No Evidence

Discussion in 'Environment' started by SSDD, Nov 2, 2018.

  1. The Sage of Main Street
    Offline

    The Sage of Main Street Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    6,797
    Thanks Received:
    419
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    All in your mind
    Ratings:
    +2,673
    In History, "Postclassical" Means the Dark Ages

    Starting with its Original Sin, the Quantum "Leap" was an illusion that pushed weak-minded scientists into irrational explanations and theoretical fantasies. It is absolutely impossible to change one's place without moving through a space between the starting point and the end point. In the real world, this illusion can only be produced by theoretically restricting the dimensions within which the displacement takes place. So if a scientist's obsession is with rejecting the old but tried-and-true ways of logic and determinism, in a sophomoric youth rebellion to impress his contemporaries, he can restrict the apparent leap to the three-dimensional world instead of risking criticism for proposing that there had to be an extra outside dimension that the particle went into. The reason for the scientist's gutless fear of being called silly was that the extra dimension had been speculated on back in the 1880s (Flatland) but, through no fault of the theory itself, had degenerated into supernaturalist explanations.

    Yet this fudged misconception can happen in the macro world, too. Suppose you pretend you can only go from Boston to New York by traveling along at ground level. Then airplane flights would leap to that destination without touching any place between.

    The motto of these neurotic escapist geeks is, "If It's Weird, It's Wise." However, they're only looked up to if they come up with a new weirdness, and not the adults' weirdness of supernatural explanations.
     
  2. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,679
    Thanks Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,330
    SSDD: Here is the story so far.

    In post #102 I said the following:
    You disbelieve quantum mechanics
    You disbelieve spontaneous emissions of energy
    You disbelieve the textbook second law of thermodynamics
    You disbelieve the textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation
    You disbelieve radiative equilibrium
    You disbelieve mathematical representation of scientific theory
    You disbelieve radiation of accelerating charges
    You disbelieve equipartition theory of energy in air

    Your reply in post #106 was a total melt down and started with this:
    You are full of shit...you are a liar...and you are just plain stupid. The above represent yet another episode of fantasy in which you fabricate statements, claim that I made them, then argue against them. Keep it up and I will report you.

    Then in that same post you methodically lambasted accepted science point by point and tried to prove that the accepted science was wrong. You were actually agreeing with my post #102! You called me a liar and then agreed with me. That is more than weird.

    That whole circus repeated in my post #110 and your reply #112 which ended with,
    Face it...you are doing nothing but proving my position.

    Actually you were proving my position that you don't believe the science.

    That whole circus repeated yet another time in my post #114 and your reply in post #118 again emphasized that you don't believe in the science.

    OK, we both get it. You don't believe in some classical and all of modern physics.

    So along with your misunderstanding of my posts, you kept saying there was no evidence concerning AGW. My concluding replies related to your position. You have not addressed them:

    Post #110 When you say nobody gives you observed measured evidence, you mean they don't give it an a way that is compatible with your made-up reinvention of science.

    Post #114. The point is that if you don't even believe the fundamental physics underlying the atmosphere, how can you honestly argue anything about GW or AGW to people that understand the textbook tenets of science, and disagree with your reinvention of science.

    With that preamble, now to address your position specifically.

    My two conclusions in posts #110 and 114 already said your positions are untenable because someone knowledgeable in science has no basis for a rational discussion with someone who thinks science is fairy dust. We have seen that impasse many times.

    I'm still not taking a stance on AGW, however, your position 2 is patently false. Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?

    .
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,119
    Thanks Received:
    1,207
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,715
    The story so far is that I said:

    1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

    2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

    3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

    To date, neither you nor any of the other faithful have posted a single piece of observed, measured evidence which challenges any of those 3 statements...nor will you because it simply doesn't exist. As an amusing side bar to the story, you have been whining, mewling, bleating, bawling, bleating, crying, and baaahing because I don't place the same faith in unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable models as you without regard to who else places their faith in them.

    Since you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements above, you have done what all people of very low character have done for as long as anyone can remember...you have attacked me personally in every way you can think of to do it. You have complained about what I believe, and what I don't believe, and attempted to suggest that because I don't believe, somehow that has anything whatsoever to do with your inability to provide observed, measured evidence to challenge the assertions I made in the OP.

