Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
But, how old is the Earth?
Farmers Almanac More Accurate Than Climate Science
|
フォーラム » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
Latest dating suggests approximately 4.4 billion years ago. You know, if you're going to use such reliable facts as that, you may as well be accurate. Given it is February 2014, the Earth is 6017 years and 5 months. I have a personal flaw in that I forget everyone's birthday, including that of the rock I cling to as it hurls through the aether, so I've forgotten what day in September, 4004 BC, that God's alarm clock went off.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Don't conflate skeptic with denier. The people in the article you and King linked are skeptics. They adhere to the idea that increased CO2 are warming the planet, but challenge the ability of current models to accurately predict it's extent. A skeptic implies a greater understanding of the topic than you appear to have. You're a denier. That's why people laugh at you. And in comes the hateful bigot to further perpetuate the hoax and argue against people who aren't really there. Skeptic became too legitimate a term to discredit (especially since the "professionals" keep getting it wrong), so thus "denier" was coined. You're swinging at a figment of your imagination... Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Don't conflate skeptic with denier. The people in the article you and King linked are skeptics. They adhere to the idea that increased CO2 are warming the planet, but challenge the ability of current models to accurately predict it's extent. A skeptic implies a greater understanding of the topic than you appear to have. You're a denier. That's why people laugh at you. And in comes the hateful bigot to further perpetuate the hoax and argue against people who aren't really there. Skeptic became too legitimate a term to discredit (especially since the "professionals" keep getting it wrong), so thus "denier" was coined. You're swinging at a figment of your imagination... There are definite camps; people who think that climate change does not exist, people who think climate change is not caused by increased CO2, and people who think climate change exists and is primarly driven by man via CO2 production. It isn't as cut and dry to state there are only three camps, they run the spectrum from denial of any change to dear god we're all going to die in 50 years.
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber said: » What, no-one wants to talk about absorption spectra or physics anymore?  Well I think it's because the actual skeptics didn't even know how absurd the "AGWE is hoax, because of the second law of thermodynamics" argument really is. What bothers me most though is Ocean Acidification and how that being a byproduct of CO2 overabundance isn't respected by skeptics or deniers. I guess should say not so much bothered but surprised maritime industries haven't started lobbying to protect their financial interests with respect to all of it. I'm getting bombarded by trillions upon trillions of neutrino's every second, a few billion jettisoned protons in my direction from IR absorbing CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't really phase me. But its messing up my aquatic food chains, which even though it is affecting all food chain systems, is ultimately having a negative impact on my bottom line. Can we do something about this? Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » What, no-one wants to talk about absorption spectra or physics anymore? Well I think it's because the actual skeptics didn't even know how absurd the actual "AGWE is hoax, because of the second law of thermodynamics" argument really is. What bothers me most though is Ocean Acidification and how that being a byproduct of CO2 overabundance isn't respected by skeptics or deniers. I guess should say not so much bothered but surprised maritime industries haven't started lobbying to protect their financial interests with respect to all of it. I'm getting bombarded by trillions upon trillions of neutrino's every second, a few billion jettisoned protons in my direction from IR absorbing CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't really phase me. But its messing up my aquatic food chains, which even though it is affecting all food chain systems, is ultimately having a negative impact on my bottom line. Can we do something about this? Not really sure what the comment about neutrinos (almost impossible to interact with) or protons ejected from CO2 (energies involved aren't sufficient for proton ejection) Bahamut.Milamber said: » Not really sure what the comment about neutrinos (almost impossible to interact with) or protons ejected from CO2 (energies involved aren't sufficient for proton ejection) non sequitur wax poetic malarkey.. say the italicized portion aloud in a ranting tone and the joke may manifest. Bismarck.Ihina said: » Do you not believe that approximately 97% of climate scientist believe in AGW? Oh wait, you said this yourself too. 10188/29286 scientists who agree that AGW is the cause of global warming does not equal 97%
