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

[Votto]

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

One reason why climate change deniers are full of shit and dangerous:

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test | Climate Science Watch

The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.

Well I get why you think that global warming is a problem, but what I don't get are the ways to fix it.

Taxes? Really?

According to science, the Paris Accord Trump pulled out of was nothing short of a band aid on a cancer.

At least come up with a serious answer other than creating big pots of money for corrupt bureaucrats

Oh, and Al Gore leading the charge while flying jets all over the world and owning mansions all over the world to heat and cool and driving SUV's does not help you cause, IMO.

 

[MaryL]

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

You lose your bet. And we all lose. I bet I can find 4 reasons to believe in unicorns, too. Turn off your computer, disconnect from the conspiracists paranoia and breathe in deeply the air of reality. And open your eyes, man made climate change is damned obvious. Nobody needs the internet to see the changes.

 

[SSDD]

You lose your bet. And we all lose. I bet I can find 4 reasons to believe in unicorns, too. Turn off your computer, disconnect from the conspiracists paranoia and breathe in deeply the air of reality. And open your eyes, man made climate change is damned obvious. Nobody needs the internet to see the changes.

You really are out of touch with reality, aren't you? I have already demostrated to you that your memory of hail storms in denver was flawed, as well as your thoughts on drought.

It is unfortunate that people like you have been duped into believing the steaming pile of bullshit that is man made climate change, but there it is.

The hard facts regarding man made climate change are that there is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...and there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and last but not least, the 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.

The fact is that the amount of actual science, as opposed to pseudoscience, media hype, and political grandstanding on the topic of climate science is precious little, but it is apparently more than enough to fool people who are either to stupid, or to damned lazy to actually do just a bit of research on their own and look for the facts.

Congratulations...you are what climate science generously refers to as a useful idiot.

 

[MaryL]

Somebody is out of touch here. it isn't that hard, buckwheat. Um, perhaps you need glasses?

 

[Wuwei]

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.

I read the article about the ideal gas model of planets given in the reference, you cited. The beginning of the paper was well thought out and I agreed with everything up to page 116.

The author is quite correct in stating a caveat,

To be crystal clear about the limitations of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law; the nature of the formula means that it cannot in general be used to determine the cause of an atmospheric warming or cooling event.​

In other words, his ideal gas model of planets is, in principle, compatible with a CO2 generated temperature rise.

The author discusses a hypothetical 3 C rise predicted by IPCC by a doubling of CO2. He states the rise is consistent with his model only if there is an atmospheric pressure change, density change, or both.

I agree when he says the pressure does not change much by the added 400 ppm CO2 which adds a very minor amount to the air mass. That means the density must change. He says,

The change in density required, if the pressure remained stable, would be a fall of 0.91%. This represents an anomalous change of twenty-three times that which the percentage change in atmospheric gas alone would logically indicate.​

He is referring to the fact that if doubling CO2 decreases air density, by 0.91%, that is a value which is 23 times worse than the one given by his model.

However, that 0.91% change is not “anomalous” at all ! That percentage has already been experimentally observed and measured. ...( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air )

It's easy to see the ideal gas model would not be violated with GHG warming. Suppose CO2 doubled and the temperature of earth did increase by 3C. The density must decrease. If an alien dropped a probe on earth he would see the higher temperature is accurately predicted by the 0.91% lower density, and the slight increase in pressure. That conforms to the authors own calculation! The alien would be quite satisfied that his planetary ideal gas model was shown to work even though, unbeknownst to the alien, there was global warming. You can believe it or not that hypothetical GHG warming occurs. But it still remains consistent with the authors model.

The author himself says that the greenhouse effect is not precluded by the his model, as claimed incorrectly by many deniers. Although the author says point blank, “There is no supporting scientific evidence for the existence of these large anomalous changes [atmospheric density] occurring in the atmosphere of Earth”, he is wrong and has been disproved by observed and measured data in the wiki article mentioned above.

June of this year larger planes could not take off at the Phoenix airport because the temperature was 120F. The air density was too low for the planes to get lift on the short runway. That problem is predicted by the ideal gas model.
A physicist explains just why all those flights were grounded in Arizona...

.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Somebody is out of touch here. it isn't that hard, buckwheat. Um, perhaps you need glasses?

