|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#401
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 22:49:01 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 22:28:56 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote: It might not happen, but it cannot be excluded either. Millions of people needlessly dying will certainly cause unrest and massive amounts of migration on a scale we haven't seen so far. Certainly there will be wars over this too. And it's those side effects which could be a danger to our civilisation. Some nukes detonated, in India or Pakistan, or in the Middle East, could be enough. It's already happening. There are small scale resource conflicts happening all over. The most far reaching for most of the world is the Syrian civil war, which probably would not have occurred but for anthropogenic drought. Are you saying that our civilisation already is collapsing? Well, some subcultures are collapsing. Our major cultures are not, but they are certainly stressed, and that stress is almost certainly going to increase. |
#402
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 06:37:23 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 22:49:01 +0200, Paul Schlyter Are you saying that our civilisation already is collapsing? Well, some subcultures are collapsing. Our major cultures are not, but they are certainly stressed, and that stress is almost certainly going to increase. It'll be alright. As long as the supreme court doesn't ban volcano wedding cakes or red comb-overs on pseudo-religious grounds. Talk about turning the other cheek! Love thy neighbor? Not if he has a red comb-over, we wont! Inverted bløødy hipsters! Haven't you noticed the similarity between flying molten lava and red haired, temperamental personality cults? Mar-a-Fuego? This is the Devil's own work! The sky is falling! What do we want? We want a refund on our afterlife insurance scam payments! And, we want them now! I'm still waiting for the second coming of Perseus! Hades has had his own way for far too long! Time to raise the seas and extinguish the lower orders.. Let those with the means move to the higher ground they so richly [sic] deserve. Bring on the Towering inferno! Bosch had it right! No, not that Bosch. THIS Bosch! ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch |
#403
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article , says... I claim the current consensus is biased and those who fawn over it are likewise biased, It indeed is ... biased towards the truth. I disagree. Do you prefer some other kind of bias? I would prefer that AGW advocates not try to shut down research that might affect their agenda in a contrary way. Example: attempting to stop CERN from doing the CLOUD experiment. even to the point of denigrating skeptics Skeptics are of course ok. Deniers are not ok. In your not-so-humble opinion. with claiming that "overstatement" is not bias. It CERTAINLY is since they're concocting a false argument. This is baloney. It's also ad hominem rather than to the discussion. And this is how AGW advocates tell the truth? You seem to have missed my earlier point that water vapor is a red herring; it may contribute more to the greenhouse effect directly than carbon dioxide, but it's an effect, not a cause. I think I answered it, but I'm not sure. It's not necessarily an effect. Certainly, air can hold more water vapor if its warmer, so IF CO2 causes an increase in temperature, there will be more greenhouse effect than what comes directly from the CO2. For some reason, however, this effect is less than what the climate models predict. On what do you base this claim? Cherry-picking empiical data? Something else? http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ Play around with it. A doubling of the CO2 level from 400 ppm to 800 ppm results in about a 1% decrease in the outgoing IR flux, or about 3 W/m^2. Reduce the level from 400 to 200 ppm increases the outgoing IR flux by about 1%, or about 2.7 W/m^2. Going from 200 to 400 ppm results in a decrease of 2.7 W/m^2 whereas going from 400 to 800 ppm results in a decrease of about 3 W/m^2. As I understand it, IPCC climate models assume a linear effect, whereas MODTRAN shows it to be quite nonlinear. 3 W/m^2 is equivalent to the variation in the solar constant and earth's albedo variation, so doubling the CO2 level, which won't happen for 200 years at the present rate of increase, is almost in the noise. The fact that most of the "climate skeptics" among scientists have turned out to be in the pay of oil companies, though, is indicative. And "climate scientists" work for governments, which they rely on for their paychecks. Which makes them much more unbiased than if they get their paycheck from some private company with a business agenda. You do recognize that researchers are humans too which must make their living somehow, don't you? Give one example of making your living in a way which makes you more unbiased than if you get your salary from the government. I worked most of my career on gov't contracts so you bet I was biased. If dissenting views have trouble getting published in orthodox peer- reviewed venues, that usually says something about the quality of the work involved; Or it says something about the bias of the "peers." Precisely that argument is used by flat earth activists.... That's bull****. Don't mention that crap again or this discussion is over. So you don't like peer review. With what would you like to replace it? No review at all? Peer review is usually okay, but there are problems