4 Reasons Why 'Climate Change' Is a Flat-Out Hoax

[Pilot1]

[QUOTE="Billy_Bob, post: 21013833, member: 50952
Physical rotation speed, Composition of the atmosphere, external gravity draws (moons) are all reasons why there is only one change in temp as the depth thickens.. While the weight of the atmosphere is the primary driver of temperature, there are mitigating factors which affect its circulations.[/QUOTE]

Now, I know you're just nuts. The weight of the atmosphere is the primary driver of temperature??? What about THE SUN??? Then there is Coriolis force, and a plethora of other NATURAL factors that have nothing to do with MAN.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Physical rotation speed, Composition of the atmosphere, external gravity draws (moons) are all reasons why there is only one change in temp as the depth thickens.. While the weight of the atmosphere is the primary driver of temperature, there are mitigating factors which affect its circulations.

Now, I know you're just nuts. The weight of the atmosphere is the primary driver of temperature??? What about THE SUN??? Then there is Coriolis force, and a plethora of other NATURAL factors that have nothing to do with MAN.

LOL...

Way to go... Now your totally of the rails with alarmist bull shit..

Given the suns normalized output, which varies by just 1-2 watts/meter squared over centuries, at the planets upper atmosphere, it is a well known fact that each planet receives the same amount of energy at this level. Thus, it is the planets atmospheric make up and depth which dictates surface temperature..

 

[Wuwei]

Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get?

Yes, I believe the formula of the ideal gas law, PV = nRT, accurately adheres to the measurements of different planets. The calculations you show assume the volume, V, is a constant cubic meter. That means there are 3 independent variables, P, n/V and T. The ratio n/V (a sort of number per unit volume) is proportional to the atmospheric density.

One problem that I had to grapple with is what happens if the sun doubles its energy. What does the formula show?

The pressure is caused by the gravitational mass of the air above the surface, which does not change (the number of air molecules is invariant.) If T increases because of a hotter sun, the density n/V must decrease. The pressure will decrease slightly because the decreasing density means the atmosphere expands to higher altitudes which have a weaker gravitational pull.

After equilibrium with the brighter sun, P and n/V have new values that match the same formula
P = n/V R. T.
Is that a remarkable accurate prediction of temperature without the greenhouse gas theory? I think not. It is the temperature change that is truly the independent variable. The temperature regulates the pressure and density. It is not the pressure and density that regulate temperature. Using the pressure and density to compute the temperature using the ideal gas law is simply not meaningful.

In short: The temperature of a planet can be caused by many things. The pressure and density simply follow the temperature according to the ideal gas law.

.

 

[SSDD]

Is that a remarkable accurate prediction of temperature without the greenhouse gas theory?

.

Of course it is not a "remarkable" prediction of temperature without a greenhouse theory. It is just business as usual for the ideal gas law. That is what it does. Doesn't matter what the energy source, it will predict the temperature. Not remarkable...not magic..just science.

Now the greenhouse gas formulas on the other hand does require magic...or at least an ad hoc (made up) fudge factor just to predict the temperature here and can't even get close to the other planets in the solar system that have atmospheres. Care to hazzard a guess as to why that is?

 

[Wuwei]

Doesn't matter what the energy source, it will predict the temperature.

Suppose the sun doubled it's solar energy. How would you predict the temperature? It would be imperative to first know the values of the independent variables, density and pressure. But they must change in order to satisfy the ideal gas law with the higher energy input. But you need to know what the new values of density and pressure are to predict the new temperature.

It's circular. It is not a prediction method. It's just a validation method once all the variables have settled to their new values. If you know two values, you can compute the third.

To simplify, you need to know X and Y to compute Z, but you need to know Z to compute X and Y.

You need some physics outside the ideal gas law to predict anything. What might that be?

 

[SSDD]

Doesn't matter what the energy source, it will predict the temperature.

Suppose the sun doubled it's solar energy.

