup

Quote:Second, what you wrote is little more than a justification for some anti-science conspiracy theory. It's much more likely that a few denialist scientists are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industries than 97% of climate scientists are in on a conspiracy to mislead the public or establish a world government.

Yeah, have another look at those studies of consensus. They might not say what you think they do. Being skeptical of scientists defending a questioned theory with arguments of authority, is a succesful scientific strategy. Why would anyone care about consensus if the theory was sound? You show a large amount of -faith- in a theory which lack evidence entirely. A weak correlation based on anomalies from a random decade in the last century, is that what you call strong science?

I don´t think it is a conspiracy, but that leaves only one alternative, stupidity. And that is something that makes up the bulk of climate science as a doomsday cult.

One would think that a forum of atheists would be alerted by doomsday cults like when someone says that the world will have a heat catastrophy caused by dry ice. Don´t you think?

Quote:Third, sometimes fear and funding are entirely justified. If you judge by fear and funding alone, you should oppose the entire defense industry.

How about a situation where lots of funding and lobbying comes from an organisation entirely focused on attacking a branch of the economy that is the cause of all the wealth of the modern society?

Then add to that: it is the only organisation that has made the call for global government.

Then add to that: it is the only branch of science that has tried to organize prosecution of people that doesn´t agree with the faith in co2-doomsday scenario. (in US).

Then add to that: recently liberals called for schools to throw out skeptic information from the heartland institute. No matter what you think of that institute, is real science done by "burning" books?

Honestly, I have not seen anyone make a call for book-burning in my entire life, until co2-doomsday cult convinced
that they should destroy information.

Is this really an atheist forum? I immediately got a feeling of strong religious beliefs in here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LifeIsThermal's post
14-04-2017, 08:40 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 07:39 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Yea if you're going to preach follow the money you need to do that for both sides of the issue. If you do that for this issue you'll find that at least in the early days of the debate the funding for the 3% came almost exclusively from institutions with a heavily vested financial interest in burning more carbon base fuels.

Wouldn´t that be the institution: humanity?

Humanity gains enormous benefits from cheap energy. On top of that things grow better with more co2 at the same time as they use less water. In greenhouses a level of 1000ppm´s is considered somewhat ideal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: