Into the Night (10-21-2019), Truth Detector (10-16-2019)
I'm not going to say that everything within this video is perfectly accurate, but the overarching point is a rather interesting one about the silliness that the Church of Global Warming wants people to believe. Apparently everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else... Here is a particular Google search showing this... Just scroll down the first page and you'll see what I mean...
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=...10.5pGCYPodCpE
Any Church members care to address this?
I assume this falls under "Settled Science", as defined by Global Warming Mythology?
http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thr...ference-manualSettled Science: noun
Any element of Climate Science that runs counter to physics or is an apparent logical fallacy, e.g. "Climate Change."
Last edited by gfm7175; 10-16-2019 at 03:09 PM.
Into the Night (10-21-2019), Truth Detector (10-16-2019)
I confess that I've never paid much attention to the AGW controversy, except to note that the overwhelming majority of climatologists say there is evidence of global warming, and at least part of it could be anthropogenic.
Do your guys say there is no global warming? Or if there is, that none of it is man-made, so there's nothing we can do about it? And what makes them so sure they're right?
In 2014 an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration". They said: "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetuating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."
chill........
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
So you're just taking those people's word for it rather than looking into logic, science, and mathematics for yourself?
I can only speak for myself. Speaking for myself, I say that we do not know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature. There is currently no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth, per Mathematics.
Irrelevant, since we haven't determined whether or not there IS any.
It is not possible to "take action" regarding an undefined and non-quantifiable thing such as "climate change".
I'm not claiming that there is none. I'm claiming that we don't know whether there is or isn't, since we have no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth.
Let's just say that I am not a Church of Global Warming member. I am not a Warmizombie. I am not a LMS Denier (LMS standing for 'logic, mathematics, and science').
Truth Detector (10-22-2019)
That IS the prevailing mantra that is chanted. I'll get to this later in this post.
There is no gas or vapor that is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. The only thing that can change the temperature of the Earth is a change in the output of the Sun.
Since we didn't make the Sun, it is not man made.
Do about what? Assuming the same output from the Sun, there is no global warming. There can't be. I'll get to this later in the post as well.
Ah. The key question.
To warm the Earth, additional energy is needed, that is, more energy from than the Sun is currently putting out is needed.
These 'climatologists' you hear about are also called 'climate scientists'. Trouble is, there is no theory of science about climate. These people deny science and mathematics. Their usual explanation for how the global is warming is the so-called 'greenhouse effect'.
This model touts certain gases have the magickal ability to somehow create the additional energy on Earth to warm it. Typically, the argument of the 'greenhouse effect' takes one of two forms, which I call the Magick Blanket argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. Both arguments violate physics. To begin with, Earth is a bit of matter in space. All matter that is above zero deg Kelvin emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The amount of light emitted is dependent on the temperature of the emitting surface. At the kind of temperatures found around the surface of Earth, the surface emits light just like any other matter, mostly in the infrared band (a wide band of frequencies).
The surface, being generally warmer than the atmosphere above it, loses thermal energy to that colder atmosphere. This tends to bring the surface and the atmosphere toward the same temperature. In other words, the surface is cooled by losing thermal energy to the atmosphere by simple conductive heating. Certain gases, such as CO2, water vapor, methane, etc. do absorb infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. This radiance from the surface cools the surface just like contact with cold air does. The upshot is that these gases are just another way for the surface to heat the colder atmosphere. It is heated not just by conductance, but by radiance as well.
But this does not warm the Earth. It's simply the warmer surface heating a colder atmosphere and the surface itself cooling in the process of giving up energy.
That colder atmosphere DOES become warmer by this action, but it too is made of matter, and it emits light according to the same Stefan-Boltzmann law.
All of it, the surface, the atmosphere, everything; emits light into space. Thus Earth is cooled by radiating into space, 24 hours a day in all directions, day and night.
But there is the Sun. It puts out light, including infrared light, that is absorbed by the Earth. That absorption results in heating, just like the Earth heating the atmosphere by radiance using it's own weak infrared light. This absorption is primarily by the surface, and is what makes our land and oceans nice and comfy to live on.
So energy from the Sun is equally balanced by the energy leaving Earth again.
Now enter the 'greenhouse effect'. Among the things it states, it tries to make the case that not all the energy is leaving Earth and is retained as thermal energy (what we call temperature). Unfortunately, the 1st law of thermodynamics says that you can't create energy out of nothing. Neither can you destroy energy into nothing. What comes in MUST leave. Nothing about any gas or vapor can create the additional energy needed to warm the Earth. Everything radiates light by converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy (The Stefan-Boltzmann law). It is not possible to trap or hold light.
Another argument made is the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which states that photons absorbed by CO2 are re-emitted back down to the surface again, heating it. Unfortunately, this effectively builds a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy cannot decrease in any system. This gives a direction for heat. Hotter areas are concentrations of energy. Colder areas are devoid of energy. That is low entropy. Heat flows from hotter areas to colder areas. In this way, energy is dispersed evenly through the system. Heat never flows from cold to hot (for that would reduce entropy). The Magick Bouncing Photon argument is literally attempting to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, this is not possible.