Considering the proximity of Venus to the sun, if the solar output doubled, do you think there would be an atmosphere on Venus? If you are going to invent useless mind experiments in an attempt to invalidate the ideal gas law, then at least try to make up something that makes sense. Of course if you do that, then the ideal gas law itself will answer your question for you...

If you look at the calculations for the various planets above, you will see that the ideal gas law gets close to the actual temperature on each planet...there is a slight error which is corrected by solar input.

If you apply the greenhouse formula to each planet you will see that you won't even get close...and it isn't even close here without the ad hoc fudge factor. Face it...the greenhouse hypothesis is a failure...it requires mucho magic in order for it to work.

 

[Wuwei]

Considering the proximity of Venus to the sun, if the solar output doubled, do you think there would be an atmosphere on Venus? If you are going to invent useless mind experiments in an attempt to invalidate the ideal gas law, then at least try to make up something that makes sense. Of course if you do that, then the ideal gas law itself will answer your question for you...

I agree the ideal gas law is valid in describing the state variables of the atmospheres of planets. I told you that already.

Suppose the sun energy decreased by 10%. Please show how the ideal gas law is used to compute the new lower temperature of Venus that would result. It should be simple for you because you already explicitly showed how it applied to a number of planets.

.

 

[Old Rocks]

Coldest September since 2012!!!!

There's no way in hell our temperatures are warming globally. The IPCC is full of crap.

Coldest September in the last six years? And you think that proves what? Damn, the longer they come, the more ignorant they get.

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 223321

Given the cycle and slope, can you guess what is about to happen? I can and its with 100% certainty..

Yessireeeeeeee...............................Bob. I surely can guess what is going to happen. Silly Billy is about to grace us with another of his laughable prognistications. LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 223321

Given the cycle and slope, can you guess what is about to happen? I can and its with 100% certainty..

Yessireeeeeeee...............................Bob. I surely can guess what is going to happen. Silly Billy is about to grace us with another of his laughable prognistications. LOL

Old fraud and his end of the world predictions..

Have we reached peak alarmism on climate change?

 

[Crick]

How many times, Billy Boy, has it been explained to you how Greenland ice-core temperature data differ from global data? Is there a reason you are either unwilling or unable to assimilate that FACT?

 

[Billy_Bob]

How many times, Billy Boy, has it been explained to you how Greenland ice-core temperature data differ from global data? Is there a reason you are either unwilling or unable to assimilate that FACT?

Again, Moron, the other data sets show it was GLOBAL.. Quit whining about being a loser..

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Long ago, climate change left the arena of science.

I love to hear the use of the term "peer reviewed" which only means that credentialled "experts" are just as politically inclined as your paper.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

View attachment 223321

Given the cycle and slope, can you guess what is about to happen? I can and its with 100% certainty..

Yessireeeeeeee...............................Bob. I surely can guess what is going to happen. Silly Billy is about to grace us with another of his laughable prognistications. LOL

You mean like....Hillary will win big ?

 

[SSDD]

I agree the ideal gas law is valid in describing the state variables of the atmospheres of planets. I told you that already.

Suppose the sun energy decreased by 10%. Please show how the ideal gas law is used to compute the new lower temperature of Venus that would result. It should be simple for you because you already explicitly showed how it applied to a number of planets.

.

You really haven't ever put much thought into this have you? You just accept what you are told to accept by people you share a political position with...don't you?

Consider Saturn. The amount of energy that Saturn receives is a fraction of what the earth receives and still, the ideal gas law accurately predicts the temperature there.

What you either can't understand or won't bring yourself to admit is that the ideal gas law is not just a handy means of calculating the temperatures of the planets....it is the reason that the planets are the temperatures they are.

Each planet has a black body temperature.
The BB temperature for Venus, for example is 465k. That is the planet without an atmosphere. Add an atmosphere of at least 0.69kPa and the ideal gas law will tell you what the temperature of the planet will be without regard to the composition of the atmosphere as the composition has little to do with the temperature beyond its mass.

