Science Denial

[RickG]

What's the reason? can you say it in one sentence?

2:44 to 3:04 in the video.

 

[sjastro]

Nothing else needs said about your misinformed claims and lack of understanding of what is happening.

https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

Your own climate global warmers are trying to use it to bolster their own case. They too lack understanding of the true source, but that's not surprising.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/satelli...-troposphere-confirm-warming-trend-data-shows

Stop with the PR and misinformation already. Accept the data for what it's telling you and give up those false beliefs and preconceived incorrect notions.

None of your links even remotely address the issues in my post.
So stop the obscuration tactics and answer this very simple question.
If the magnetosphere is a source of heating the troposphere then why is the lower stratosphere cooling?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Yet 99% of the scientific community ridiculed Kristian Birkland for over 40 years for his ideas. It turned out that one man was correct and those very people that rideculed him were wrong, despite all their credentials.

Like Barry Marshall, who had to eat a petri dish of Heliobacter Pylori just so that his academic colleagues - peers in his field - would take him and his research seriously. We won't even speak about how Tesla, and many other unknown, unnamed scientists had their work stolen, their articles removed, and effective blacklists against them because of their unyieldingly unconventional theories and ideas.

Often times it came down to money - as it did with Tesla and JP Morgan (free energy over open dielectrics,) and likely Barry Marshall, who would have essentially put the "antacid" business out by suggesting ulcers were caused by bacteria, not spicy food and stress primarily.

Even the proton inhibitor itself is a scam, as antacids do not solve the problem of acid reflux: proton inhibitors can and often do worsen reflux issues. A simple solution to stop acid reflux is to drink more (weak) acid - so that you provide a concentration of acid for your body to properly buffer your pH back to homeostatic levels.

It is ironic to have studied older papers, and to now see texts on plasma physics all but diefy Birkland.

He's relying on an argument of fallacy that most resort too when they lack the data to back up their beliefs. He is also arguing over nothing, since I clearly stated the ice core data showed this period to be cooler than any of the past, but lasting longer.

In general, I think most proponents of AGW don't realize many opponents of AGW actually believe in the GW, or Climate Change part (with much more data needed, obviously.)

[We agree that Co2 is an insulator (both ways), hence this period being cooler than any in the past, and hence this period lasting longer than in the past. It's his reliance on his magic one way mirror which does not fit the facts of Co2 being an insulator. Even his quoted expert applies only the magic one way mirror portion of the equation.

The experts once told us this galaxy was the entire universe. Once had mathematical equations to show the earth was the center of the solar system. Experts aren't always the experts they claim to be and can be in error as well.

The ice core data speaks for itself and when interpreted with the increased Co2 is self explanatory, as long as one doesn't keep using magic one way mirrors..... Fairie Dust.....[/quote]

P.S. In this day of identity theft, people are lucky if I tell them my name, let alone enough to get the rest of the data they need.

That is very true. Depending on where you are, and it's legality, you can get a flea.

 

[Colter]

Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy

 

[Ygrene Imref]

The first nuclear bomb was tested July 16, 1945. That's no assumption.

That is quite a bold assumption.


That is quite a bold assumption.


Which is an unsupported bold assumption.

If you are still talking about the temporal relation of the Nuclear age in relation to the analogy I presented about missing information contributing to increased error, you are still missing the point.

The statements seem bold because you are missing the point. And, this has happened before in exchanges between us.

But, quite honestly, saying "if you start with error, you will compound that error over/through operations" should be common scientific sense. It supports itself.

Very simple example: determine the perimeter of a unit disk, using r = 1.1, then determine the area of the unit disk. Then, use the same radius to find the surface area, and volume of the unit ball.


Your error will not necessarily be linear; it compound by some constant, function of parameter (or even exponentially and critically, if you are wrong enough.) So, if I wanted to use the surface area element I calculated for the unit disk, and apply it to electrodynamics, or even analysis, it would be clear in the math that there is error. Of course, if you take r=1.1 to be the actual, true radius through all operations, there is no problem.