Mary, he clobbered you at the Al Gore Rain bombs thread where he showed that your unsupported "memories" were sadly lacking about hail damage claims:

From SSD's post 63

"Proving you are wrong is not that difficult. All one need do is look at the history of your area.

Here, from the Denver Post.

Hailstorms aren't more common in Colorado than before, but they are getting costlier as the state grows

Clip:
Despite the rash of storms that have hit the Front Range this summer, Colorado is not being pummeled by more hail than usual. And the size of hailstones that have fallen in the region is not unprecedented, according to weather experts.

In a state where the population has shot up by 1.3 million people since 2000, the hail is just dinging more cars, battering more rooftops and otherwise wreaking havoc that is taking a bigger and bigger bite out of more bank accounts. Like the hail, that trend isn’t likely to let up anytime soon.

“We’ve always been hail alley, but over the past three to five years we’ve really seen this volatile pattern of large hail hitting densely populated areas,” said Carole Walker, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association . “We have a booming population, more homes, larger homes, more cars out on the roadway. It’s unfortunately affecting insurance rates. What we pay out in claims is what people pay in premiums.”

So no....regardless of what your flawed memory tells you, you are not seeing more, or larger hail today than is normal for your state.

Do I also need to provide you with a long term (thousands of years) drought history of your region as well to show you that the drought you believe you are living through is neither unusual, nor unprecedented, and in fact, little more than a minor inconvenience in comparison to some of the droughts that have struck your region which lasted hundreds of years?

If you want facts, especially about something as ever changing as the weather, you probably shouldn't look to your own faulty memory."

After that you suddenly vanish from the reality SSDD Presented to you

Snicker...…………..

 

[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

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?

Thanks. You compel me pause for thought. You are right, I do not know much about it. I want to answer your first and last questions. But maybe, I did not use the right word therefore Bill Gates answer you : " I’m optimistic that if we keep up this momentum, we can stop climate change and help those who are being hurt the most by it—all while meeting the world’s growing energy needs."
4 signs of progress on climate change | Bill Gates

I am sorry, I considered so: Bill Gates is one of the cleverest and richest person in the world, what he says is like a scripture. I hope you understand me.

 

[SSDD]

Somebody is out of touch here. it isn't that hard, buckwheat. Um, perhaps you need glasses?

Got em...and use em....and take the time to read with them. You, on the other hand seem to be living in a fantasy world.

 

[SSDD]

I read the article about the ideal gas model of planets given in the reference, you cited. The beginning of the paper was well thought out and I agreed with everything up to page 116.

The author is quite correct in stating a caveat,

To be crystal clear about the limitations of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law; the nature of the formula means that it cannot in general be used to determine the cause of an atmospheric warming or cooling event.​

In other words, his ideal gas model of planets is, in principle, compatible with a CO2 generated temperature rise.

The author discusses a hypothetical 3 C rise predicted by IPCC by a doubling of CO2. He states the rise is consistent with his model only if there is an atmospheric pressure change, density change, or both.

I agree when he says the pressure does not change much by the added 400 ppm CO2 which adds a very minor amount to the air mass. That means the density must change. He says,

The change in density required, if the pressure remained stable, would be a fall of 0.91%. This represents an anomalous change of twenty-three times that which the percentage change in atmospheric gas alone would logically indicate.​

He is referring to the fact that if doubling CO2 decreases air density, by 0.91%, that is a value which is 23 times worse than the one given by his model.

However, that 0.91% change is not “anomalous” at all ! That percentage has already been experimentally observed and measured. ...( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air )

Reading for comprehension is not your best thing...is it. He is saying that a fall of 0.91% is 23 times greater than the gas laws predict. Are you claiming that the gas laws are wrong. You didn't bother to paste the rest of his thoughts on the matter for obvious reasons. Here, lets help you out with the honesty deficit you are dealing with.