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » Do you not believe that approximately 97% of climate scientist believe in AGW? Oh wait, you said this yourself too. 10188/29286 scientists who agree that AGW is the cause of global warming does not equal 97% Quote: “The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97 percent figure that pundits now tout.” That doesn't raise a red flag for you? This media outlet is telling you what must have happened inside someone's head and backed it up with nothing. Alright, let's ignore that for a moment. Why didn't this media outlet tell you who was excluded and why, and why were this group of 77 scientist selected? What do they share in common? Obviously not a belief in AGW since it final percent wasn't 100%. It seems that they're telling you fragments of what you already believe and because of that, you willing believe them. Of course, that's all fine and well for you, but you can't really bring that out use it to argue a case with people who don't already believe what you believe. So yeah, two things wrong with the first link. As for the second link, I thought I went over this already. You just combined 'No Opinion' with 'Uncertain'. There are papers that are written about the effects of climate change, then there are papers written about the cause of climate change. 'No opinion', 'Uncertain' and 'Reject' all have different meanings. Bahamut.Milamber said: » Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: In all cases current AGW theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy that can be back radiated due to the logarithmic scaling involved. We passed that limit back at ~250ppm and now any additional back radiation would be so insignificant that it would be lose in the noise. The feedback loops are based on (relatively constant) overall energy input into the system, with an increasing proportion remaining trapped. Over time, temperature would increase until it reaches a new equilibrium. This comes from elementary logic being applied to an understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. To put it simply the argument is that AGW is a hoax based on the fact that upper atmosphere is cooler than the lower atmosphere and that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that heat flows to the cooler system. The faux second law argument is perhaps more absurd. It's proponents again take the oversimplified view that heat only transfers from hot to cool when it's more like the net transfer will be from hot to cool. It's like holding a match up to a blowtorch and saying that heat from the match can't be directed towards the blowtorch just because the blowtorch is hotter. In the case of the atmosphere, backradiation is most definitely occuring (otherwise we'd be living on a ball of ice), but the net radiation is still directed away from the planet's surface. There's no violation of physical laws occuring.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: In all cases current AGW theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy that can be back radiated due to the logarithmic scaling involved. We passed that limit back at ~250ppm and now any additional back radiation would be so insignificant that it would be lose in the noise. The feedback loops are based on (relatively constant) overall energy input into the system, with an increasing proportion remaining trapped. Over time, temperature would increase until it reaches a new equilibrium. This comes from elementary logic being applied to an understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. To put it simply the argument is that AGW is a hoax based on the fact that upper atmosphere is cooler than the lower atmosphere and that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that heat flows to the cooler system. The faux second law argument is perhaps more absurd. It's proponents again take the oversimplified view that heat only transfers from hot to cool when it's more like the net transfer will be from hot to cool. It's like holding a match up to a blowtorch and saying that heat from the match can't be directed towards the blowtorch just because the blowtorch is hotter. In the case of the atmosphere, backradiation is most definitely occuring (otherwise we'd be living on a ball of ice), but the net radiation is still directed away from the planet's surface. There's no violation of physical laws occuring. Yeah that second paragraph was more along the lines of what I was reciting as the crux of their argument. One thing that bothers me is the radiation absorbed by CO2 is the end of story for skeptics/refuters. They don't want to hear about how that the very same CO2 molecule then creates radiation. That the proton that is jettisoned doesn't simply float up to the upper atmosphere but goes in any direction. Another one that gets me is that the acknowledgement of there being thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean and on land, but the earth itself isn't emitting heat in any fashion train of thought. But then again they probably don't acknowledge cause and effect at the end of the day either. Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Then there was this tidbit: Gary Novak said: O2 Absorption Spectrum There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. The key word to focus on here is "frequencies" in that: Carbon dioxide absorbs Infrared Radiation (IR) only at two very narrow ranges of wavelength, one between 2.5 and 3 microns, and another between 4 and 5 microns. I don’t know how much of the total IR radiation is emitted in those ranges, but, even if it’s a uniform probability distribution, it couldn't possibly be more than 10-15% of all IR. If it’s a normal probability distribution, then the percent of all IR that falls in those two ranges would be more like 5%. Leaving, lets say for shits and giggles, about 85-95% Disclaimer I'm just reciting what skeptics propose.  Looking at radiation from the Earth's surface (so energy that is directed downwards), you can see how large that portion of radiation attributable to CO2 is. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » It's dishonest to use all IR as a reference point here when it's largely the wavelengths radiated by the planet's surface (14-16 um) that matter for the GH effect. It is, but it's also a textbook example of manipulating statistical data to fit an argument. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » Do you not believe that approximately 97% of climate scientist believe in AGW? Oh wait, you said this yourself too. 10188/29286 scientists who agree that AGW is the cause of global warming does not equal 97%
[+]
I'm assuming you mean the second link.
