Good News Sucks for Climate Cultists

[moon]

So you faithfully listen to your priests in the Church of Global Warming...meh.
Define 'climate change'. Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate that can change.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). 'Expert' worship. Void authority fallacy.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
It is not possible to measure the number of storms on the Earth (but it IS possible to measure the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, and that data disagrees with you!).
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in Earth's atmosphere.
It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. CO2 has no magick power to do so. See the 1st law of thermodynamics, which you are denying.
It is not possible for a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. CO2 has no magick power to do so. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you are denying.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
There is NO DATA for the temperature of the Earth.
There is NO DATA for the global atmospheric concentration of CO2.
There is NO DATA for global sea level. It is not possible to measure it.
There is NO DATA for total snow and ice on Earth. It is not possible to measure it.
There is NO DATA for the pH of the oceans. It is not possible to measure it.
There is NO DATA for the emissivity of Earth. You have to accurately know the temperature of the Earth to measure it.

Your religious chanting is all you have. That is all that exists in your 'Global Fry-up' thread.

You have NO DATA. You refuse to present any. You continue to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You continue to ignore and deny mathematics, particularly statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics. You've even denied algebra.

All for your fundamentalist style religion.

Science isn't evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Yes, he is making shit up. He has NO DATA.

Science isn't media or a 'report'.

Ah. Abuse. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

It's all he has. He has no data and keeps denying and discarding theories of science.

Croaks the attention-seeking dolt who doesn't know where Sweden is



Haw, haw, haw, haw, haw.........................haw, haw, haw, haw.................................haw, haw.......................haw.


Once again, you posing poltroon- how many lines of latitude does Sweden share with the UK ?

Into the Night Soil

Sweden is not in the Arctic
Moon NOW thinks that Sweden is in the Arctic!

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...scussion/page3 #35


Haw, haw, haw, haw.............................haw, haw........................haw.

[Saint Guinefort]

Yes, he does have reason (and so do I) to think they are wrong. I have three:
The 1st law of thermodynamics.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law.

How so?

[Saint Guinefort]

1st law of thermodynamics:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force over time). You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the magick capability to falsify this law.

2nd law of thermodynamics:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (or available energy to do work), and 't' is time. This also defines the concept of 'heat' and it's direction. It is not possible to warm a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere. No gas or vapor has the magick capability to falsify this law.

Wow you got those pretty wrong. First off the First Law of Thermo doesn't look a thing like what you wrote. Not even close. The second law you forgot a major, major caveat.

So basically you failed.

Might want to go back and check how the First Law is actually formulated.

[moon]

Wow you got those pretty wrong. First off the First Law of Thermo doesn't look a thing like what you wrote. Not even close. The second law you forgot a major, major caveat.

So basically you failed.

Might want to go back and check how the First Law is actually formulated.

He knows nothing about anything. Just kick his fool ass every time he shows up to troll.

[Saint Guinefort]

He wrote a book. It is isn't about physics or thermodynamics. He denies science. It's a book about religion...namely the Church of Global Warming.

So you don't know that Richard Lindzen is one of the PREMIER DOUBTERS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE??? Wow. He's ON YOUR SIDE. Granted his arguments are bit more subtle and technically more robust (ie he knows how the laws of thermo actually function), but generally he's with you.

Funny you didn't know that yet you claim to know so much about this topic.

[Saint Guinefort]

He knows nothing about anything. Just kick his fool ass every time he shows up to troll.

Yeah, I know that. Still keeps me in practice pointing out the errors. I understand that poster doesn't have any real interest in any real discussion and he is disastrously ill-informed.

[serendipity]

So you don't know that Richard Lindzen is one of the PREMIER DOUBTERS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE??? Wow. He's ON YOUR SIDE. Granted his arguments are bit more subtle and technically more robust (ie he knows how the laws of thermo actually function), but generally he's with you.

Funny you didn't know that yet you claim to know so much about this topic.

Sorry but that's just bullshit! Here's what the great man said way back in 2012 in the House of Commons.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

[serendipity]

Yeah, I know that. Still keeps me in practice pointing out the errors. I understand that poster doesn't have any real interest in any real discussion and he is disastrously ill-informed.

Richard Lindzen has written over 200 papers, how many have you written?

[Saint Guinefort]

Sorry but that's just bullshit! Here's what the great man said way back in 2012 in the House of Commons.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

The topic you are taking a stab at is called "Climate Sensitivity". It has been estimated over and over again and found to be in the range of 2-4.5degC.

This illustration (from an article by Knutti and Hegerl, 2008) shows the various methods that have been used and the likely estimate of the sensitivity.



So I'm sorry but since you provided no evidence for your position I'm going to go with the one that has evidence.

[Saint Guinefort]

Richard Lindzen has written over 200 papers, how many have you written?

Only about 7 or 8 that were peer reviewed. But the point remains that Lindzen is on the side of the doubters. He's among the tiny minority who doubt the standard science.

Just like Einstein had doubts about Quantum Mechanics and my mineralogy professor had doubts about plate tectonics back in the 1980's.

There's always doubt. The key is that Lindzen represents about only 3% or less of the total scientific population.

[Damocles]

So NOW you deny GLOBAL WARMING?

No. But I do enjoy pointing out hypocrisy when it exists. In that case it is the leftists who are confusing weather with climate and in your own words they are "Denying Science" (can you hear the fake echo and deep voice?).



*(Though science is the discussion itself and testing, it isn't what the leftists think it is).

[Into the Night]

How so?

RQAA.

[Into the Night]

Wow you got those pretty wrong. First off the First Law of Thermo doesn't look a thing like what you wrote. Not even close. The second law you forgot a major, major caveat.

So basically you failed.

Might want to go back and check how the First Law is actually formulated.

So you discard the 1st law of thermodynamics...utterly. You think you can create energy out of nothing.

[Into the Night]

So you don't know that Richard Lindzen is one of the PREMIER DOUBTERS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE??? Wow. He's ON YOUR SIDE. Granted his arguments are bit more subtle and technically more robust (ie he knows how the laws of thermo actually function), but generally he's with you.

Funny you didn't know that yet you claim to know so much about this topic.

Anyone that claims any gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth is not on my side. I despise the Church of Global Warming.

[Into the Night]

Yeah, I know that. Still keeps me in practice pointing out the errors. I understand that poster doesn't have any real interest in any real discussion and he is disastrously ill-informed.

Bulverism fallacy.