A pocket guide to climate change or the basics of the science made easy

Discussion in 'Science' started by Bowerbird, Jan 13, 2020.

  1. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Outstanding! Thanks!
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, great. I will go through the slideshow slide by slide and explain precisely what is wrong with it.

    Slide #1: I agree that the first step to being able to speak about "climate change" is to understand it. The phrase needs to be defined. Define "climate change". Remember, definitions cannot be circular.

    Slide #2: (just leads to other important points of the slideshow that I will cover later on)

    Slide #3: The slideshow is now pulling a random number out of its ass as to how much the "average surface temperature" has risen, and then automatically blames humans and evil CO2 for that rise. This slide commits and is based on a RandU Fallacy (using random numbers as if they are data).

    Slide #4: This slide attempts to legitimize their random number from the prior slide. It appeals to data from "weather stations...across the globe" as well as magick satellites. This slide is based on a denial of science and mathematics. First, the science. Magick satellites do not measure absolute temperature of anything other than themselves. They are measuring light, not temperature. The light that they are measuring cannot be converted to temperature via Stefan Boltzmann because we do not know the emissivity of Earth. In order to know that, we must first know the temperature of the Earth. Whoops! We now have a "chicken and egg" issue on our hands. Second, the mathematics. A statistical analysis requires that raw data be used, all biases be removed (in this case, location and time biases), requires that data selection be made by randN, requires that data be normalized by paired randR, requires that a variance be declared and justified, and requires that a margin of error calculation be made given the declared variance. None of this is being done in the "data" that "climate scientists" are presenting. You can't just pick out random data points (wherever they may fall) and claim that to be "the temperature of the Earth". Thermometers MUST be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer. This is not being done. Thus, this appealed to "data" is useless.

    Slide #5: This slide appeals to the same random number from Slide #3 as well as appealing to "extremes" (left undefined). Thus, this slide commits and is based on a Buzzword Fallacy (thus is a Void Argument), as well as the same RandU Fallacy from Slide #3.

    Slide #6: This slide bases its claim on the faulty "data" from Slide #4.

    Slide #7: This slide bases its claims on the faulty "data" from Slide #4 as well as the buzzword "extremes" (left undefined) from Slide #5. Thus, this slide is also a void argument.

    Slide #8: This slide speaks about the atmosphere being kept in place by the pull of gravity and that gases surround us. I actually agree with this slide. GOOD JOB!!!

    Slide #9: This slide uses an incorrect definition of heat. Heat is not energy itself. Heat is, rather, the FLOW OF thermal energy. Otherwise the slide is correct.

    Slide #10: This slide claims that heat from the Sun warms the Earth's surface. This slide is correct.

    Slide #11: This slide begins by making a reference to "greenhouse gases". There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". No magick gas is capable of heating the Earth's surface using the IR emitted from the Earth's surface. This denies the laws of thermodynamics. Also, it is not possible to "trap" heat. Heat is simply the flow of thermal energy. The flow of thermal energy cannot be "trapped". This is also a denial of the laws of thermodynamics.

    Slide #12: This slide makes reference to "fossil fuels" like coal and oil. Those are carbon based fuels, not fossil based. We do not burn fossils for fuel. Oil is even a renewable source of energy, as it forms naturally underground. Both coal and oil burn very cleanly nowadays (in the USA anyway).

    Slide #13: This slide makes reference to methane and natural gas. It was accurate. Natural gas is another renewable form of energy btw, as it also forms naturally underground.

    Slide #14: This slide makes reference to nitrous oxide and tells us where it comes from. It was accurate.

    Slide #15: This slide returns back to talking about "greenhouse gases" and "heat trapping", the prior not existing and the latter not possible via the laws of thermodynamics.

    Slide #16: This slide claims that "greenhouse gases" have been tracked and makes reference to a "conclusion" of the undefined buzzword "climate change". Thus, this slide is a void argument.

    Slide #17: This slide makes reference to ice cores. Fine.

    Slide #18: This slide claims a random number as the age of the referenced ice core (RandU Fallacy), then claims that this particular ice core represents all of Earth (False Equivalence Fallacy).

    Slide #19: This slide makes reference to tree rings. Fine.

    Slide #20: This slide continues from the prior. Fine.

    Slide #21: This slide is based on an undefined buzzword, thus is a void argument. Define "climate change". Also, there is not a single global climate. Earth has many climates.

    Slide #22: This slide makes reference to "shrinking ice", but ignores "growing ice". Yes, some ice is shrinking, but other ice is growing.

    Slide #23: This slide makes reference to "increasing extreme weather events" (an undefined buzzword) as well as a "sudden rise in greenhouse gases". The former leads to yet another void argument, while the latter is based on a denial of science and mathematics. It is not possible to measure, say, the CO2 content of the whole atmosphere. We don't have near enough CO2 measuring stations, and they are not uniformly spaced/simultaneously read/etc.

