Time to drop a brick of epistemology on a table full of vibes. - Climate change

[Anomalism]

If you really believe that, than do the honorable and ethical thing and stop all your personal emission of CO2!

le and ethical thing and stop all your personal emission of CO2!

That statement isn’t a scientific argument; it’s an ethical/moral appeal that replaces actual reasoning. Whether or not he personally emits CO2 has no bearing on the physical mechanisms of climate change. Science operates by observing, measuring, and modeling how energy, greenhouse gases, and feedbacks interact in the Earth system. Asking someone to “stop emitting” is a policy or ethical suggestion, not evidence that any particular claim is wrong. Conflating personal behavior with the validity of a scientific theory is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t engage with the data or mechanisms at all.

 

[Stryder50]

omg.....rofl....










Wait for it..........



























WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE, MORON!

Average range of weather is what defines a climate.
Climate is the label of what the average weather range will be.

They are linked ~ micro/macro sort of ...

 

[Anomalism]

Average range of weather is what defines a climate.
Climate is the label of what the average weather range will be.

They are linked ~ micro/macro sort of ...

So just to be clear, you're done with debate? I notice you're not actually doing anything but reacting to my posts now.

 

[Stryder50]

So just to be clear, you're done with debate? I notice you're not actually doing anything but reacting to my posts now.

I'm not here to entertain you nor am I being paid to be at your service.
I can provide a USPS address for where to send your cashiers check. My rate is $100 per hour, two hours minimum.

More significantly, I have a life to live in the real world, things to attend to.
Unlike you who are a punk youngster living with his parents(not supporting yourself) and typing away while wearing PJs in the basement.

BTW, your posts are filled with BS and distortions, so just trying to present the counter point to some of that.
Also, you haven't addressed the issues I've presented, rather just ramble on in your doublespeak.

 

[Anomalism]

I'm not here to entertain you nor am I being paid to be at your service.
I can provide a USPS address for where to send your cashiers check. My rate is $100 per hour, two hours minimum.

More significantly, I have a life to live in the real world, things to attend to.
Unlike you who are a punk youngster living with his parents(not supporting yourself) and typing away while wearing PJs in the basement.

Oh, got it. You're too busy to respond. Didn't seem to stop you earlier, but alright.



By the way, I've been on this forum longer than you and have less overall posts. Lol

 

[Stryder50]

Oh, got it. You're too busy to respond. Didn't seem to stop you earlier, but alright.



By the way, I've been on this forum longer than you and have less overall posts. Lol

OMG !
This somewhat contradicts your post above;
"... you're not actually doing anything but reacting to my posts now"

There are others here to fill your attention deficit disorder.

 

[Stryder50]

That statement isn’t a scientific argument; it’s an ethical/moral appeal that replaces actual reasoning. Whether or not he personally emits CO2 has no bearing on the physical mechanisms of climate change. Science operates by observing, measuring, and modeling how energy, greenhouse gases, and feedbacks interact in the Earth system. Asking someone to “stop emitting” is a policy or ethical suggestion, not evidence that any particular claim is wrong. Conflating personal behavior with the validity of a scientific theory is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t engage with the data or mechanisms at all.

When a person advocates an agenda of major lifestyle changes for others but doesn't/won't do so themselves, makes them a hypocrite.

You miss the point of not only of walk the walk that matches to talk, but the implied karma recycling.

 

[Anomalism]

When a person advocates an agenda of major lifestyle changes for others but doesn't/won't do so themselves, makes them a hypocrite.

You miss the point of not only of walk the walk that matches to talk, but the implied karma recycling.

The issue here isn’t hypocrisy or karma, it’s science. Whether someone personally follows a policy or lifestyle recommendation has zero effect on the underlying physical processes we’re discussing. This conversation isn’t about ethics, morality, or personal behavior. It’s about evidence, measurements, and mechanisms. Mixing in accusations of hypocrisy doesn’t refute the physics; it just shifts the debate away from the scientific question at hand.

 

[Stryder50]

The issue here isn’t hypocrisy or karma, it’s science. Whether someone personally follows a policy or lifestyle recommendation has zero effect on the underlying physical processes we’re discussing. This conversation isn’t about ethics, morality, or personal behavior. It’s about evidence, measurements, and mechanisms. Mixing in accusations of hypocrisy doesn’t refute the physics; it just shifts the debate away from the scientific question at hand.