when it's controlled by one faction. I could has easily accuse a "conspiracy" of preventing chemical journals from publishing papers on the chemical (as opposed to nuclear) transmutation of lead into gold. The true sciences are much more "settled" than climate change is. We know A LOT about the energies of the nucleus versus electron energy levels. There are no "big problems" hanging out there in chemistry, and there are few in physics. "Most" is one thing. "Nearly all" is another. Funny, I know a few PhDs in science ranging from physicists to soil scientist who claim AGW is bunk and politically motivated. I know none who are AGW advocates. So my own "survey" is in stark contrast to the claims bandied about by the advocates. How many of those are climate researchers? Physicists are used to simple problems where fundamental effects are researched. In addition, physicists are used to systems they can perform experiments on. They are not used to very complex systems like the Earth with its atmosphere and its climate. which they can only observe, not experiment on. Exactly my point. If you can't do experiments or give accurate predictions then it's not a true science. So what is being suggested is a radical re-orientation of our society towards less dependency on energy and less energy use. This would downgrade heavy industry, and thus impact the military defense capabilities of the United States of America. Indeed, but there are other consequences. Anthropologist Carleton Coon pointed out that civilization itself is determined by converting available energy into social structure, so less dependence on energy means a debasing of society. Furthermore, the developing countries are where the increasing CO2 emissions will be coming from, so it is pointless to harm the USA in a fanatic process of self-immolation. Yep -- "harm the USA" -- that's the main preoccupation of climate deniers. They think it's better to make our civilisation collapse than to "harm the USA". But they'll shoot themselves in the foot, since a collapse of our civilisation **also** will "harm the USA".... If the US collapses the world will be thrown into chaos, so your argument is baloney. You seem to be a George Soros sycophant. Doing something about it, in the way we're generally told to, actually is the alternative that seems to have genuinely devastating consequences, while it's the risk of doing nothing that's small. Exactly. I'm not saying to do nothing, but I am saying to take it slow, improve the climate models, gather more data and move incrementally toward reducing greenhouse gases (but not water vapor :-) If you were an extraterrestial, observing the Earth from space, you could argue like that. But you are a human living on Earth and whatever happens here will affect you too. The situation here on Earth is a bit more urgent than you realize. Waiting a century or so (which would be required to meet your demands) is very likely waiting too long... As I have demonstrated, you are dead wrong about that. |
#404
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 14:27:42 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
As I have demonstrated, you are dead wrong about that. Take away your obvious bias and what do you have left? An self-declared belief in unicorns. The "alternatives" offer lots of good ways of spreading the gift of cleaner energy with a largely deprived, global population. Affordable energy frees children from slavery to study by artificial light. It allows women to avoid a long walk to the ever dwindling forest to gather fuel for the open fire in the center of their crowded hovel. Your way ensures most of the planet endures decades more "exhaust" pollution and the well known health issues. Your way ensures despots around the world can afford armed forces and security services to keep billions of real people suppressed. All paid for with oil paid for by Western democracies. Sauce for the goose? Or are they mostly too black and too far away for your knee-jerk, Christian values to kick in? Your way ensures the entire world has its nose to the grindstone to pay for constantly escalating, quarterly "energy" profits. Your way ensures massive inequality around the globe while the billionaires crush any political "wavering" against _their_ status quo. Your way ensures women will remain downtrodden, third class citizens. Barely existing in an underclass below the social status of men's pets and their expensive toys. You do the maths. China thinks the maths of "alternatives" makes good sense.. Why are Western countries targeting solar panels for importation charges? Why are they not jumping at the chance to get cheaper solar panels on every roof? They don't make any themselves so it's not a competition. Do they look at flat TV panels the same way? Democratization of energy production away from big corporations would seem beneficial to the masses. Energy poverty is a chronic Western disease as well. Countless pensioners die of cold each year in Europe. So what political pressures are _really_ at play here? DO they hope for an early "expiry date" to save on government pensions? Your maths is only good for counting your "allowance" from a dirty energy provider. How else can you demand a century's delay in tackling _today's_ very real social issues? Or are all those black people to far away to be worthy of your empathy? Sympathy would typically be expecting rather too much from a "practicing" Christian. What does an expert Christian look like? A bit too much like your fabled Jesus? Why are solar panels only