Basically, they looked at all papers published relating to climate change within a time span and separated them into 4 categories: Endorse AGW, no opinion on AGE, reject AGE and uncertain with AGE. What kingnobody did was assert that if the paper doesn't specifically endorse AGW, the author must be against it. What he didn't take into consideration is the fact that not all papers relating to climate change are about the causes of climate change. He'll take those papers and lump them into the group that rejects/uncertain about AGW and that's where he got his numbers from. Bismarck.Ihina said: » What kingnobody did was assert that if the paper doesn't specifically endorse AGW, the author must be against it. What he didn't take into consideration is the fact that not all papers relating to climate change are about the causes of climate change. He'll take those papers and lump them into the group that rejects/uncertain about AGW and that's where he got his numbers from. You are stating that 97% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is the cause of global warming. I'm proving you wrong. So continue to spout your idiocy. Oh, and before you say you never said that, guess what: Bismarck.Ihina said: » 97% of climate scientist on one side Check your own post Well, the thing to keep in mind is that it affects both incoming and outgoing radiation.
In both cases, the thermal radiation emitted from CO2 is omnidirectional; like omnisexual, it swings all directions. In other words, CO2 absorbs incoming solar radiation at particular wavelengths. When it re-radiates, it can radiate in any direction/orientation, including back out into space (if at the outer limit). So what you would in effect have somewhat of a thermal barrier in the upper atmosphere, where the likelihood of propagation of that particular class of radiation "downwards" (or towards earth) is relatively non-existent past some depth. However, that neglects the absorption of all other forms of solar radiation by land and water masses, which achieve a certain temperature and radiate heat back outwards. This energy, which bypassed the upper layer of CO2 absorption, is in effect downshifted in wavelength to whatever the temperature of the land/water/air currently is. That radiation hits the internal CO2/H2O barrier, where the absorption/re-emission occurs. Like the upper barrier, the lower barrier has a very low probability of penetration for radiation in particular wavelengths, prior to being absorbed/re-emitted. Similar to how the upper barrier retards "downward" propagation, the near-surface barrier retards "upward" propagation. This retardation drives higher temperatures, creating more H2O, which enhances the retarding effect, or 'greenhouse effect'. Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » One thing that bothers me is the radiation absorbed by CO2 is the end of story for skeptics/refuters. They don't want to hear about how that the very same CO2 molecule then creates radiation. That the proton that is jettisoned doesn't simply float up to the upper atmosphere but goes in any direction. They sound similar, but are vastly different. When in doubt, think Star Trek vs. Alchemy; photons are "energy packets", while protons "define elements". That's a pretty horrible way to remember it, but it's good enough for most areas.
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina said: » I'm assuming you mean the second link. Basically, they looked at all papers published relating to climate change within a time span and separated them into 4 categories: Endorse AGW, no opinion on AGE, reject AGE and uncertain with AGE. What kingnobody did was assert that if the paper doesn't specifically endorse AGW, the author must be against it. What he didn't take into consideration is the fact that not all papers relating to climate change are about the causes of climate change. He'll take those papers and lump them into the group that rejects/uncertain about AGW and that's where he got his numbers from. This graph should answer any future questions King:  This article is great.
