Coffeehouse Thread

153 posts

Conversation Locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.

Crown Capital Earth Management Fraud Warriors: Earth Hour

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: You assume it has been proven, it has not,.

    They have a theory and when that theory is put to the test, it fails. Normal scientists would go back to the drawing board to revise their theory, but this lot seem to be hell bent on insisting that it is true, regardless of the facts.

    Some are actually making U-turns and saying that the models overestimated the effects, but still believe drastic cuts in CO2 are necessary, just because,..

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @evildictaitor: You assume it has been proven, it has not,.

    Since does not prove anything. Science is not in the business of proving this or that statement.

    Science is the discipline of coming up with models that fit existing data to make predictions of the future, and refining the models so that predictions become more accurate.

    If you have a better model as to how the climate works that meets both the experimental model of physics that describes our atmosphere and fits the historical data on the climate and makes useful predictions that can be tested and your model makes more accurate predictions in experiments, then, and only then, will your claims be taken seriously.

    Science does not progress by people saying "that model does not work". It progresses by people making a better model.

    You cannot "disprove" or "prove" global warming by saying you don't like the current model, or disputing its conclusions, or even by saying you don't like the way the models, computations or testing were set up.

    The only way to progress science is to provide a better model that fits existing data and makes better predictions than the current model.

    If you have a better model, feel free to submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, who will be able to test it experimentally, confirm that it fits the current data, and will then be able to refine their predictions as to what happens to the atmosphere when we emit *-tons of CO2 into it, and that will become the new status-quo.

    If you don't have a better model, but are just disputing the conclusions because you don't like them, then you're just contributing to noise rather than signal.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: Eh, no,. I can disprove your theory with observations, no need to come up with an alternative explanation,. That's the responsibility of the person providing the theory,..

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @evildictaitor: Eh, no,. I can disprove your theory with observations.

    Err, no, You can't "disprove scientific theories". You can only propose evidence that leads to a new model (or theory) being made.

    If this was not the case, then all of physics is currently disproved, because we know for a fact that the rate of expansion of the universe doesn't match the current data on how much everything weighs - hence the whole fuss about dark matter and dark energy - none of which we have empirical evidence for at the moment.

    Since people are clearly still using physics (rather than starting a mass physics textbook-burning exercise) we can clearly see that the emphasis in science is not on "proving" or "disproving" models (since they're all empirical models anyway, so you can never "prove" a scientific theory), but rather on coming up with new models that might be better, and then systematically and rigorously testing them.

    Once a new model has been found that matches the data we have and makes predictions that turn out to be true, this new model of physics will become the scientific consensus on what physics "is".

    That model will also be wrong, because science doesn't stop. Some facet of that model will need to be upgraded and physics will continue.

    Currently the best model that climate scientists have is one that says that people are emitting lots of CO2 and that is having an impact on surface temperatures of the Earth, and that those surface temperature changes are causing some weather patterns to be more likely than others.

    If you disagree with the consensus on climate change, propose a better model that fits the current data, explains our observations, and makes better predictions of future events. Then your model will become the consensus.

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor:

    Hogwash,. You can easily neglect the expansion of the universe when calculating the mass of a liter of water. Scientifically proven that my model works.

    Now, I challenge you to do the same for amount of warming for a doubling of CO2. Like proton2 said, they can't even get the sign for that number right,.

    And now you say I have to come up with a better model, otherwise theirs is true? That's the world in reverse. You claim something, you prove it,. And none of the proof I've seen thus far, adds up. It fails the most basic of tests.

    Here's an experiment you can try for yourself disproving global warming;

    Aim a regular light at a desk. Now try with a mirror to make the spot brighter then it already is by reflecting it's rays back.

    It's impossible.

    Because the mirror will light up the same as the spot on the table, therefore no flow will go from the mirror to the desk. You require a brighter spot on the mirror then on the desk.

    This is precisely what climate scientists claim. Sunlight is converted by the earth into long wave radiation and this radiation is being reflected by the CO2 back to the planet, causing additional warming, which gets reemitted, and on and on, till you have a runaway greenhouse effect.

    It cannot happen since the CO2 is the equivalent of the mirror. Therefore the greenhouse theory fails.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @evildictaitor:

    Now, I challenge you to do the same for amount of warming for a doubling of CO2.

    Challenge accepted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

    It cannot happen since the CO2 is the equivalent of the mirror. Therefore the greenhouse theory fails.

    CO2 was confirmed as a greenhouse gas 150 years ago - long before the climate change debate started in the late 1980s. The mechanics of how and why extra carbon dixiode in the atmosphere causes a temperature rise is trivial: CO2 absorbs infrared; then re-emits it.

    But only some of the re-emitted infrared goes outwards, and some inwards back towards the surface. That re-emission back down IS the greenhouse effect.

    The atmosphere of Venus is 97% carbon dioxide (CO2). Mercury has no atmosphere at all.

    The average surface temperature of Mercury is 440° K, with a maximum of 725° K during the day.
    Mercury gets 9126.6 W per square meter of energy from the Sun.
    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fac...

    The average surface temperature of Venus is 737° K, with no diurnal variation. So it's hotter than Mercury.
    Venus gets only 2613.9 Watts per square meter of energy from the Sun.
    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fac...

    Venus is hotter than Mercury despite getting  1/3 the solar energy that Mercury does because whilst most of the heat reaching the surface of Mercury is reflected directly back into space, most of the radiation reaching Venus is repeatedly recaptured and reflected back towards Venus whilst in Venus' atmosphere, leading to Venus being much hotter on average than Mercury.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor:

    Measuring temperature of a gas inside a container does not prove the greenhouse effect.

