Two Theories

[IlarMeilyr]

The AGW Faith crowd have NOT gotten diddly dick correct.

Yet they STILL claim to have the "science" on "their" "side."

Poor deluded lot. They still value an alleged 'consensus' as though that had diddly dog to do with the scientific method OVER actual science.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thing is, it seems to be the warmers who reject concepts of statistical mechanics?

Nope. It's only SSDD and the "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!" crowd who deny that the Second Law is based on statistics, and other basics of Statistical Mechanics.

Albert Einstein once said that of all his contributions to science, he though his theories in statistical physics were probably the ones that would endure because the only logical assumptions were assumption based on large numbers.

But Ludwig Boltzmann, the father of statistical mechanics in the 19th century, was definitely a scientific pioneer swimming against a huge consensus of 'settled science' that rejected faith in or study of aggregate behavior in any system. But as Boltzmann's theories gradually gained credibility, a whole new field of science was born and now the concept is so widely accepted, it is a component of almost all advanced curriculum in engineering and Earth sciences.

Just like how global warming science slowly changed the consensus. Why? Because it got correct results.

Denialism could change the consensus ... if it could get correct results. So far, it doesn't.

So perhaps the skeptics who are looking at the big picture of aggregate influences on Earth's climate

The mainstream scientists, in other words. Where on earth did you get the crazy idea that scientists don't look at aggregate influences?

How many of you AGW types are interested in the research that it is solar activity, water vapor, and prevailing wind patterns that are far more likely to be primary drivers of climate change than is the minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Have you EVER considered data presented by a skeptic as valid? Have you EVER protested the fact that skeptics are not even allowed to participate in the discussion, their research is not included in any significant way, and some in the AGW circles go out of their way to demonize anybody who doesn't toe the politically correct AGW line?

Now tell me which mainstream scientists are looking at aggregate influences?

 

[mamooth]

How many of you AGW types are interested in the research that it is solar activity, water vapor, and prevailing wind patterns

Given AGW types wrote those studies, of course they're interested.

that are far more likely to be primary drivers of climate change than is the minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Not according to the evidence.

Have you EVER considered data presented by a skeptic as valid?

Considered it, yes. But once I saw that pseudoskeptic theories were contradicted by the observed data and our knowledge of physics, I was forced to discard them as invalid.

Have you EVER protested the fact that skeptics are not even allowed to participate in the discussion, their research is not included in any significant way, and some in the AGW circles go out of their way to demonize anybody who doesn't toe the politically correct AGW line?

I don't humor people when they put forth paranoid victimhood fantasies. Doing that just encourages more of the same.

Now tell me which mainstream scientists are looking at aggregate influences?

All of them. Was that supposed to be a difficult question? Shall I point you to the IPCC AR5 table that lists all the aggregate influences?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many of you AGW types are interested in the research that it is solar activity, water vapor, and prevailing wind patterns

Given AGW types wrote those studies, of course they're interested.

that are far more likely to be primary drivers of climate change than is the minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Not according to the evidence.



Considered it, yes. But once I saw that pseudoskeptic theories were contradicted by the observed data and our knowledge of physics, I was forced to discard them as invalid.

Have you EVER protested the fact that skeptics are not even allowed to participate in the discussion, their research is not included in any significant way, and some in the AGW circles go out of their way to demonize anybody who doesn't toe the politically correct AGW line?

I don't humor people when they put forth paranoid victimhood fantasies. Doing that just encourages more of the same.

Now tell me which mainstream scientists are looking at aggregate influences?

All of them. Was that supposed to be a difficult question? Shall I point you to the IPCC AR5 table that lists all the aggregate influences?

You keep saying "Evidence"

 

[Crick]

Here I thought that video was actually going to say something meaningful.

Foxfyre asked when mainstream scientists were going to look at "aggregate influences" and mamooth noted the AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1) table listing the affect of alternate influences.