    Slide #24: This slide claims that I am now "up to speed" on what "climate change" actually is... Ummmm, you have yet to define your freaking term "climate change"... It still remains a buzzword. Any argumentation based on it still remains void. There is no such thing as "the climate". "Climate science" is anything BUT science. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. The Church of Global Warming is nothing more than a fundamentalist style religion based on extreme and irrational fear as well as an outright denial of logic, science, and mathematics. Since they end the slide by claiming they would "love to hear my feedback", well, this is my feedback.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
    vman12, drluggit, Mushroom and 2 others like this.
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's easy to learn what "climate" means. From there, think changes in those factors that compreise climate.

    Slide 3: The average temperature of Earth's surface is measured in numerous ways. It includes a broad array of surface stations on land and sea. It includes masurements of higer atmosphere. It includes costant use of satellintes trained on earth for this purpose. Records of temperature over the last 100 years (ample for the understanding of temperatures within one lifetime) are available from numerous sources.

    Suggesting results are random numbers is NOT acceptable in ANY WAY.

    Nothing you say after Slide 3 makes ANY sense, as once you determine that all science on the issue must be ignored, you just don't have anything further to add.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  5. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What a brilliant waste of time as I have no intention of reading this

    Past posts have shown a hilariously poor understanding of basic science from many of the more ardent deniers eg “no such thing as a “greenhouse gas” I mean :roll:
     
  6. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    That is why I did not read it - skimmed a couple of points but not worth my time after I read “define clime change” :roll:
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, once one decides that science is a random number generator, nothing further is useful.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  8. Rush_is_Right

    Rush_is_Right Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3,873
    Likes Received:
    4,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Climate always changes! Who can disagree? This argument isn't even clear.
     
    Mushroom and Dispondent like this.
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Climate is simply a subjective word used to describe prevailing conditions. (ie, a "marine climate", a "desert climate", a "tropical climate", etc.)... It has no quantifiable values, nor is it made up of any.

    Define "climate change". How does climate "change", exactly?

    What "changes"? What "factors"?

    Suggesting that results from "random locations" at "random times" is equivalent to "the temperature of the Earth" is NOT acceptable in ANY WAY. It is a complete denial of mathematics, as I describe in my "Slide #4" critique.

    Yes, it does. It is written in English.

    What science?? The Church of Global Warming outright denies science, as I describe in my slide #4 critique, as well as other slide critiques.

    What else is there to add? I've made my case.
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's fine. Others will read it.

    There isn't. Currently standing theories of science outright reject the theory that magick "greenhouse gases" can warm the Earth by using IR emitted from the Earth.
     
  11. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An argument cannot be based on a circularly defined buzzword. Doing so renders the argument void.
     
  12. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now you are just making schiff up about my argumentation.

    Science is, simply put, a set of falsifiable theories. Science has nothing to do with random number generators.
     
  13. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct, the Church of Global Warming bases their argumentation on circularly defined buzzwords such as "global warming" and "climate change". Thus, any argumentation based upon such buzzwords yields an argument that is void of any meaning.

    Weather always changes, but climate does not change. Climate is a subjective term used to describe prevailing conditions in an area, and has no quantifiable value. Thus, it cannot "change".
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2020
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And being pedantic can get one ignored
     
  15. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Are you aware that these terms ARE defined?

    As per the IPCC

    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_Annexes.pdf
    And

    Please take up alll further arguments on the definitions with the ipcc. They have a feedback contact
     
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No he is saying that appears to be what some believe
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Please link to these “theories” that nasa seems unaware of
     
  18. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It can... So can constantly critiquing your interlocutor instead of their arguments...
     
  19. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not in any way which adheres to logic. The only definition of "global warming" that I have seen that adheres to logic is the following:

    http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/2/global-warming-mythology-reference-manual

    Both of those definition attempts are rejected on sight, as they are circular definitions. A word cannot use itself as its own definition. This is Logic 101.
     
  20. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, they ARE aware of them. They just simply deny their existence. The most popular laws ("formalized theories") that NASA denies are as follows:

    Laws of Thermodynamics
    Stefan Boltzmann Law
    Planck's Law

    Look them up if you wish to learn more about them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2020
  21. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,287
    Likes Received:
    48,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, talking points for the ignorant.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is happening today is that the balance between heat from the sun and radiation to space is being changed. Heat is still arriving, but the longer wave heat radiation is being slowed by changes in our atmosphere. The result is a warming Earth.

    Your hand wave at how changes in Earth's average temperature is measured shows a total disregard or complete misunderstanding of the many methods that are used to measure and cross check.

    You've made absolutely NO case regarding climate change.
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have to explain why you think those laws have been ignored.

    And, to be even slightly convincing you should cite sources that support your contention that they were ignored - that it is more than your personal opinion.
     
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet, you consider scientists from around the world to be doing no better than generating random numbers. You're stating that in at least two of your bullet points.

    You're proposing a conspiracy of a vast majority of scientists in climate related fields the world over, working in unison to produce fake science.

    That's about the largest conspiracy one could imagine, yet there is no evidence of it.
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is NOTHING circular about that definition of climate.
     

Share This Page