[split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2017, 12:52 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 08:06 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  
(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, isnĀ“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?

I said *cite*. I see no references in your post, and I want references to an actual climate scientist - expert in the field. You I don't know from fucking Adam and I wouldn't trust to analyze your own faeces.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 01:02 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 08:36 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  ...Is this really an atheist forum? I immediately got a feeling of strong religious beliefs in here.

Ok, let me go a little deeper into this. First a little story, then back to my previous reply, and then you maybe understand and will be less confused as to what exactly is going to happen as a consequence of your entry here.

Story:
A couple of weeks ago we had a 911 truther here. I suppose he had the same reasons you had to join TTA, had the same expectations, and had a rude awakening, someting i would like to spare you.

He was operating under the wrong assumption that, since atheists are atheists as a result of their scepticism (so far nothing wrong), they will be sceptic of anything else as well, particularly of government, anything *mainstream*, *official* or other things commonly held as *true*. Since he (the 911 truther) perceived himself as sceptic as well, he sought out TTA to find like minded people.
This is where his first misconception was: We are not only sceptic of government, mainstrem media, etc. but particularly sceptic of people who join TTA, show off their overblown ego and start insulting us before we even answer to their proposition, or basically threaten to tell we will be idiots if we dont agree with the proponent. Sorry, but that doesnt work here.

His second mistake was his perception that he considered himself scpetic as well. You arent sceptic just because you reject minstream media, mainstream science etc. but buy into nonsensical conspiracy theories propagated on fringe websites by unknown people without any education, credentials or experience in the field at hand. You are still a gullible fool if you just dont buy into silly religions but into silly conspiracies.

My previous reply:
Now you may understand that first i am sceptical in case you think you (aka "nobody", at least to me) knows more about basic science than most scientists.
Now you may understand that i am sceptic too about people with theories about worldwide conspiracies. Just because you (think you) are *sceptic* of mainstream science doenst make you automatically my friend in spirit. I am sceptic about your conspiracy theory too, actually in particular. This is because, and being sceptic you will agree with me that: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Claiming worldwide conspiracies needs more than a child like presentation of how the basic mechanics of climate on a planet with a dense atmosphere orbiting a central star works. Sorry, but that is the level of physics you are seemingly bringing to the table, and i am confident that you havent studied physics at all at any university looking at the way you are presenting your case in general.

Take this as a friendly and gentle warning, before you will have a rude awakening as to why all those supposed-to-be-sceptical atheists arent buying your *well formulated theories*. I know you think, since religion is so mainstream but obviously wrong, that atheists will be your allies because they dont buy into (mainstream) religion just as you dont buy into mainstream science.
Just because your theory is *special* doesnt make it true, it will be viewed with even more scepticism from TTA members, because we know how well science worked in the past.

Refuting religion is easy because its bullshit all around. Refuting mainstream science needs more than just some overblown ego and the need to feel special (*i have special knowledge noone else has, ergo i am special*... or was it vice versa? You tell me).

You most probably arent a special-science-snowflake, really. Lecture_preist

Why are you anyway coming to an atheist forum of all to talk about climate science and physics instead of going to a science forum? Because noone else takes your bullshit serious?! Maybe, just maybe noone takes you serious because your theory is bullshit? Please consider this for a while, if you are sceptic.....of yourself too.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Deesse23's post
16-04-2017, 04:02 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(13-04-2017 05:55 PM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  To get you into the right mood for debate, I can declare my view of climate science as the biggest fraud in human history, the greenhouse effect is a violation of proven, applied and fundamental physics in every detail of the theorys construction. I believe that the greenhouse theory cannot produce a single argument that is possible to confirm in any way.

I am what you would call a strong climate sceptic. But even I don't agree with your assessment at all.

The science itself is pretty well accepted, to say that you doubt it entirely is to say you doubt quantum mechanics or general relativity. However, and here I think is where the argument is, we know that QM and GR can't harmonise together and so the picture is incomplete. With climate science, we know that we're experiencing global warming, and I (as a sceptic) will agree that it's most likely mostly anthropogenic - CO2, Methane, Black carbon, and CFCs. I have disagreed with the climate predictions proposed for greater than a decade, and I feel I'm vindicated. However to be fair to climate scientists - the observed warming thus far is indeed within the lower-bound of their predictions, and therefore they also feel vindicated.

I would certainly agree that we don't know what will happen. As a sceptic, I don't feel there's any more cause for alarm than a street preacher proclaiming the end of days. But with that said, there will be adjustments that need to be made (and that's putting it lightly), especially as rainfall patterns change in response to the new climate.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aractus's post
16-04-2017, 07:19 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 07:54 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  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.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "with a small fraction of dry ice".