Did you actually have some point to make with regard to those FACTS?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here I thought that video was actually going to say something meaningful.

Foxfyre asked when mainstream scientists were going to look at "aggregate influences" and mamooth noted the AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1) table listing the affect of alternate influences.

Did you actually have some point to make with regard to those FACTS?

a computer model is not "Evidence"

 

[Crick]

The IPCC has a great deal more than computer models. You ought to actually read some of AR5. Know your enemy. And it's certainly more evidence than an excerpt from a movie that doesn't deserve to be abused by you (and that WAS an abuse).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Prosecutor: Here's a computer model showing how the defendant committed the murders.

Judge: Do you have any evidence, DNA, fingerprints, eye witnesses?

Prosecutor: Denier!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC has a great deal more than computer models. You ought to actually read some of AR5. Know your enemy. And it's certainly more evidence than an excerpt from a movie that doesn't deserve to be abused by you (and that WAS an abuse).

Where in AP5 is the evidence that shows a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2.

Can you highlight it for me?

Just pick one or two paragraphs

 

[SSDD]

Tell you what Swifty, here's a little challenge. Why don't we each go looking for OTHER sources - NAMED SOURCES that back up our contentions? Let's see if you can find another physics reference source that says the terms "cosmic radiation" or "cosmic rays" most commonly refer to the cosmic background radiation.

Tell you what abe...lets go look for credible sources stating what heat is. What do you want to bet that science, here in the 21st century isn't clear on just exactly what heat is. It remains undecided as to whether heat a form of energy, or the result of energy moving from one place to another. Personally, I think that heat is the result of energy moving and can find plenty of credible sources that say so...but then, there are also plenty of credible sources that say that heat is a form of energy itself.

http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys260/agashe/S09/notes/lecture11.pdf

Heat: energy transferred between system and environment; heat is not a form of energy or state variable; heat can cause thermal energy to change

Heat

n physics, heat is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms, molecules and other particles which comprise matter; generally defined as energy in motion.

http://lectureexchange.com/wp-conte...hysics-for-Scientist-and-Engineers_Serway.pdf

Heat Is Not a Form of Energy
The word heat is one of the most misused words in our popular lan- guage. Heat is a method of transfer- ring energy, not a form of storing energy. Therefore, phrases such
as “heat content,” “the heat of the summer,” and “the heat escaped” all represent uses of this word that are inconsistent with our physics definition. See Chapter 20.

Energy, Work, and Heat, The first Law

One of the great breakthroughs in the history of science was the recognition that heat is a form of energy.

Teachers' Online Primary Science

Remember - Heat is not a form of energy
The correct uses of the word "Heat" are:

As a verb, describing the process of
Transfer of energy from one body to another due to a difference in temperature. eg.

As a noun, describing the quantity of energy that has been transferred during a heating process.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/heat.aspx

Heat is a form of energy—specifically, the energy that flows between two bodies because of differences in temperature. Therefore, the scientific definition of heat is different from, and more precise than, the everyday meaning.

So tell me abe...and think hard. If science is even now unsure and divided over whether heat is a form of energy, or the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another, how does that affect the credibility of the claims made by climate science and further....the whole settle science claim? If science isn't settled over what heat is, then it certainly can't be settled in regards to any topic involving heat.

 

[SSDD]

Are Cosmic Rays Electromagnetic Radiation?
On one of your web pages it is stated that "Particles and high-energy light that bombard the Earth from anywhere beyond its atmosphere are known as cosmic rays." Yet on one of the linked pages it is stated that "For some time it was believed that the radiation was electromagnetic in nature (hence the name cosmic "rays"), and some textbooks still incorrectly include cosmic rays as part of the electromagnetic spectrum." I would like to know if some cosmic rays consist of high energy electromagnetic radiation (or are they all particulate?).