    You have to have sunlight being absorbed on a surface, that surface has to heat the atmosphere (0,04% CO2), then you need to double that to (0,08% CO2) and measure the changes in temperature of your surface.

    All this experiment does is prove that pressure drives temperature (energy density actually), which is a basic physics. As CO2 is heavier then air.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , evildictait​or wrote

    CO2 was confirmed as a greenhouse gas 150 years ago - long before the climate change debate started in the late 1980s. The mechanics of how and why extra carbon dixiode in the atmosphere causes a temperature rise is trivial: CO2 absorbs infrared; then re-emits it.

    But only some of the re-emitted infrared goes outwards, and some inwards back towards the surface. That re-emission back down IS the greenhouse effect.

    That's precisely what the lamp on desk experiment disproves.

    In order for energy to flow from the CO2 to the ground, the CO2 has to have a higher temperature then the ground. Like with current in electricity, there has to be a difference in potential for energy to flow. Second law of thermodynamics.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Measuring temperature of a gas inside a container does not prove the greenhouse effect.

    I give up. The greenhouse effect is not complicated. It's basic physics. It's true both experimentally and theoretically (i.e. we know that it happens and we know the mechanism by which it happens).

    It's in fact so obviously true that children prove it in schools with bottles, lamps and thermometers.

    Generic Forum Image

    So anyway, I give up. Maddus. This is age-14 elementary physics, Maddus.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: You can't compare surface temperatures of the different planets, they all have completely different atmospheric masses.

    Like the bottle experiment, the heavier the atmosphere, the greater the pressure, the greater the energy density, the greater the temperature.

    Check the temperatures of the different atmosphere's relative to earths atmospheric pressure. It's about the same.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: I agree with you, it's not complicated, because it is untrue.

    You can post picures of perpetuum mobile all day, still doesn't make it true.

    You cannot warm water with an icecube! They teach that in kindergarten!

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    You cannot warm water with an icecube! They teach that in kindergarten!

    But you certainly can warm water with all of that hot air coming out of your mouth. Add a layer of greenhouse gasses to the mix and you trap all of that BS near the earth's surface causing those icecaps to melt and the ensuing climate change.

    That reminds me: The next time I'm in Europe I need to make a stop to your backyard and crap in it. Seems you don't mind at all since the earth can handle it.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Here's an experiment you can try for yourself disproving global warming;

    Aim a regular light at a desk. Now try with a mirror to make the spot brighter then it already is by reflecting it's rays back.

    It's impossible.

    Because the mirror will light up the same as the spot on the table, therefore no flow will go from the mirror to the desk. You require a brighter spot on the mirror then on the desk.

    This is precisely what climate scientists claim. Sunlight is converted by the earth into long wave radiation and this radiation is being reflected by the CO2 back to the planet, causing additional warming, which gets reemitted, and on and on, till you have a runaway greenhouse effect.

    LOLWUT? Infrared radiation is what's prevented from escaping the atmosphere by greenhouse gases--not visible light. Infrared light is not visible. Did they teach you that in your science class?

     

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    That's precisely what the lamp on desk experiment disproves.

    In order for energy to flow from the CO2 to the ground, the CO2 has to have a higher temperature then the ground.

    I can reflect the light from a laser pointer back to the source using a mirror. Are you saying that the mirror has to have a higher temperature than the source for that to occur?

    Like with current in electricity, there has to be a difference in potential for energy to flow. Second law of thermodynamics.

    Don't confuse laws of thermodynamics with principles of electricity and magnetism.

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @cbae: same rules apply between visible and non visible light.

    The point of the experiment is, you can't light the spot with it's own light. Therefore you can't light the earth warmer with it's own infrared radiation.

    @cbae:I'm saying, just because you revert the beam back to it's origin, it's origin will not light up brighter.

     

     

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Therefore you can't light the earth warmer with it's own infrared radiation.

    In much the same way that a naked person out in the snow can't make themselves warmer by wearing a woolly hat, gloves and a jacket.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: insulation from convection is an entirely different phenomenon that we are discussing here. Not to mention that a body produces it's own heat, unlike the surface which is heated by the sun.

    We are debating thermal radiation,. In where an system open to space is thermally affected by the atmosphere that surrounds it. My take is no, and no bottle experiment or naked amazon tossed into the cold has convinced me that you can warm a body by reflecting it's own energy without external work.

    They thought this external work took place in a hotspot in the atmosphere, but when they looked, it wasn't there.

    So much for 4th grade science.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae: same rules apply between visible and non visible light.

    The point of the experiment is, you can't light the spot with it's own light.

    You can't light the spot with its own light? What does that even mean? With a mirror, I can reflect the beam of light from a laser pointer back to the origin. So what?

    Therefore you can't light the earth warmer with it's own infrared radiation.

    That infrared radiation comes from the Sun's energy. By reflecting back some of the radiation that's escaping the atmosphere, the Earth becomes warmer than if there were no such reflection. Are you going to argue that that's not the case? Seriously?

    Nobody's claiming that the reflecting that radiation back makes the surface of the Earth hotter than the surface of the Sun, if that's what you're implying.

    @cbae:I'm saying, just because you revert the beam back to it's origin, it's origin will not light up brighter.

    The surrounding area will be brighter than if you don't reflect the beam back. Placing a torchiere floor lamp in the corner of a room lights up the entire room much brighter than if you put the lamp right in the center of a room.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.