Challenge to the Skeptics: What's Your Theory?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Jun 23, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    I know of dozens of things that affect the climate. Do you agree that there has been warming? Do you agree that CO2 has some part in climate change, even a small one?

    The Warmers have only one course on their plate but the lukewarmers and skeptics have a full buffet. What are your favourites? Meat and potatoes like solar and ENSO? Vegetables like land use and clouds. Or do you head straight to the dessert tray and pick out data fraud, public misdirection or fiscal naivete?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    Interesting. Are you talking global climate or local. If you are talking local, then I can think of just a few things that have been proven to have an effect on the climate. If you are talking global, I can't think of anything that has been unequivocally proven to alter the global climate. We know it changes but at this point, we really don't have a clue as to why. Hell, at this point, we don't even have a theory; hust numerous hypotheses and such a profound lack of understanding of the climate that we can't even go about devising real world experiments for those.

    Mathematically, it is easy enough to prove that CO2 isn't the culprit, even to a small degree. Logically, it is easy enough to look at history and see that it isn't the culprit. It has been warmer with higher levels of CO2, it has been colder with higher levels of CO2. It has been warmer with lower levels of CO2 and has been colder with lower levels of CO2. When the climate has been both warmer and colder with both higher and levels of atmospheric CO2, it becomes pretty difficult to make a rational case that CO2 is, even in a small part, driving the climate.

    The earth has one energy source that matters with regard to global climate. That is the sun. Energy drives the climate. You want to know what drives our climate? Look to the only source. Exactly how does it drive the climate? Don't know. We don't have the understanding at this point to grasp the entire system and partial knowledge won't do the trick. Till we can grasp the entire picture, we are just guessing.

    In all this there are some things that can be ruled out and proven to be of no consequence via the laws of physics and mathematical proofs. CO2 and downdwelling radiation are two of those. I know that you believe CO2 is in small part a climate driver. I have invited you to prove it and show me the math. You seem bright enough to do the math but have so far declined. One must wonder why.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2011
  3. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    how do local factors not have an effect on global temperatures? heat spreads out. doesnt even changing colour (albedo) have an effect? bouncing a photon instead of absorbing it changes the Earth's energy balance doesnt it?
     
  4. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    When two EM fields are in opposition (EM field generated by the earth and EM field generated by the atmosphere) Energy flows in the direction that is propagated by the stronger of the two fields. No energy flows upstream against the stronger field. Heat may spread out and it may spread out unevenly but the fact remains that it is continuously moving in the direction of the field propagated by the earth. You can't "bounce" a photon upstream of a more powerful EM field than the one it is travelling with.

    That is the basic law of nature. Any appeal to complexity that doesn't obey this basic law of nature is flawed. They are called laws of nature because they have never been observed or theoretically proved to have been broken.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2011
  5. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    are you saying no sunlight bounces off the earth? have you never seen earthshine on the Moon?
     
  6. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    next you will be saying radio transmission is impossible too
     
  7. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    You can bounce a photon off a surface, but not off an EM field. Now who is playing semantics?
     
  8. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    Except for a few trace gasses, air is generally transparent to EM radiation. There is another math problem for you.

    At what level of atmosperic concentration would CO2 actually effect radio and microwave transmissions. I haven't done the math but my bet is that it would be very near the amount necessary to overcome the EM field generated by the earth.
     
  9. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    At the risk of being repeating myself, I understand the laws of nature to work a certain way. I grasp their meaning and implication and am able to do the math necessary to prove them to myself. If you believe that I am mistaken, then do the math and prove me wrong. Subtract the two EM fields in question and show me that 1) the EM field of the atmosphere is greater in magnitude than that of the earth or 2) show me mathematically that two EM fields can move in opposite directions along the same vector. If you can prove either one of those, then you have an argument. If you can't, then you have none.

    Without one of those proofs, at best you have thought experiments that are in violation of the laws of science.
     
  10. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,269
    Thanks Received:
    2,920
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,257
    kill all the cows.............they poop too much
     

Share This Page