The change in density required, if the pressure remained stable, would be a fall of 0.91%. This represents an anomalous change of twenty-three times that which the percentage change in atmospheric gas alone would logically indicate. Again, if the pressure fell as well, then the required fall in density would have to be even greater to compensate. While still large, the smallest individual anomalous changes required would be if the pressure rose and simultaneously, density fell by a similar percentage. Logically, this combination may be the unlikeliest of these three possibilities. A possible worked example is provided here;

T=101.85/(8.314 x 1.2197) 28.984)

Calculated temperature after doubling of CO2 to 0.08% ≈ 291.16K

This scenario requires an anomalous change of 0.45% to pressure, combined with an anomalous change of 0.43% to density. These are eleven times and nine times respectively, the changes that would reasonably be expected. Evidence of anomalous changes due to the presence of GHG of this magnitude are not obvious in the gas data from any of the other planets, i.e. Venus, Titan. There doesn’t appear to be any particular class of gases which cause very significant anomalous changes in any of the gas parameters. This result is not surprising, since the ideal gas law, in all of its varieties, makes no distinction between classes of gases based on their radiative absorption properties. Consistent with this view is that strong negative feedbacks are evident in the climate system of Earth, and that there are convincing natural explanations for the recent period of global warming (see section 3).

And perhaps flawed models have "observed" such a change, it certainly has not been observed or measured out in the real world.

It's easy to see the ideal gas model would not be violated with GHG warming.
.

I suppose it is easy to see if you are looking through magical climate goggles, but if you are looking at the real world, it is not possible to see at all. The author goes on to explain that if the greenhouse effect hypothesis is correct, then the ideal gas law must be wrong. Are you suggesting that the ideal gas law is wrong?

2.10. Why the Ideal Gas Law Directly Conflicts with the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis

It is known that the ideal gas law does not differentiate between gases, and so its derivative, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law cannot either. This fact brings the derivative into direct conflict with the greenhouse gas hypothesis and the current, widely-accepted null hypothesis of climate change. Both of these hypotheses have at their core, a clear division between gases - those which cause atmospheric warming and those which do not. It has been shown that a gas which causes anomalous warming must also cause anomalous changes to pressure or density or both. Yet this violates the equivalence of gases which is fundamental to the ideal gas law. Therefore, either the ideal gas law is correct, or the greenhouse gas hypothesis of anomalous warming is correct; both cannot be correct.

A final proof that there can be no anomalous gas parameter changes due to ‘greenhouse gases’ is that it would be theoretically possible to change the pressure / density / molar mass in exactly the same way numerically – by using non- greenhouse gases to reach the same parameter results – and the same predicted planetary temperature. Only one combination of gases is permissible to reach the same parameter numbers. Therefore, the greenhouse gas hypothesis and the null hypothesis must be incorrect.


Sorry guy...in the end, you are going to be on the wrong side of this topic...as have so many in the past who blindly accepted the "consensus" science....history is literally littered with them.

 

[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?

Thanks. You compel me pause for thought. You are right, I do not know much about it. I want to answer your first and last questions. But maybe, I did not use the right word therefore Bill Gates answer you : " I’m optimistic that if we keep up this momentum, we can stop climate change and help those who are being hurt the most by it—all while meeting the world’s growing energy needs."
4 signs of progress on climate change | Bill Gates

I am sorry, I considered so: Bill Gates is one of the cleverest and richest person in the world, what he says is like a scripture. I hope you understand me.

Sorry...while Bill Gates is certainly one of the riches men in the world, he is hardly one of the cleverest. I suggest that you read a book called Outliers. A whole chapter is devoted to Bill Gates. While he is clever, he is actually a product of a remarkable confluence of events which have little to do with how "clever" he is. And in case you should think that the author of Outliers may not know what the hell he is talking about, Gates himself promotes the book.

It sounds as if you are suggesting that if we throw enough money at a non problem, it can be solved. Don't you think that throwing all that money at an actual problem might help the people who need help much more effectively?

The blog of Bill Gates How Do Some Become so Successful? | Bill Gates

How Do Some Become so Successful?
By Bill Gates
| September 14, 2011

This is an interesting look at how some people become high-achievers. Disclaimer: I'm mentioned in the book.

Here’s the publisher’s description for the book Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell:

In this stunning new book, Malcolm Gladwell takes us on an intellectual journey through the world of “outliers”—the best and the brightest, the most famous and the most successful. He asks the question: what makes high-achievers different?