fitted on upper middle class homes enjoying generous feedback tariffs? When the vast majority of ordinary people cannot even borrow the cost of installation from the bank? To be guaranteed full repayment and a nice profit on their borrowed "investment" in only three to five years? Why was it far too expensive to maintain this guaranteed investment for the "lower orders?" A few solar panels on posh roofs doesn't dent AGW. It empowers the already wealthy. A big, fat, tax cut on _their_ cost of living. To be spent on further, imported luxuries. One man's Tesla S is a mere gnat bite on AGW's bum. A billion electric cars, charged with wind and solar, will change global society in far more ways than we can possibly imagine. Solar could ease the damage to society from the coming AI robots. Mass unemployment can be turned into productive creativity when the millstone of paying through the nose just to keep warm [or cool] is lifted. |
#406
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 3:24:55 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article , says... On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: In article , says... I claim the current consensus is biased and those who fawn over it are likewise biased, It indeed is ... biased towards the truth. I disagree. Do you prefer some other kind of bias? I would prefer that AGW advocates not try to shut down research that might affect their agenda in a contrary way. Example: attempting to stop CERN from doing the CLOUD experiment. The CLOUD experiment seems to be alive and well. Now is not when the AGW advocates trid to prevent it from happening. And while the contribution from cosmic rays in forming clouds in our atmosphere might be interesting, I don't see the relevance of it to the AGW question. After all, the amount of cosmic rays striking the Earth is quite independent from our emissions of CO2. But it's not independent from global temperature. BTW which climate researchers have tried to stop the CLOUD experiment at CERN? Please name a few of them, preferably with relevant references. I read it on the web but I can't find it now. Funny how those things disappear. ANd, yes, they should be researchers in climate science, not zealot advocates of any kind. Zealit advocates are hardly interesting -- they are a matter of psychology and mass communication, not of the Earth sciences. Indeed, and I find a LOT of zealots in the AGW camp. even to the point of denigrating skeptics Skeptics are of course ok. Deniers are not ok. In your not-so-humble opinion. Do you disagree with me? DO you think deniers are ok? That depends upon what they're denying, but calling someone a denier doesn't mean they actually are one. with claiming that "overstatement" is not bias. It CERTAINLY is since they're concocting a false argument. This is baloney. It's also ad hominem rather than to the discussion. And this is how AGW advocates tell the truth? Are you commenting on yourself? Do you have trouble reading English? You seem to have missed my earlier point that water vapor is a red herring; it may contribute more to the greenhouse effect directly than carbon dioxide, but it's an effect, not a cause. I think I answered it, but I'm not sure. It's not necessarily an effect. Certainly, air can hold more water vapor if its warmer, so IF CO2 causes an increase in temperature, there will be more greenhouse effect than what comes directly from the CO2. For some reason, however, this effect is less than what the climate models predict. On what do you base this claim? Cherry-picking empiical data? Something else? http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ This is not a climate model but merely a radiation model. And you dishonestly believe radiation is irrelevant? Yuu wrote "this effect is less than what the climate models predict" where youwrote "climate models" in the plural form. So you must have examined more than just one model which isn't even a climate model. Which climate models are you referring to here? All existing models, without exception? Or only some models -- which ones? Oh, good grief! Did you do this: Play around with it. A doubling of the CO2 level from 400 ppm to 800 ppm results in about a 1% decrease in the outgoing IR flux, or about 3 W/m^2. Reduce the level from 400 to 200 ppm increases the outgoing IR flux by about 1%, or about 2.7 W/m^2. Going from 200 to 400 ppm results in a decrease of 2.7 W/m^2 whereas going from 400 to 800 ppm results in a decrease of about 3 W/m^2. As I understand it, IPCC climate models assume a linear effect, whereas MODTRAN shows it to be quite nonlinear. 3 W/m^2 is equivalent to the variation in the solar constant and earth's albedo variation, so doubling the CO2 level, which won't happen for 200 years at the present rate of increase, is almost in the noise. I played around with it and it was fun. However, it gives you the upwards IR radiation as seen from an altitude of 70 km, well above 99.9% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. And what you see there is the radiation from these greenhouse gases, not from the ground. Yes, it does measure the radiation from the ground. Are you blind? Look at the diagram to the right, which shows the radiation intensity as a function of wavelength (or wavenumber). Although the ground temperature is 300K, the upward radiation temperature from 70 km altitude never reaches 300K. The diagram on the right shows temperature vs. altitude. The one on the LEFT shows intensity vs. wavelength for various temperatures. And you seem to be criticizing something