Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

I already know ding has forgotten this

You know this how? I was the one who pointed it out to crick that he was improperly using acceleration. And it wasn't the first time I've had to do that.

 

[ReinyDays]

You know this how? I was the one who pointed it out to crick that he was improperly using acceleration. And it wasn't the first time I've had to do that.

Because you use acceleration as a scalar ...

 

[ding]

Because you use acceleration as a scalar ...

How so?

 

[ReinyDays]

How so?

Yes ...

 

[ding]

Yes ...

That was even more than less than helpful.

 

[ReinyDays]

That was even more than less than helpful.

The differential of helpfulness? ... how indiscreet of you ...

 

[ding]

The differential of helpfulness? ... how indiscreet of you ...

Sometimes.

 

[Crick]

On what basis do you claim I was using the term as a scalar and where did you get the idea that it was incorrect to use acceleration as a scalar? I think you're thinking of speed vs velocity.

If I say that Sally's car can accelerate from 0-60 in 5 seconds, does the lack of a direction component prevent you from understanding what I'm saying? When I tell you that the Earth's temperature is increasing and accelerating, do you suffer any confusion as to the direction in which that acceleration is taking place?

What seems to always be the case is that you serve no purpose here other than to waste people's time.

 

[ReinyDays]

On what basis do you claim I was using the term as a scalar and where did you get the idea that it was incorrect to use acceleration as a scalar? I think you're thinking of speed vs velocity.

If I say that Sally's car can accelerate from 0-60 in 5 seconds, does the lack of a direction component prevent you from understanding what I'm saying? When I tell you that the Earth's temperature is increasing and accelerating, do you suffer any confusion as to the direction in which that acceleration is taking place?

What seems to always be the case is that you serve no purpose here other than to waste people's time.

I posted dv/dt ... why does that confuse you? ...

Sally's car went from a heading of 45º to 105º ... or 12 degrees of arc per second per second ... you didn't say what her speed was but it would remain the same ... that kind of acceleration? ...

The IPCC report gives the equation as ∆T = 5.35 k ln (CF/CO) ... I don't know if you would know how to graph an algebraic function ... or if you even know how to solve a log function ... good thing the IPCC posted the graph right there in their report AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 ... see there where the RATE of temperature increase is decreasing over time while radiative forcing is still increasing ... note that SB gives even worse results, the fourth root function flatlines a lot quicker than the natural log function ...

Sally's car can also accelerate from 60-0 mph in 5 seconds ... Sally herself accelerates from 120-0 mph in 100 milliseconds ... splat on the cement ... we certainly don't have to specify direction, straight down always works ... except for Sally ... you were supposed to bring a house cat ...

 

[ding]

we certainly don't have to specify direction

So scalar instead of vector

 

[ReinyDays]

So scalar instead of vector

Tensor ... with a field domain ... this is Faraday's discovery ...

 

[ding]

Tensor ... with a field domain ... this is Faraday's discovery ...

I learn something mew about you everyday.

 

[Crick]

I posted dv/dt ... why does that confuse you? ...

Sally's car went from a heading of 45º to 105º ... or 12 degrees of arc per second per second ... you didn't say what her speed was but it would remain the same ... that kind of acceleration? ...

The IPCC report gives the equation as ∆T = 5.35 k ln (CF/CO) ... I don't know if you would know how to graph an algebraic function ... or if you even know how to solve a log function ... good thing the IPCC posted the graph right there in their report AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 ... see there where the RATE of temperature increase is decreasing over time while radiative forcing is still increasing ... note that SB gives even worse results, the fourth root function flatlines a lot quicker than the natural log function ...

Sally's car can also accelerate from 60-0 mph in 5 seconds ... Sally herself accelerates from 120-0 mph in 100 milliseconds ... splat on the cement ... we certainly don't have to specify direction, straight down always works ... except for Sally ... you were supposed to bring a house cat ...