His answer is that we pay too much attention to what successful people are like, and too little attention to where they are from: that is, their culture, their family, their generation, and the idiosyncratic experiences of their upbringing. Along the way he explains the secrets of software billionaires, what it takes to be a great soccer player, why Asians are good at math, and what made the Beatles the greatest rock band.

Brilliant and entertaining, Outliers is a landmark work that will simultaneously delight and illuminate.

 

[JoeB131]

First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind.

Okay, he could have stopped the article right there.


He isn't a climate scientist.

The people who ARE Client scientists who spend years studying these things say that there is a problem.

 

[Crick]

I warn ANYONE considering taking SSDD as a source for valid scientific information that he is as bad a source as could be found. Try Wuwei, Old Rocks or Toddsterpatriot.

 

[Wuwei]

He is saying that a fall of 0.91% is 23 times greater than the gas laws predict. Are you claiming that the gas laws are wrong. You didn't bother to paste the rest of his thoughts on the matter for obvious reasons. Here, lets help you out with the honesty deficit you are dealing with.

The change in density required, if the pressure remained stable, would be a fall of 0.91%.

Nobody is claiming the gas law is wrong. It is very simple if you understand the gas law. The 400 parts per million added CO2 means the pressure barely increases The author said exactly that.

IF the temperature does go up, then the density must go down proportionately. The author said that.

The fact is that the density has been experimentally observed and measured to go down by that very amount when the temperature goes up. The author agrees with experimental science.

A possible worked example is provided here;

T=101.85/(8.314 x 1.2197) 28.984)

Calculated temperature after doubling of CO2 to 0.08% ≈ 291.16K

This scenario requires an anomalous change of 0.45% to pressure, combined with an anomalous change of 0.43% to density.

That example is not even hypothetical; it is wrong. There is no given reason to assume the pressure changes by 4.5%. The author is going against what he said earlier, the pressure change is tiny by an added 400 parts per million of CO2. That is 0.04% which is far smaller than 4.5%

It looks like he wants to split the difference between pressure change and density change. There is no physical reason for that.

it would be theoretically possible to change the pressure / density / molar mass in exactly the same way numerically – by using non- greenhouse gases to reach the same parameter results – and the same predicted planetary temperature.

The author is exactly correct here. In that scenario, if he wants to change the pressure / density / molar mass in the same way, the temperature must change the same way due to the ideal gas law. He forgot to mention the temperature change must be part of the scenario.

However, as the author implies, all that hypothetical change would certainly not be due to a green house effect. So it must be due to some other planetary or solar change.

So, there is no reason to say that the gas law on a green house planet is any different that a non-greenhouse planet. The author has not made his case.

.

 

[SSDD]

I warn ANYONE considering taking SSDD as a source for valid scientific information that he is as bad a source as could be found. Try Wuwei, Old Rocks or Toddsterpatriot.

Says the good who can't produce a shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....or a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere......or a single published, peer reviewed study in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG.

What's the matter crick...frustrated because you can't find anything like actual observed, measured, empirical data to support your beliefs so you feel the need to lash out?....can you possibly be any more impotent?

Holding up wuwei, old rocks, or toddster as good sources for science? Really? A guy prone to jumping on crazy trains like the light from a flashlight being spontaneous? Or a known political whore? Or a guy who has never actually defended or discussed an idea with anything more than inane one liners? Those qualify in your mind as good sources for science? You never fail to show people exactly why you are such a good little dupe.

Go look for some non existent empirical evidence to support your beliefs...that should take you a life time..and you will eventually die a failure.

 

[SSDD]

So, there is no reason to say that the gas law on a green house planet is any different that a non-greenhouse planet. The author has not made his case.

.

You forget saturn and jupiter...essentially no greenhouse gasses there and yet, the gas law works just the same. You are in denial.

You keep ignoring the punch line of the whole paper. What's the matter, the blinders built into those magical climate change goggles you wear automatically come down when you get to the part of the paper, where after much explanation, and demonstration, he says:

It is known that the ideal gas law does not differentiate between gases, and so its derivative, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law cannot either. This fact brings the derivative into direct conflict with the greenhouse gas hypothesis and the current, widely-accepted null hypothesis of climate change. Both of these hypotheses have at their core, a clear division between gases - those which cause atmospheric warming and those which do not. It has been shown that a gas which causes anomalous warming must also cause anomalous changes to pressure or density or both. Yet this violates the equivalence of gases which is fundamental to the ideal gas law.Therefore, either the ideal gas law is correct, or the greenhouse gas hypothesis of anomalous warming is correct; both cannot be correct.