Your view of such is inaccurate, incomplete and wrong !

 

[Anomalism]

Your view of such is inaccurate, incomplete and wrong !

Can you elaborate, or are you just making declarations?

 

[Stryder50]

Can you elaborate, or are you just making declarations?

Already have and you ignored or didn't see them.

I've presented the disproofs in posts numbers;
380
357
356
341
333
326

I suggest you read and digest the data there.

Have errands to run, maybe later.

 

[Anomalism]

Already have and you ignored or didn't see them.

I've presented the disproofs in posts numbers;
380
357
356
341
333
326

I suggest you read and digest the data there.

Have errands to run, maybe later.

I thoroughly addressed your arguments repeatedly until you were reduced to post reactions. If you have a specific argument you'd like to revisit, I'd love to reexplain.

 

[Anomalism]

Best experiment would be to have one or more large vacuum chambers, filled with gases of Nitrogen(@79%) and Oxygen(@20%), and then introduce the assorted 1% gases*. When inserting CO2 have it at about five degrees warmed than the gases already in the chamber and see if there is any measurable increase in overall temperature.

Note that PPM/ppm = Parts Per Million, one percent is equal to 10,000 ppm. CO2 at 400ppm is only about 1/25th of the "Other Gases". "Other gases" being only 1% of the atmosphere, Dry, content.

This is in regard to Dry Atmosphere, not including water vapor, H2O, which is usually about 10% extra total, globally.

Here's another experiment to consider. I call this the "Bill Nye - Science Guy" at home kitchen test of ACC/AGW.

We'll use basic arithmetic here, Grades K-12; no need for 'Math'. We'll also round off the numbers for simplicity sake.
Start with expressing 400ppm of CO2 to the full atmosphere as a fraction;
400/1,000,000
Reduces to 1/2,500*

Take an empty two liter plastic soda bottle and fill it with two liters of distilled water (H2O) which is at 70 degrees F.
Since 2 liters = 2,000 milliliters (ml) and that is 80% of 2,500, we will add only 80% of one milliliter to this to represent our carbon dioxide/CO2. That is 0.8 ml which if one doesn't have an eyedropper or pipette scaled in milliliters is about one quarter a teaspoon (tsp) which you hopefully have as measuring tool in your kitchen drawer.

The two liters (2,000 ml) of water we fill the bottle with will be at 70 degrees F.
The 0.8ml of warmer water - represents the 400ppm of CO2 - will be at 80 degrees F.
Using one of those infra-red thermometers that one points at their forehead to get body temp. use such to see and record any increase in the temperature of the 2 liters of water that was in the bottle at 70 degrees F.

Get back to us with documented proof that there was a temperature increase of the 2 liters inside the bottle.

What The ACC/AGW hucksters, flim-flam phony's, scammers like Anomalism are trying to pull here is that there would be a noticeable change of increased temperature through out the whole bottle of the cooler water once that warmer(hotter) drop of water is introduced.

This should rest the case that certain "interests" are peddling a pile of snake oil(BS) with their scenario of CO2 causing ACC/AGW.

You won't actually respond with substance, because you don't actually understand the science, but here you go.

These kitchen bottle and vacuum chamber experiments fundamentally misunderstand how greenhouse gases work. The warming effect of CO2 is not about mixing small volumes of warmer water or air and watching a rapid, noticeable temperature jump in a container; it’s about radiative energy transfer at the molecular level over time. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface and re emits it in all directions, which slows the rate at which heat escapes to space. This process is cumulative across the entire atmosphere, not instantaneous in a two liter bottle. Scaling down to a literal teaspoon of warm water in a bottle doesn’t replicate the physics of the troposphere, the radiative wavelengths involved, or the long term energy imbalance that drives global warming. It’s a misleading analogy, not a valid test.

The suggestion that CO2 at 400 ppm is too tiny to matter also misunderstands the system. Climate forcing doesn’t require equal parts of a gas; even trace amounts can have significant effects because of their absorption properties in the infrared spectrum. Nitrogen and oxygen are largely transparent to infrared radiation, so they don’t trap heat, whereas CO2 does. Demonstrating this requires controlled spectroscopic measurements, radiative transfer models, or empirical observation of atmospheric warming trends, not small-scale mixing experiments. Simply putting a slightly warmer drop of CO2 or water in a container cannot capture the complex, planet wide energy dynamics that climate science measures and models.