that is your fantasy. So what you see here is the radiation balance between the Sun and the upper atmpsphere of the Earth. OF COURSE the upward IR heat flux at this altitude is quite independent of the number of ppm's of CO2, as you noted. The heat flux from the Earth into space must, on the average, naturally equal the incoming light and heat from the Sun. This says little about the temperatures at or near the ground, which is what concerns us humans who live on the ground. Yep, you completely misread the model. You would obtain a similar result at Venus: the upward IR radiation from Venus is on the average the same as the incoming light and heat from the Sun - revealing little about the oven-like temperatures on the surface on Venus. This radiationb model also gives the ground temperature as very nearly 300K (299.7K to be precise). But that value seems to be hardwired into the program - you can change it by switching from "Tropical atmosphere" to "Midlatitude Summer" or "Subarctic Winter" or 3 other choices. But apart from that it seems completely unaffected by e.g. the amount of CO2 I choose. Try changing temperature offset. I tried values from 0 ppm CO2 to 999999 ppm CO2 and the ground temperature remained at 299.7K (Tropical atmosphere), not changing by even 0.1K. It's an INPUT parameter controlled by "Temperature Offset." So you are deluded if you use this model to conclude that "changing the amount of CO2 does not affect the ground temperature". You are deluded believing that it is some kind of output. The output is "Upward IP Heat Flux." Upward IP Heat Flux is the important thing. Did you try putting in ths values for CO2 levels that I did? Did you see that doubling the present CO2 level to 800 ppm only increased the heat flux by about 3 W/m^2? Do you realize that such a difference is about the same that the solar constant varies? Do you understand the implications of that? Do you understand that cloud cover has a much larger effect than CO2? Do you understand that it will take 200 years for CO2 levels to rise to the point where CO2 will have as big an effect as solar variations? I gotta go. Later. |
#407
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
The pseudo-intellectuals will talk about carbon dioxide and 'climate change' until they depart this Earth however planetary climate for all planets in the solar system is based on a relatively straightforward principle based on the degree of inclination within a spectrum. The Earth's climate would only change in the event of an increase or decrease in inclination towards and away from the plane of the orbital motion of the Earth.
http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif The broad principles are already in front of researchers as the spectrum is between 0 degrees to 90 degrees signifying an Equatorial climate or a Polar climate respectively with combinations of both in-between depending on inclination. It takes probably a number of major modifications to model the links between the motions of the Earth and the effects on the atmosphere but considering RA/Dec disrupts the daily cycle, the dual surface rotations responsible for the seasonal cycle, axial precession to the Sun as an annual event, research is wasted on a stationary 'greenhouse' Earth. In two weeks it will be polar noon and polar midnight at the Poles or midsummer and midwinter in the respective hemispheres signifying one surface rotation in isolation (Polar day/night cycle) and in combination with daily rotation (seasons). People should love the exciting adventure but only dullness prevents society from this new approach. So be it . |
#408
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:27:42 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I would prefer that AGW advocates not try to shut down research that might affect their agenda in a contrary way. Example: attempting to stop CERN from doing the CLOUD experiment. Came across a graph on this page: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...&post=35457821 Of course, the graph may have been cherry-picked, since it was exhibited by an AGW supporter. But it certainly looks like even though cosmic rays do have an effect when other things are equal - something else is happening now. John Savard |
#409
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:27:42 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Peer review is usually okay, but there are problems when it's controlled by one faction. Peer review is *always* controlled by "one faction", it could be argued. After all, how many published papers on astrology or alchemy do you see in scientific journals? So opposition to AGW, like any unorthodox idea in science, can be smeared by association very easily, if nothing else. If the debate is to be conducted by people doing the science from scratch themselves, it will be a very slow one. But I can't deny that the alternative, of simply ridiculing the unorthodox for their outsider status doesn't prove anything. To me, though, the difference between an "independent variable" and a "dependent variable" is often a fundamental thing. So it's highly plausible to me that while the direct effect of carbon dioxide levels on the heat leaving the Earth is so small as to be "lost in the noise", with everything else being out of our control, or following predictable cycles, and with things like water vapor quite clearly and obviously acting as amplifiers, not independent contributors, those carbon dioxide levels could be what is causing change. And while I would suspect the conclusiions