I'm not inclined to spend a great deal of time with you on this... Here is a link to a very good, in depth, relatively easy to understand published explanation. The title is Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20180703.13.pdf

Unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, this paper is backed up by actual empirical evidence. To date, there is no empirical evidence in support of the greenhouse hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

How many times, Billy Boy, has it been explained to you how Greenland ice-core temperature data differ from global data? Is there a reason you are either unwilling or unable to assimilate that FACT?

Hey skid mark...how many references would you like from climate science telling us that the arctic is the "canary in the coal mine" and how the arctic goes, so goes the rest of the planet? Here...have a few...

Canary in the Coal Mine: The Arctic as a National Imperative
Why the Arctic is climate change's canary in the coal mine - William Chapman
Melting Sea Ice: A Canary in the Coal Mine
Arctic Is the Canary in the Coalmine

Want to tell me that climate science was wrong and just scamming people with all that canary in the coal mine crap? Well, of course they were scamming people, but your guys took that arctic and global are two different things argument from you. Nice try.

 

[Maggdy]

First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?


Here’s what the author of this piece writes:

First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims.

In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth.

Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that "climate change" is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history.

1. Rampant scientific fraud

2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public

3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions

4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history

All of the details and conclusions @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it. @ https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ng_on_climate_change_scientists_prove_it.html

And

5. There are those who do not speak a lot about it but they act to prevent it.

Bill Gates, Chairman of Breakthrough Energy Ventures, said: ".....The scientists and entrepreneurs who are developing innovations to address climate change need capital to build companies that can deliver those innovations to the global market. Breakthrough Energy Europe is designed to provide that capital.”


(European Commission and Bill Gates-led Breakthrough Energy launch €100 million clean energy investment fund.)

European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Climate change: European Commission and Bill Gates-led Breakthrough Energy launch €100 million clean energy investment fund

 

[SSDD]

First, after Algore’s rant, it was Global Warming. Not, as that doesn’t seem to be working out so well, it’s Climate Change. What comes next?


Here’s what the author of this piece writes:

First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind. But I do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I am at least as qualified as the next non-scientist to form rational opinions about global warming claims.

In obtaining my degree, I took enough classes in chemistry, physics, and geology to develop a keen appreciation of the scientific method, the best way ever devised for winnowing the truth from fakery and deception. If taking the scientific method into account, no intelligent person can fail to see that the constant drumbeat of wild and hysterical claims about the climate are insults to the search for Truth.

Following are four reasons why I will bet my life that "climate change" is the greatest scientific and political hoax in human history.

1. Rampant scientific fraud

2. The duping of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public

3. A long trail of wildly inaccurate predictions

4. Intentional concealment of inconvenient parts of climate history

All of the details and conclusions @ https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it. @ https://www.americanthinker.com/art...ng_on_climate_change_scientists_prove_it.html

And

There are those who do not speak a lot about it but they act to prevent it.

Prevent what? Are you aware that they hypothetical warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date. Did you know that? So what, exactly is bill gates and his ilk trying to prevent?

 

[Crick]

Are you aware that it has? That would make you a willful liar. Gee, what a surprise.

 

[SSDD]

Are you aware that it has? That would make you a willful liar. Gee, what a surprise.

Really? Lets see it.

Of course you won't be able to produce it, but I do believe that you actually thought that it had...being a dupe and all.

Here is a place to start..

Feldman, D. R., Collins, W. D., Gero, P. J., Torn, M. S., Mlawer, E. J., & Shippert, T. R. (2015). Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 519(7543), 339-343.

This guy thinks he found a forcing of 0.2 wm^2 from increasing CO2 in the 2000-2010 time period but even that is doubtful and good luck attributing any warming at all to less than a quarter of a watt per square meter. And even if you did manage to demonstrate the 0.02wm^2 was actual forcing from CO2 and managed some mathematical magic and manage to attribute some small bit of warming to it, you would never be able to adequately demonstrate that the increase in CO2 from 2000 - 2010 was entire due to man.

So in short, skid mark, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG in any published, peer-reviewed scientific study to date.

But is should be fun to watch you try to produce a published paper...and even more fun watching you realize that you can't.