Some people still call high energy photons (x-rays and gamma rays) cosmic rays, and you'll still see that in some textbooks. The more common usage (at least in scientific circles) is to call particles cosmic rays, and to call photons either x-rays or gamma rays.

Dr. Eric Christian

-- NASA's Cosmicopia -- Ask Us -- Cosmic Rays

I hope you do realize, pricky/abe, that people sometimes do speak with a level of imprecision that doesn't amount to actual ignorance of the subject matter.

Nah. A tool like you would never admit the obvious if it doesn't suit your hackneyed agenda.

Actually, what I was mainly pointing out was mammoth's mistaken belief that cosmic radiation only originates outside our solar system.

 

[SSDD]

Nope. It's only SSDD and the "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!" crowd who deny that the Second Law is based on statistics, and other basics of Statistical Mechanics.

If energy transfers from cool objects to warm objects, don't you think that it might have been observed at some time? And if as you claim statistically some energy moves from cool objects to warm objects with the net being energy moving from warm to cool, then the energy movement is still meaningless and has nothing to do with the temperature of planet earth.

And the mechanism that causes energy to move is not a branch of mathematics...it is a force as yet unknown and not understood.

 

[IanC]

hahahahahaha. its almost as if Hannibal Leckter had used a melon baller to scoop out part of SSDD's brain where the logic involved with themodynamics would take place. he seems reasonably normal until this subject comes up, and is totally refractory to any information passed his way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where's the evidence from AP5?

Hmmm?

 

[Crick]

The IPCC has a great deal more than computer models. You ought to actually read some of AR5. Know your enemy. And it's certainly more evidence than an excerpt from a movie that doesn't deserve to be abused by you (and that WAS an abuse).

Where in AP5 is the evidence that shows a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2.

Can you highlight it for me?

Just pick one or two paragraphs

You will find it in the same section in which they verify the laws of thermodynamics and the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide.

When we tell you you're idiots for challenging the greenhouse effect, we're absolutely correct.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC has a great deal more than computer models. You ought to actually read some of AR5. Know your enemy. And it's certainly more evidence than an excerpt from a movie that doesn't deserve to be abused by you (and that WAS an abuse).

Where in AP5 is the evidence that shows a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2.

Can you highlight it for me?

Just pick one or two paragraphs

You will find it in the same section in which they verify the laws of thermodynamics and the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide.

When we tell you you're idiots for challenging the greenhouse effect, we're absolutely correct.

So you have no evidence showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature and disrupt the climate

 

[Foxfyre]

How many of you AGW types are interested in the research that it is solar activity, water vapor, and prevailing wind patterns

Given AGW types wrote those studies, of course they're interested.

that are far more likely to be primary drivers of climate change than is the minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Not according to the evidence.



Considered it, yes. But once I saw that pseudoskeptic theories were contradicted by the observed data and our knowledge of physics, I was forced to discard them as invalid.

Have you EVER protested the fact that skeptics are not even allowed to participate in the discussion, their research is not included in any significant way, and some in the AGW circles go out of their way to demonize anybody who doesn't toe the politically correct AGW line?

I don't humor people when they put forth paranoid victimhood fantasies. Doing that just encourages more of the same.

Now tell me which mainstream scientists are looking at aggregate influences?

All of them. Was that supposed to be a difficult question? Shall I point you to the IPCC AR5 table that lists all the aggregate influences?

I rest my case.

 

[Crick]

Good. It had no where else to go.

 

[Crick]

Where in AP5 is the evidence that shows a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2.

Can you highlight it for me?

Just pick one or two paragraphs

You will find it in the same section in which they verify the laws of thermodynamics and the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide.

When we tell you you're idiots for challenging the greenhouse effect, we're absolutely correct.

So you have no evidence showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature and disrupt the climate

There exists SHITLOADS of evidence, just none in AR5 because the greenhouse effect has been settled science for close to a century.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your THEORY is that a 120PPM Increase causes "Climate Disruption"

That's not a Fact, that's a theory