They can't both be true and since one is backed buy more empirical evidence than you can shake a stick at, and the other has yet to generate a single paper in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG....guess which one I will go with?

 

[SSDD]

First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind.

Okay, he could have stopped the article right there.


He isn't a climate scientist.

The people who ARE Client scientists who spend years studying these things say that there is a problem.

And yet, they haven't produced a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor have they provided a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.....nor have they produced a single published, peer reviewed study in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG.

Considering that they have nothing in the way of actual data to support their claims...exactly why would you believe them?

 

[Wuwei]

You forget saturn and jupiter...essentially no greenhouse gasses there and yet, the gas law works just the same. You are in denial.

You are creating a strawman fallacy and a lie. I told you many times that I agree that the gas law must work on every planet.

You keep ignoring the punch line of the whole paper.

I did not ignore the punchline. My point is that the punchline has no punch.

either the ideal gas law is correct, or the greenhouse gas hypothesis of anomalous warming is correct; both cannot be correct.

They can't both be true and since one is backed buy more empirical evidence than you can shake a stick at, and the other has yet to generate a single paper in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG....guess which one I will go with?

I already told you the author is wrong!
The author himself said,

To be crystal clear about the limitations of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law; the nature of the formula means that it cannot in general be used to determine the cause of an atmospheric warming or cooling event.​

What he is saying means that the gas law does not preclude the greenhouse gas theory.

The author himself said,

A simple formula with no reference to GHG in it would not be expected to accurately predict the average atmospheric temperature of eight such widely differing planetary atmospheres, by the measurement of just three common planetary gas parameters.​

That is totally wrong. The gas law is absolutely obligated to predict correctly any parameter when given the values of the others at any possible planet! I'm amazed that the author says it would not be expected! It is almost as though the author lost faith in the gas law. Applying the gas law when all the parameters are measured and known is a tautology. It is more of a test of the gas law than it is of planet climate.

Finally the author is totally wrong when he says the greenhouse gas theory and the ideal gas law cannot both be correct. In fact the greenhouse gas theory, no matter what it is, absolutely must follow the gas law anywhere it is applied.

The author fails to see that, and you were taken in by his fallacies.

.

 

[SSDD]

You are creating a strawman fallacy and a lie. I told you many times that I agree that the gas law must work on every planet.

What you haven't done is acknowledge that the greenhouse gas hypothesis only works here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor.

I already told you the author is wrong!
The author himself said,

To be crystal clear about the limitations of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law; the nature of the formula means that it cannot in general be used to determine the cause of an atmospheric warming or cooling event.​

What he is saying means that the gas law does not preclude the greenhouse gas theory.

What he is saying is exactly that the gas law precludes the greenhouse gas hypothesis...He states in no uncertain terms that if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is right, then the ideal gas law must be wrong...and vice versa...then he explains that if there is anomalous warming observed, then one must look somewhere other than the composition of the atmosphere for the cause of that warming,..which he then does in a fair amount of detail.

The author himself said,

A simple formula with no reference to GHG in it would not be expected to accurately predict the average atmospheric temperature of eight such widely differing planetary atmospheres, by the measurement of just three common planetary gas parameters.​

That is totally wrong. The gas law is absolutely obligated to predict correctly any parameter when given the values of the others at any possible planet! I'm amazed that the author says it would not be expected! It is almost as though the author lost faith in the gas law. Applying the gas law when all the parameters are measured and known is a tautology. It is more of a test of the gas law than it is of planet climate.

You either can't read, or you are one of the most dishonest people I have ever spoken with and that includes a group including crick, old rocks, and mamooth.

Rather than trying to cherry pick his statements and take them entirely out of context, why don't you paste the author's entire thought?

He said:

This IPCC reports’ view is of a climate sensitivity at this level, this is also backed by the ‘97% consensus’ [67]. Conversely, the new null hypothesis as presented here, predicts that both planets will have virtually identical temperatures. The dilemma is; how to determine which null hypothesis is correct? This puzzle appears to be solvable in the following manner.