 

[Anomalism]

Providing the Facts About CO​

Home - CO2 Coalition

co2coalition.org

Watts Up With That? – The world's most viewed site on global ...​

Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements on its climate over thousands of years. The phenomenon is named after the Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković. In the 1920s, he provided a more definitive and quantitative analysis than James Croll's earlier hypothesis that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession combined to result in cyclical variations in the intra-annual and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the Earth's surface, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced the Earth's climatic patterns.
...

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Watts Up With That is a climate skeptic blog, not a scientific source.

The Milankovitch cycles are well established astronomical drivers of long term climate change, operating over tens of thousands of years. They explain glacial and interglacial patterns in Earth’s history, but they cannot account for the rapid warming observed over the past century. Modern CO2 driven warming occurs on a timescale far faster than orbital cycles and is directly tied to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as confirmed by multiple independent lines of evidence. Linking Milankovitch cycles to current warming conflates long term natural variability with short term human driven climate change.

 

[Mushroom]

The Milankovitch cycles are well established astronomical drivers of long term climate change, operating over tens of thousands of years. They explain glacial and interglacial patterns in Earth’s history, but they cannot account for the rapid warming observed over the past century.

Then what explains the rapid cooling we saw in this glacial cycle? Yes, we had rapid warming at the start of the cycle, then it plunged right back to Ice Age temperatures shortly afterwards and has remained there ever since.

 

[Oddball]

BTW, your posts are filled with BS and distortions, so just trying to present the counter point to some of that.
Also, you haven't addressed the issues I've presented, rather just ramble on in your doublespeak.

That's because he doesn't have any science on his side.

ICYMI, he stated in the OP that he won't debate the science on the premise that it's incontrovertible, then demands you supply it to refute the science that he refuses to talk about.

Despite his extensive text bricks of excess verbosity, he really ain't that bright....I strongly suspect all the smoke blowing is meant to try and cover for that.

 

[Anomalism]

Then what explains the rapid cooling we saw in this glacial cycle? Yes, we had rapid warming at the start of the cycle, then it plunged right back to Ice Age temperatures shortly afterwards and has remained there ever since.

Rapid changes at the end of glacial periods were influenced by feedbacks in the climate system, not just orbital forcing alone. Milankovitch cycles set the pace of incoming solar radiation, but ice albedo feedback, greenhouse gas concentrations, and changes in ocean circulation amplified and sometimes accelerated temperature shifts. These mechanisms explain why warming or cooling could appear rapid relative to the baseline orbital forcing.

The key difference with modern warming is timescale and cause. The post industrial temperature increase is occurring over a century, orders of magnitude faster than glacial transitions, and is tightly correlated with human emissions of CO2, rather than natural orbital variations or slow feedbacks. Past glacial swings and present day warming operate through similar physical principles, but the triggers and speed are fundamentally different.

 

[Anomalism]

That's because he doesn't have any science on his side.

ICYMI, he stated in the OP that he won't debate the science on the premise that it's incontrovertible, then demands you supply it to refute the science that he refuses to talk about.

Despite his extensive text bricks of excess verbosity, he really ain't that bright....I strongly suspect all the smoke blowing is meant to try and cover for that.

Your posturing and handwaving are irrelevant to physics.

 

[Oddball]

Your posturing and handwaving are irrelevant to physics.

Blow it out your ass, sub-cretin.

 

[Oddball]

Rapid changes at the end of glacial periods were influenced by feedbacks in the climate system, not just orbital forcing alone. Milankovitch cycles set the pace of incoming solar radiation, but ice albedo feedback, greenhouse gas concentrations, and changes in ocean circulation amplified and sometimes accelerated temperature shifts. These mechanisms explain why warming or cooling could appear rapid relative to the baseline orbital forcing.

The key difference with modern warming is timescale and cause. The post industrial temperature increase is occurring over a century, orders of magnitude faster than glacial transitions, and is tightly correlated with human emissions of CO2, rather than natural orbital variations or slow feedbacks. Past glacial swings and present day warming operate through similar physical principles, but the triggers and speed are fundamentally different.

Nice smoke blowing warmer boilerplate with absolutely zero hard, repeatable, quantifiable evidence to back it up.