of environmental activists, and I'm aware of the extent to which political correctness has created a unanimity of thought in liberal arts departments on college campuses, back when I was a student myself in the 1980s, the rot had not started to set in within the physical sciences. I don't think that a legitimate researcher who found that there's no need for undue concern about fossil fuel emissions just yet... would meet the same fate as a researcher who claimed that he could prove that white people were more intelligent. Unfortunately, though, I can understand all too well why someone of a conservative view might not be so sure. So, while to me the surface appearance is that the AGW consensus is a legitimate result of the science, and it isn't because the environmental activists have taken control of the campuses and the journals, since the reputation of academia has been compromised, I am not really surprised that others may have different perceptions. I am dismayed by this very much, as a society that has lost its ability to perceive reality is likely to do itself in even before the effects of rising global temperatures become noticeable. The current toxic political climate needs to be fixed. John Savard |
#410
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 11:36:44 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:27:42 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: Peer review is usually okay, but there are problems when it's controlled by one faction. Peer review is *always* controlled by "one faction", it could be argued. After all, how many published papers on astrology or alchemy do you see in scientific journals? I think that's a combination of excluded middle and straw-man argument. I don't think any scientist advocates either of those "disciplines, and lots of papers "out of the mainstream" are published in the journals. Certainly, some scientists disagree with them and even ridicule them, but they ARE published. So opposition to AGW, like any unorthodox idea in science, can be smeared by association very easily, if nothing else. If the debate is to be conducted by people doing the science from scratch themselves, it will be a very slow one. But I can't deny that the alternative, of simply ridiculing the unorthodox for their outsider status doesn't prove anything. To me, though, the difference between an "independent variable" and a "dependent variable" is often a fundamental thing. So it's highly plausible to me that while the direct effect of carbon dioxide levels on the heat leaving the Earth is so small as to be "lost in the noise", with everything else being out of our control, or following predictable cycles, and with things like water vapor quite clearly and obviously acting as amplifiers, not independent contributors, those carbon dioxide levels could be what is causing change. But ANYTHING that causes a temperature rise is amplified by water vapor, including the solar constant variations. And while I would suspect the conclusiions of environmental activists, and I'm aware of the extent to which political correctness has created a unanimity of thought in liberal arts departments on college campuses, back when I was a student myself in the 1980s, the rot had not started to set in within the physical sciences. I don't think that a legitimate researcher who found that there's no need for undue concern about fossil fuel emissions just yet... would meet the same fate as a researcher who claimed that he could prove that white people were more intelligent. Unfortunately, though, I can understand all too well why someone of a conservative view might not be so sure. So, while to me the surface appearance is that the AGW consensus is a legitimate result of the science, and it isn't because the environmental activists have taken control of the campuses and the journals, since the reputation of academia has been compromised, I am not really surprised that others may have different perceptions. I am dismayed by this very much, as a society that has lost its ability to perceive reality is likely to do itself in even before the effects of rising global temperatures become noticeable. The current toxic political climate needs to be fixed. John Savard Indeed. Pruitt himself, of course, ought to be able to explain where he got his ideas from. I don't know what his justification is, but the MODTRAN app certainly confirms his position when a doubling of the CO2 level, which will take 200 years, produces enough direct effect to rival solar constant variations. Cloud cover has a VERY large effect, initially to reduce heat flux into space, but long-term to produce cooling by increasing earth's albedo. The graph of temperature vs. cosmic ray flux seems to show no correlation, but the flux data only goes to 2003. The flux decrease has only been observed for about 4 years. Furthermore, the initial effect of increased cloudiness has a warming effect, but the long-term trend is to lower temperature due to decreased input from the sun. Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity or Just Dead Science? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | November 27th 17 11:41 AM |
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | October 1st 17 06:05 PM |
Clifford Truesdell: Thermodynamics Is a Dismal Swamp of Obscurity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 2nd 17 05:12 PM |
REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 15 | May 29th 07 05:25 AM |
STERN REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 11 | March 4th 07 12:42 AM |