Rex Tillerson files anti-fracking lawsuit Fracking is so safe for the environment that the CEO of Exxon Mobile is filing a lawsuit to stop it from occurring in his own area.....hmmmmm wonder if it's due to industrial rivalry or true environmental concern?Bahamut.Milamber said: » Well, the thing to keep in mind is that it affects both incoming and outgoing radiation. In both cases, the thermal radiation emitted from CO2 is omnidirectional; like omnisexual, it swings all directions. In other words, CO2 absorbs incoming solar radiation at particular wavelengths. When it re-radiates, it can radiate in any direction/orientation, including back out into space (if at the outer limit). So what you would in effect have somewhat of a thermal barrier in the upper atmosphere, where the likelihood of propagation of that particular class of radiation "downwards" (or towards earth) is relatively non-existent past some depth. However, that neglects the absorption of all other forms of solar radiation by land and water masses, which achieve a certain temperature and radiate heat back outwards. This energy, which bypassed the upper layer of CO2 absorption, is in effect downshifted in wavelength to whatever the temperature of the land/water/air currently is. That radiation hits the internal CO2/H2O barrier, where the absorption/re-emission occurs. Like the upper barrier, the lower barrier has a very low probability of penetration for radiation in particular wavelengths, prior to being absorbed/re-emitted. Similar to how the upper barrier retards "downward" propagation, the near-surface barrier retards "upward" propagation. This retardation drives higher temperatures, creating more H2O, which enhances the retarding effect, or 'greenhouse effect'. Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » One thing that bothers me is the radiation absorbed by CO2 is the end of story for skeptics/refuters. They don't want to hear about how that the very same CO2 molecule then creates radiation. That the proton that is jettisoned doesn't simply float up to the upper atmosphere but goes in any direction. They sound similar, but are vastly different. When in doubt, think Star Trek vs. Alchemy; photons are "energy packets", while protons "define elements". That's a pretty horrible way to remember it, but it's good enough for most areas. you're right i did mean to say Photon. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » This graph should answer any future questions King: Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » What kingnobody did was assert that if the paper doesn't specifically endorse AGW, the author must be against it. What he didn't take into consideration is the fact that not all papers relating to climate change are about the causes of climate change. He'll take those papers and lump them into the group that rejects/uncertain about AGW and that's where he got his numbers from. You are stating that 97% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is the cause of global warming. I'm proving you wrong. So continue to spout your idiocy. Oh, and before you say you never said that, guess what: Bismarck.Ihina said: » 97% of climate scientist on one side Check your own post Correct, it does not say that 97% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is the cause of global warming. It does say that of studies which contained 'global climate change' or 'global warming' in the abstract, and expressing a position on AGW in their abstract, approximately 97.1% concluded that climate change was anthroprogenic. It also noted that if papers self-described themselves as having a position on AGW, 97.2% concluded that climate change was anthroprogenic. So approximately 97% of the studies published on whether or not current climate change trends are due to human influences conclude that it is due to human influences. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » What kingnobody did was assert that if the paper doesn't specifically endorse AGW, the author must be against it. What he didn't take into consideration is the fact that not all papers relating to climate change are about the causes of climate change. He'll take those papers and lump them into the group that rejects/uncertain about AGW and that's where he got his numbers from. You are stating that 97% of all climate scientists agree that AGW is the cause of global warming. I'm proving you wrong. So continue to spout your idiocy. Oh, and before you say you never said that, guess what: Bismarck.Ihina said: » 97% of climate scientist on one side Check your own post You have it mixed up. The 97% number you're referring to was not in referenced to the link that showed 97% of studies with an opinion on AGW that also endorsing AGW. It was in reference to the survey of climate scientist, which also happens to be 97%. I thought it was obvious since the link mentioned studies and I mentioned people, but whatever. Oh and I actually did a little bit of research on the 95/97 number. 10,257 were polled Earth scientists 3,146 replied I don't know why the numbers are different in the wiki article here, but 79 "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change". In other words, they just reduced the 10k+ number down to only the people who specialize in the field, and that's how you got your 77 or 79 number. And it's the same study, Doran 2010 at the University of Illinois. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change Now we know why your article didn't mention that. Maybe they just didn't know; with my google'ing skills, I should have become a journalist and showed them how it's done. Climate Change Evidence & Causes : An Overview by the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences
This is the most recent publication. Whether one needs ammo for fighting a skeptic or are a skeptic and want to better understand your oppositions argument give it a read.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.