Another problem the 'greenhouse' effect runs into is the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself. This law states: r = C * e * t^4 where radiance is in watts per square meter of radiating surface, C is a constant of nature, e is the emissivity of that surface (how well it emits compared to a perfect emitter), and t is the temperature of the emitting surface in deg K.
By preventing light from leaving Earth, the 'greenhouse' effect is effectively reducing the radiance of Earth. At the same time, it argues, the temperature is increasing because it is 'trapped' here on Earth. The Stefan-Boltzmann law clearly states, however, that radiance is always proportional to temperature. Never inversely proportional. If temperature goes up, radiance MUST go up. If radiance goes down, temperature MUST go down with it. Both C and e are constants, C being a constant of nature, and e is a measured constant.
Thus, the 'greenhouse effect', as explained, violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
That is how we know the whole idea of 'greenhouse effect' is bogus, and everything the 'climatologists' and 'climate scientists' say nothing more than a denial of science, for they deny each of these three laws of physics. No degree from any university, no matter it's title, makes any difference to these three laws of physics.
anonymoose (10-21-2019), gfm7175 (10-21-2019), Truth Detector (10-22-2019)
I've noticed that the Warmizombies have been rather quiet regarding this thread...
WHERE ART THOU?!?!?!
Truth Detector (10-22-2019)
Well if you present nothing better than "but 97%, etc." or "Greta's gonna get ya," you simply don't have much of an argument. Not sure what a clarabellian argument is but "Greta's gonna get ya" or the tired old 97% B.S. which has been thoroughly debunked isn't going to cut it. Argue math, science and logic using math, science and logic. Not what some journalist who couldn't pass Algebra I from the NYT says. Drinking water is easier for the animal kingdom than understanding the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics and the SBL.
Why don't you simply point out what is false in the post?
No need for a source. Nothing in the post is incorrect. It just states how the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodymics and the S-B Laws work in the frame of physics. In fact it's about the easiest to understand explanation I've seen.
What is pseudo science or false in the post?
Last edited by anonymoose; 10-21-2019 at 05:23 PM.
gfm7175 (10-22-2019), Into the Night (10-21-2019)
Yes, that's what the Church of Global Warming is doing...
What is being presented by the Church of Global Warming has been denials of Logic, Mathematics, and Science... I've now begun calling these twits LMS Deniers.
.... drink. You can't make it drink.
Now that we've gotten through your whining, would you care to address the logic issue that I presented in the OP?? How can everywhere be warming twice as fast as everywhere else?
For example, Canada is warming twice as fast as the "global average"... https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...c-report-shows
So is Sweden... http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/201..._137934967.htm
So is Tibet... https://www.newscientist.com/article...lobal-average/
So is Alaska... https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Le...439353963.html
So is China... http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20180...cf6516245.html
So is "The Arctic"... https://futurism.com/the-arctic-is-w...t-of-the-globe
So is South Africa... http://www.csag.uct.ac.za/2019/09/25...e-global-rate/
So are "The Rockies"... https://www.talesofchange.earth/post...e-far-reaching
So are "Mountains"... https://psmag.com/environment/mounta...ng-photo-essay
So is Australia... https://www.popsci.com/australia-hea...er-rest-world/
So is Russia (Maybe Russia is also meddling with our climate, not just our elections?? )... https://www.ibtimes.com/why-russia-w...ncerns-2240034
Oh, and as a special bonus of bogus...
So are "US National Parks" compared to the rest of the USA... https://www.hcn.org/articles/climate...he-u-s-overall
And a secondary special bonus...
A search for "cooling twice as fast" yielded no countries that are cooling... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22C...iw=721&bih=318
Same with "warming half as fast" ... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22W...iw=721&bih=318
A "warming slower than" search only yielded that Washington is warming slower than the rest of the USA, and that Antarctica is warming slower than the Arctic... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22W...iw=721&bih=318
Nothing about warming slower than the "global average" though...
Last edited by gfm7175; 10-22-2019 at 09:58 AM.
laugh if you want, but that's how dire the situation truly is.
No one has ever made such an argument. Anyone with even half a brain should know that the earth has been in a warming trend for ten thousand years.
There have been at least five major ice ages and warming periods in the Earth's history, none of which could be said to have been caused by man.
The history of the planet? What makes you think that man could possibly change the earths climate. That takes a massive mountain of human arrogance.
Some FACTS to assist you in your search for the truth:
Below is the composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15 C and 101325 Pa.
Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
Helium -- He -- 0.000524%
Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%
Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%
Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%
Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide -- NO2 -- 0.000002%
Iodine -- I2 -- 0.000001%
Carbon Monoxide -- CO -- trace
Ammonia -- NH3 -- trace
29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind.
The notion that man is causing the planet to heat up based on CO2 that amounts to less than 1% of the gas in oxygen can only be believed by morons.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
Bookmarks