How could a simple formula such as formula 5, which contains no reference to the percentage of GHG in an atmosphere, accurately predict the temperature of a planet with a very specific percentage of GHG, such as planet E2? Perhaps it would be informative to be aware of the wide variation in the atmospheres of other planetary bodies - some with up to 96% GHG in their atmospheres (Venus, Titan) - and some others with virtually none (Jupiter, Saturn). A simple formula with no reference to GHG in it would not be expected to accurately predict the average atmospheric temperature of eight such widely differing planetary atmospheres, by the measurement of just three common planetary gas parameters.

And yet it does (Table 2, Figure 2).

The only way that is possible, if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is correct and these gases are special and cause strong warming, is that changes in the greenhouse gases’ percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure and/or density anomalously; - in such a way as to make formulae 5 fit.

He is saying that with the molar version of the ideal gas law, you don't even need to know how much energy is coming in from the sun...that is what he means by the phrase "baked in" which he uses several times.

This formula proves itself here, to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others. The reason these are not required, is because they, (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned. Note that although terms for insolation intensity and auto-compression are not used in the formula, it is proposed that these two are still what virtually determine an average near-surface

This formula proves itself here, to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others. The reason these are not required, is because they, (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned. Note that although terms for insolation intensity and auto-compression are not used in the formula, it is proposed that these two are still what virtually determine an average near-surface

Finally the author is totally wrong when he says the greenhouse gas theory and the ideal gas law cannot both be correct. In fact the greenhouse gas theory, no matter what it is, absolutely must follow the gas law anywhere it is applied.

Actually, he is dead on. But do feel free to apply the greenhouse hypothesis to the other planets and lets see how close it is. Looking forward to seeing it work on saturn and jupiter where there are no so called greenhouse gasses to speak of.

The author fails to see that, and you were taken in by his fallacies.

.

The only one taken in here is you..but you were taken in a long time ago by charlatans spewing pseudoscience...or actually, by politicians and the media spewing pseudoscience since the 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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I warn ANYONE considering taking SSDD as a source for valid scientific information that he is as bad a source as could be found. Try Wuwei, Old Rocks or Toddsterpatriot.

Says the good who can't produce a shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....or a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere......or a single published, peer reviewed study in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG.

What's the matter crick...frustrated because you can't find anything like actual observed, measured, empirical data to support your beliefs so you feel the need to lash out?....can you possibly be any more impotent?

Holding up wuwei, old rocks, or toddster as good sources for science? Really? A guy prone to jumping on crazy trains like the light from a flashlight being spontaneous? Or a known political whore? Or a guy who has never actually defended or discussed an idea with anything more than inane one liners? Those qualify in your mind as good sources for science? You never fail to show people exactly why you are such a good little dupe.

Go look for some non existent empirical evidence to support your beliefs...that should take you a life time..and you will eventually die a failure.

A guy prone to jumping on crazy trains like the light from a flashlight being spontaneous?

Or the light from the Sun's surface not being spontaneous.

 

[SSDD]

I warn ANYONE considering taking SSDD as a source for valid scientific information that he is as bad a source as could be found. Try Wuwei, Old Rocks or Toddsterpatriot.

Says the good who can't produce a shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....or a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere......or a single published, peer reviewed study in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG.

What's the matter crick...frustrated because you can't find anything like actual observed, measured, empirical data to support your beliefs so you feel the need to lash out?....can you possibly be any more impotent?

Holding up wuwei, old rocks, or toddster as good sources for science? Really? A guy prone to jumping on crazy trains like the light from a flashlight being spontaneous? Or a known political whore? Or a guy who has never actually defended or discussed an idea with anything more than inane one liners? Those qualify in your mind as good sources for science? You never fail to show people exactly why you are such a good little dupe.

Go look for some non existent empirical evidence to support your beliefs...that should take you a life time..and you will eventually die a failure.

A guy prone to jumping on crazy trains like the light from a flashlight being spontaneous?

Or the light from the Sun's surface not being spontaneous.

It wasn't necessary, but thanks for making my point.