I presume this is the Figure 12.5 to which you were referring:

IPCC , AR5, WGI, Technical Summary, Figure 12.5

The only scenario here showing deceleration prior to 2100 is RCP 2.6 which requires immediate, significant reductions of ALL GHG emissions. If you were to review my statements you will find I was referring to the present regime at which time empirical observations and every one of those data lines are accelerating. I'd also like to point out that even without acceleration, you're still looking at steadily increasing temperature projections everywhere besides RCP 2.6. Are you okay with that? Do you think that indicates there is no global warming? Why have you spent so much time arguing about acceleration if not simply because you have no other points to make? The world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are the primary cause. You have not given us a single iota of evidence casting the slightest doubt on that fact.

 

[ReinyDays]

I presume this is the Figure 12.5 to which you were referring:

View attachment 680229
IPCC , AR5, WGI, Technical Summary, Figure 12.5

The only scenario here showing deceleration prior to 2100 is RCP 2.6 which requires immediate, significant reductions of ALL GHG emissions. If you were to review my statements you will find I was referring to the present regime at which time empirical observations and every one of those data lines are accelerating. I'd also like to point out that even without acceleration, you're still looking at steadily increasing temperature projections everywhere besides RCP 2.6. Are you okay with that? Do you think that indicates there is no global warming? Why have you spent so much time arguing about acceleration if not simply because you have no other points to make? The world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are the primary cause. You have not given us a single iota of evidence casting the slightest doubt on that fact.

All the traces show a negative dv/dt ... don't you know that acceleration is the second order derivative? ... it's the 4.5 W/m^2 scenario I'm focused on, as this is the closest to the logarithmic curve we're using ... notice the 6.0 W/m^2 scenario is completely abandoned as useless and the 8.5 is used for click-bait ... for suckers ha ha ha ha ha ...

RPC4.5 is our "worst reasonable case scenario" ... 2.5ºC in 300 years ... HAW HAW HAW HAW ... too funny ... there's far far far better reasons to move away from the Oil Economy ... will fossil fuels even last 300 years? ...

 

[jc456]

All the traces show a negative dv/dt ... don't you know that acceleration is the second order derivative? ... it's the 4.5 W/m^2 scenario I'm focused on, as this is the closest to the logarithmic curve we're using ... notice the 6.0 W/m^2 scenario is completely abandoned as useless and the 8.5 is used for click-bait ... for suckers ha ha ha ha ha ...

RPC4.5 is our "worst reasonable case scenario" ... 2.5ºC in 300 years ... HAW HAW HAW HAW ... too funny ... there's far far far better reasons to move away from the Oil Economy ... will fossil fuels even last 300 years? ...

Are they suggesting someone has come up with a replacement product for plastic?

 

[ReinyDays]

Are they suggesting someone has come up with a replacement product for plastic?

There's still the products that plastic replaced ...

 

[jc456]

There's still the products that plastic replaced ...

let's see those phones and PCs.

And the resistors and capacitors back to vacuum tubes? hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha

 

[ChemEngineer]

Humans do not have much more time on this earth in our present condition.
Nature's God put just enough resources here for our time, which is hurtling to a close. Nobody can know exactly when, but......

 

[ReinyDays]

let's see those phones and PCs.

And the resistors and capacitors back to vacuum tubes? hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha

I'm a carpenter by trade ... hammers are the same since Roman times ... girls might suffer, serves them right for evolving too fast ...

 

[BackAgain]

The climate can warm. Or it can get colder or it can change. I deny none of any part of those things.

What I deny (up to a point) is the notion that scientists can validly deduce that human-kind plays much of a role in any of that. It’s the “A” in “AGW” that is suspect.

When the AGW FAITH BASED cadre speaks about anyone who deviates in any way from swallowing their orthodox beliefs, they falsely label them “Deniers.” The question is: Deniers of what?

I’m more of a skeptic. But I will accept the term “denier” for a little bit. Absent better evidence and non-fudged data, I’ll deny your claims about the role of a tiny bit more of a very trace amount of CO2 in our atmosphere as constituting a greenhouse gas caused catastrophe. Especially when it is conjoined with demands for some world wide socialist new order and one world government.