    Either you can or you can't...and by now we all know you can't...so continue to cry, wail, gnash your teeth, piss and moan or whatever lament you care to engage in...The end result however, is going to be that my statements stand because the actual observed, measured evidence does not exist.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  4. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,679
    Thanks Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,330
    I disagree. Why do you think absorption of IR by GHG's does not warm the atmosphere. Where do you think the 400 W/m² radiated from the earth goes?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,119
    Thanks Received:
    1,207
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,715
    Why do I think that the absorption of IR by so called GHG's does not warm the atmosphere? How many times have I told you. Begin with the fact that over a million hours of experiment, development, and commercial and residential observation in the infrared heating industry has demonstrated beyond question that infrared can not, and does not heat the air....OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT...that is the whole point of infrared heating systems...they don't waste energy heating air...they heat objects.

    Then there is the fact that in spite of your belief that absorption of IR results in warming of the atmosphere, there is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by so called greenhouse gasses and warming in the atmosphere.

    Then there is the fact that when the energy that has been absorbed by a molecule of a so called greenhouse gas, it is emitted at the same frequency it was absorbed, or at a slightly lower frequency. If you want to warm, you must increase the frequency of the energy being emitted. How do you think you get warming without an increase of the frequency of the radiation that is supposedly causing the warming. You don't get warming by simply adding more energy at the same frequency. As I have pointed out, you can pump as much 70 degree air into a space as you like but the temperature is never going to rise above 70 degrees.

    If you believe there is a coherent relationship between the absorption and emission of IR by gas and warming in the atmosphere, lets see the evidence. And a spectrum is not evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...Describe how you believe absorption and emission increase the frequency of the radiation being absorbed and emitted....then provide some observed measured evidence because models and thought experiments will never be actual evidence...

    As I have pointed out several times already...I made 3 statements in the OP and none of them have been challenged by the first piece of observed, measured evidence...and to date, there has not been the first peer reviewed paper published which the supposed warming resulting from our production of so called greenhouse gases has been empirically measured, quantified, and then ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. Your belief and claims are based on pseudoscience, and media hype...not any actual observed, measured evidence or even published, peer reviewed literature.

    Of the claimed 400 wm^2 that is supposedly emitted from the whole surface of the earth, better than 99% is conducted, and convected through the troposphere to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space. Radiation plays almost no part in energy movement through the troposphere where the greenhouse effect is supposed to exert its influence. The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere which is so completely dominated by conduction and convection is laughable...and again, there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the belief. The concept has been in dispute since it was first laid on the table by Arrhenius and again, no less giants than Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius dismissed the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect as nonsense and after 120 years there still isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis. There are miles and miles of double-talk, unfounded claims, appeals to complexity, etc...what there isn't is actual empirical evidence.

    You live in this mental trap in which you think that if someone can't explain the underlying mechanism of a thing that the explanation you accept must be correct even though its underlying mechanism remains unexplained and there is no physical evidence to support it. The fact is that with regard to how energy moves through the atmosphere, and the effect that energy has on climate, we are just now beginning to scratch the surface, and the more we learn, the less plausible a radiative greenhouse effect becomes.

    As I said, better than 99% of the energy that moves through the troposphere is transported via conduction and convection...How does the greenhouse hypothesis address that observable, measurable fact? All accounts of the greenhouse effect that I have read pretty much discount convection and conduction and proceed on the unrealistic fantasy that energy is radiated through the troposphere. AI am asking questions...very elementary questions that must be answered regarding a hypothesis such as a radiative greenhouse effect and there are no answers...and more importantly, there is no observed, measured evidence to support it...if there is, by all means, lets see it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    31,589
    Thanks Received:
    3,629
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +12,197
    Lol....I keep coming back to this thread but still no evidence.:coffee:

    Ghey

    Yet another thread dominated intellectually by skeptics.:bye1::bye1:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,679
    Thanks Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,330
    Google the phrase "is air a good conductor of heat" you will see that your statement is quite false. You still have to think about where does any of the 400 W/m² go. Surely not all of it can go to outer space.

    .
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. The Sage of Main Street
    Offline

    The Sage of Main Street Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    6,797
    Thanks Received:
    419
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    All in your mind
    Ratings:
    +2,673
    Alarma, Larma Ding-Dong

    Unless there is a planet-wide polymer of "greenhouse" gases, all that extra heat will fly off into the Void. So your blocking mechanism is so thin that it is porous. Maybe you can ask President Trump to build a wall to keep your tin-soldier gases in, because that's the only way you dystopiaphiles will ever be able to screech, "See, I told you so!!!"
     
  9. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    43,650
    Thanks Received:
    5,568
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +22,756
    all that extra heat will fly off into the Void.

    How quickly?
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  10. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,679
    Thanks Received:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,330
    I know "funny" is not a rating to give to a simple question, but I think the answer will be verbose and funny.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page