Discussions

@cbae:

Move goalposts much?

These are not peer reviewed articles, but blog posts.

If you want to rebuttle the idea that mass is responsible for climate change, you have to do it in a peer reviewed journal.

Until then, this is the best model we have. In order to invalidate it, you will have to come up with a better alternative.

@blowdart: climate is just a hobby, my real interest is trying take over the world,..

@Charles: Sounds like fun!

Where do I apply?

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

there he is;

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ferenc.pdf

Miskolczi!

44 minutes ago, Sven Groot wrote

Okay Maddus, I'm calling bullshit. This is what you said here:

*snip*

Despite the fact that you didn't change your view on climate change, you did agree that greenhouse theory did not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, at least you agreed that that argument against climate change was flawed.

And here you are, using that same argument again. So you either have a very short memory, are dishonest (you only said you conceded to end the discussion, not because you actually understood what I was saying), or just incredibly stupid.

Correct, I did not have the answers then, so I conceded. I have learned new things and have changed my mind. Last time I checked, I'm allowed to do that.

Maybe I'm just really stupid, or maybe you are gullible, who knows? Let's try and find out shall we?

I want you to give me your source (a reliable, scientific source, so either an article in a peer reviewed journal or a regular article that cites its sources so I can check them) for the idea that it is the mass and pressure of the atmosphere, not its composition, that causes it to heat the earth.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

http://www.knmi.nl/~laagland/cursus/presentaties_voorjaar12/Ozawa.pdf

I'll try to dig up the paper that was a game changer for me, by Mikolsky (or something, why can't these dudes be called Jones?).

I also want you to explain the following, again citing your sources: if the earth is in equilibrium, why has it been both much hotter (ice ages) and much colder in the past? If higher pressure equals higher temperature, then why is it so cold on at the bottom of the ocean?

The activity of the sun and the angle of the earth relative to the sun. The evidence is against CO2 being any factor.

That has to do with the fact that liquids do not compact (much) under pressure. So the temperature of the oceans are dictated by the sun, rather then gravity. As sunlight doesn't penetrate very far into the ocean, they are relatively cold.

Citation for gas; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_law

Citations for oceans; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_zone 

Again, I want you to cite sources. They don't have to be scientific papers, anything that cites a sufficiently reliable source is okay (even a Wikipedia page with proper citations will do). I just want to know what source of information you are using to base your opinion on, that it's not just because it's "obvious" or "self evident". After all, since you claim to be a skeptic, you must have properly verified sources for your opinions.

It seems like you think I do this for mere amusement, I don't. I'm convinced that they've got it wrong. And I'm convinced people are actually hurting because of the actions we take in order to 'save the world'. I think it's unjust and unfair to condemn people to energy poverty, because we are afraid to share to wealth. None should be forced to live without cheap abundant energy, without it, life is harsh and unpleasant. That's my motivation behind it. 

@Proton2: not this sceptic

I follow Jo's blog, so those articles are not new for me,.

Why do you think it has 1000+ reponses? Because nearly all agree?

@Proton2:

Consider the earth to be at a potential of 220V. Consider the atmosphere to be at a potential of 200V. Does current run from the atmosphere to the earth? Clearly not.

Now, if you stick your current meter with a potential of 0V into the atmosphere, you will measure a current.

Exchange Volts for Temperature and voila, greenhouse theory debunked.

1 hour ago, Proton2 wrote

*snip*

The back radiation is measured against a blackbody, clearly the surface of the earth is not a blackbody. Therefore one cannot conclude that there is a flow between the surface and the earth.

You have to set up your measuring device to emit the same longwave radiation as the surface of the earth and then detect if it is indeed receiving additional radiation from the atmosphere. Until they do that, there is no downward radiated flux.

It's a clear violation of the first and second law of thermodynamics to think that radiation bounces around the atmosphere and the surface, performing additional work each time it's absorbed and emitted. This clearly cannot be. You can demonstrate this with the desk light experiment.

1 hour ago, evildictait​or wrote

You're wrong Maddus. It actually boggles my mind as to how wrong you can be.

Disagreeing with the conclusions of climate change is pretty dubious at best nowadays. But disagreeing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas despite direct evidence demonstrating it and refuting  the theory of the greenhouse effect itself, despite the obvious counter-proof - i.e. greenhouses - is so far beyond ordinary denialism that it actually beggars belief. 

What proof do I need to counter?

I've given you real life experiments that you can do yourself. I've disproven your bottle experiment. I've countered the Venus argument. I've explained convection and radiation. I've provided an alternative explanation. I've explained where I think the models are just plain wrong.

The ball is in your hands now,..

@Sven Groot: Makes me want to go study again!