Which is why I also said if you ignore that beginning with error compounds that error over operations, the results will not be an issue of error in calculation.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

DP

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If there is one thing I do know absolutely for certain, it is that Justatruthseeker has no training in physics, and probably in none of the other physical sciences either. He makes mistakes which even a schoolboy wouldn't make.

If ad hominem attacks make you feel better be childish all you like. Since that's all you have I understand.

Everyone can see your reliance on magic one way mirrors for what it is. Denial of science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No but scientists are capable of moral or immoral behavior. Scientist interpret the data they look at. They even decide what data they will entertain and which they will discard. All of this "science" worship is foolish because science is done by scientists.

I don't think anyone here "worships" science - whatever that means.

And yes, people are moral agents and scientists are people to.

And wherever man is involved in science the probability exists they will screw it up somehow

Okay. Who do you suggest, besides humans off course, to be a good candidate for being involved in science ?

Just look at all the climate models and the predictions that have failed. We just went through a period of no global warming despite the claims of catastrophic change by the models.

No warming you say?
Apparantly you are unaware the records temperatures are being broken constantly these past few years.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

None of your links even remotely address the issues in my post.
So stop the obscuration tactics and answer this very simple question.
If the magnetosphere is a source of heating the troposphere then why is the lower stratosphere cooling?

Because your claims of man made global warming are false. We are beginning the downturn and in 3-5 years your beliefs in man made global warming will be shown for the false beliefs they are. If indeed man was causing the global warming through Co2 then the western polar winds which cool the stratosphere would also be warming, and hence there would be no cooling.

Also loss of ozone has occurred, else it would be warming with the rest of the planet due to the energy from the sun through those magnetic ropes, not your magic one way mirror. Not that it matters anymore as in 3-5 years you will no longer be able to keep your false beliefs, but will have to instead make up excuses why the earth is dramatically beginning to cool.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a game that politicians are on board with cause it all comes down to money and control.

The exact opposite is true.

The actual money is in the oil industry, particularly the continuation thereof.
Moving entire economies into clean energy is what costs money.

 

[lesliedellow]

If ad hominem attacks make you feel better be childish all you like. Since that's all you have I understand.

Everyone can see your reliance on magic one way mirrors for what it is. Denial of science.

Is "magic" your special word for anything you don't understand? Tell me, oh wise one, at which point does that PhD physicist's physics break down?

Also loss of ozone has occurred, else it would be warming with the rest of the planet due to the energy from the sun through those magnetic ropes, not your magic one way mirror.

The hole in the ozone layer, and the cause thereof, is, of course, a completely separate issue, unrelated to global warming, but don't let that bother you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No warming you say?
Apparantly you are unaware the records temperatures are being broken constantly these past few years.

Stop changing past data and that won't happen anymore.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"When the Carbon dioxide absorbs this energy it then emits this radiation much of which goes right back down to the earth's surface and consequently heating the surface."

Like I said, magic one way mirrors and all that, notice he only talks about the energy from the earth, but neglects to tell us that it must also absorb the energy from the sun and it then emits this radiation much of which goes right back "up" to space.

But of course he only discussed the magic one way mirror aspect that I talked about, as did you. One way limited thought process blinded by mind conditioning and preconceived beliefs, makes it so you can only see one side of the equation..... the magic one way mirror side.

Did you really just deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Actually, your very general wording even seems to hint that you believe that no gas is a greenhouse gas. Is that correct?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Stop changing past data and that won't happen anymore.

2016 marks three consecutive years of record warmth for the globe | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 

[RickG]

Stop changing past data and that won't happen anymore.

Adjustments are made to correct more than obvious bad data. Things like station location changes, instrument changes, times of the day temps are taken, etc..

I would suggest learning about why and how data changes are made, and most importantly, understanding the why and how before criticizing a process one is unfamiliar with.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Menne et al 2009

Do you see the problems with these temperatures? Do you think they are valid "as is" temperatures from which to derive regional or global temperature data? I don't think so, they need to be homogenized.

 

[RickG]

If you are still talking about the temporal relation of the Nuclear age in relation to the analogy I presented about missing information contributing to increased error, you are still missing the point.

The statements seem bold because you are missing the point. And, this has happened before in exchanges between us.

But, quite honestly, saying "if you start with error, you will compound that error over/through operations" should be common scientific sense. It supports itself.

Very simple example: determine the perimeter of a unit disk, using r = 1.1, then determine the area of the unit disk. Then, use the same radius to find the surface area, and volume of the unit ball.


Your error will not necessarily be linear; it compound by some constant, function of parameter (or even exponentially and critically, if you are wrong enough.) So, if I wanted to use the surface area element I calculated for the unit disk, and apply it to electrodynamics, or even analysis, it would be clear in the math that there is error. Of course, if you take r=1.1 to be the actual, true radius through all operations, there is no problem.

Which is why I also said if you ignore that beginning with error compounds that error over operations, the results will not be an issue of error in calculation.

I understand your point quite well. What I don't understand is why you talk about a potential problem in radiocarbon dating and then provide an example with surface area and volume. There is absolutely no relationship between the two. My whole point is that you are providing mathematical examples of error which are statistically insignificant or completely inappropriate with respect to how scientific data is processed and interpreted.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I understand your point quite well. What I don't understand is why you talk about a potential problem in radiocarbon dating and then provide an example with surface area and volume. There is absolutely no relationship between the two. My whole point is that you are providing mathematical examples of error which are statistically insignificant or completely inappropriate with respect to how scientific data is processed and interpreted.

Right. Your point is not THE point at all. You have been missing the point for a few pages; if you actually read what I wrote, I explicitly explain why I used each anology, and what it pertains to - as well as why it is relevant to the topic at hand.

I have repeated myself twice in this new exchange of ours, and FOUR times in the exchange before. There is a block on your part that I can't break through; so I am not explaining myself again.

If you don't get it, it's fine; if you think I not making sense, that is fine. I can't keep writing "descriptive essays" explaning my point in great detail if you still don't get the point.

 

[Speedwell]

If ad hominem attacks make you feel better be childish all you like. Since that's all you have I understand.

Everyone can see your reliance on magic one way mirrors for what it is. Denial of science.

That was not an ad hominem attack.

An argument ad hominem is a form of fallacious refutation which attacks the opponent's character rather than his argument.

"Speedwell is a Bible-hating Anglican" is not an ad hominem, it is merely an insult.

"Speedwell is wrong because his argument is illogical and he is a Bible-hating Anglican" is not an ad hominem, it is an acceptable refutation followed by an insult.

"Speedwell is wrong because he is a Bible-hating Anglican" is an ad hominem.

 

[sjastro]

Because your claims of man made global warming are false. We are beginning the downturn and in 3-5 years your beliefs in man made global warming will be shown for the false beliefs they are. If indeed man was causing the global warming through Co2 then the western polar winds which cool the stratosphere would also be warming, and hence there would be no cooling.

You obviously don’t know the difference between a global event and local event.
The term polar should have given it away.
Since you don’t seem to comprehend the subject material despite bringing it up let me clarify it for you.
The polar vortex that extends into the stratosphere IS LESS THAN 1000 KM IN DIAMETER. This clearly cannot explain the dynamics of the entire lower stratosphere.
Furthermore if this limited region warms up, it is due to a reduction or reversal of the polar vortex of westerly winds during winter.
It has absolutely nothing to do with global warming as the effect occurs over a period of days, unlike global warming which spans decades.

Also loss of ozone has occurred, else it would be warming with the rest of the planet due to the energy from the sun through those magnetic ropes, not your magic one way mirror. Not that it matters anymore as in 3-5 years you will no longer be able to keep your false beliefs, but will have to instead make up excuses why the earth is dramatically beginning to cool.

The argument from ignorance fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam) where a speculation is presented as a statement of fact.

Magnetic flux ropes (the correct term) that can extend out to Earth occur in force free magnetic fields, are associated with plasmas of extremely low density.
These are the CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) that do occasionally reach the Earth.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Earth is being warmed by CMEs.
For this to occur not only will CMEs, but also the solar wind, bypass the magnetosphere.
Life forms would be exposed to dangerous high energy protons.
The ultimate falsification of your argument is having this discussion in the first place as life could not exist.

Your posts are not only illogical but also illustrate that you do not understand basic physics.
That is not an ad hom attack but a statement of fact.