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2017, 10:09 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-04-2017 07:19 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(14-04-2017 07:54 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  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.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "with a small fraction of dry ice".
Is he implying that our atmosphere contains dry ice?
Because if it does then he's right, climate change isn't a problem..... because we're already dead.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2017, 10:11 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-04-2017 10:09 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(16-04-2017 07:19 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Please elaborate on what you mean by "with a small fraction of dry ice".
Is he implying that our atmosphere contains dry ice?
Because if it does then he's right, climate change isn't a problem..... because we're already dead.

Ice-nine. Big Grin

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-04-2017, 06:48 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(13-04-2017 05:55 PM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  To get you into the right mood for debate, I can declare my view of climate science as the biggest fraud in human history, the greenhouse effect is a violation of proven, applied and fundamental physics in every detail of the theorys construction. I believe that the greenhouse theory cannot produce a single argument that is possible to confirm in any way. Sometimes I get scared when thinking about climate science, it is the only organisation that has called for global government. I think it is a new strategy from the nazis that has been regrouping and now are using a new lie to gain power. Just kidding, maybe.

That's a fascinating statement. The scientists that coudn't even keep the A-bomb secret are fomenting global conspiracy? Do you have anything to back that up?

Quote:Can someone give me their top three arguments for a greenhouse made of air that surrounds a glowing ball with a shell, that is heated by an unreal ball of fire, can heat the surface and cause the temperature to rise?

Burden of proof is on the one that makes the outlandish claims of global conspiracy.

Quote:I can warn you that I will point out the fact that the system has two glowing radiating bodies, and one cold, wet, not-glowing, low density body.

And if this were a simplistic matter of pure emission and absorbtion then that would be all you need to examine. I suggest you go over transmission and reflection.

Using your simplistic view we are unable to explain why the thermosphere broils at 2500 C while the troposhere is only 20 C.

Clearly, something is wrong with your understaning of thermodynamics.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
16-04-2017, 07:18 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 07:51 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  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?

While it is theoretically possible that you are so imbeciic that you think that dry ice is a combustion product we were giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you were simply making a strawman so stoopid that the high council of wizards couldn't get it a brain.

Let us know if you'd prefer to be thought of as a lack-wit.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2017, 08:54 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 01:02 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Ok, let me go a little deeper into this.
...
Story:
A couple of weeks ago we had a 911 truther here. I suppose he had the same reasons you had to join TTA, had the same expectations, and had a rude awakening, someting i would like to spare you.

He was operating under the wrong assumption that, since atheists are atheists as a result of their scepticism (so far nothing wrong), they will be sceptic of anything else as well, particularly of government, anything *mainstream*, *official* or other things commonly held as *true*. Since he (the 911 truther) perceived himself as sceptic as well, he sought out TTA to find like minded people.
This is where his first misconception was: We are not only sceptic of government, mainstrem media, etc. but particularly sceptic of people who join TTA, show off their overblown ego and start insulting us before we even answer to their proposition, or basically threaten to tell we will be idiots if we dont agree with the proponent. Sorry, but that doesnt work here.

His second mistake was his perception that he considered himself scpetic as well. You arent sceptic just because you reject minstream media, mainstream science etc. but buy into nonsensical conspiracy theories propagated on fringe websites by unknown people without any education, credentials or experience in the field at hand. You are still a gullible fool if you just dont buy into silly religions but into silly conspiracies.

Actually I'll dig a bit deeper still. Most climate sceptics have a somewhat softer position than we had in the past. Notably I think most of us accept that a complicated combination of anthropogenic GHGs are at least partially responsible for global warming, and I think we're at that point now where we can say it is most likely that they are the main responsible force.

There are however, and have been for a long time, sceptics that have a hard position that states that we are not experiencing global warming, or that it's significantly less than measured. I do respect that position, there are valid reasons behind that thinking, but it does ignore non-thermometer climate indicators such as NASA satellite data.

So let's go back to what scepticism means. We should always be sceptical of everything in life. But that of course is not the same as saying we reject everything. Although many people do go too far with a lot of their "scepticism", we need to apply a consistent standard of evidence-based beliefs. And no one is really free from the bias of their world-views in this.

Here I think is where your problem lies, LifeIsThermal. You declared Climate Science to be a fraud. That itself is completely nonsensical - you have many very good scientists that earn a living researching things to do with climate science, you cannot possibly believe that all independently acting researchers are perpetrating a huge global fraud. For what purpose?

Furthermore, you seem to completely disbelieve that there is a greenhouse effect at all. That's easily proven by doing temperature measurements on the Moon which is the same distance from the Sun but has no atmosphere. The Moon's daytime temperature is 100 degrees, and its night-time temperature is minus 173 degrees! That makes the average temperature on the Moon -36.5 degrees! The average temperature on Earth is 16 degrees - 52 degrees hotter than the Moon! Importantly, without an atmosphere there would be surface temperatures of up to 100 degrees during the day (even hotter on concrete), and down to -173 at night, and those are temperatures we don't experience on Earth.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aractus's post
17-04-2017, 02:06 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Aractus I'm curious as to what exactly you're skeptical about regarding climate science, since you accept that the world is warming and that it is human caused?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: