Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Feb 10, 2020.

  1. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because that isn't what you assert, never is. To get the policy part of the equation to work, you have to demonstrate that man can effect the outcome. If he can but only slightly, or not enough to matter, then the policy part fails to have enough impact and is entirely then unnecessary. If nature will eventually do this to itself, or not, what difference does it make if man is only incidentally, or otherwise not a driver? So, show the work. Demonstrate how the barely 4% of total carbon emissions is then responsible for any of the actual climactic change. So far, the evidence indicates that at best, perhaps `<1% of all change is likely (statistically speaking). So what? If we can only effect less than 1% of the outcome, why bother at all?
     
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Video dismissed on sight.

    As a personal choice, I only address arguments that are in the form of text.
     
  3. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I doubt that they don't understand the science, but, as organizations that need funding, I bet that they are betting that the average citizen doesn't, hence why they always use the extreme to market the need for more funding, more research, etc. So far, I cannot put one finger on any actual research that demonstrates that other than a coincidence driven set of data is associable to a rise (small one at that) in "average global temperatures"... whatever that is suppose to be. Or even if it is at all important, which I doubt. Temps are important locally. We know that temperatures aren't static, nor are they likely ever to be so. And it would certainly make for bad environments for living things should they become so. So why would you expect that anyone would otherwise be moved by your citation of a static number, or attribute doom or gloom to it?
     
  4. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see an answer to my question. Why must humanity be responsible for the "entirety and exclusively" of the warming? If humans are responsible for 90% of the warming, then wouldn't that be a support for the argument?

    Either way, here is a really good summation of the data on this front.

    upload_2020-2-19_15-9-5.png
    upload_2020-2-19_15-9-41.png
    upload_2020-2-19_15-9-56.png
     
    EarthSky likes this.
  5. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ....what the actual...you won't review an argument that is presented in video format?

    Seriously, do you have ANY credibility or credentials on this topic? Can you provide a single link to an individuals with credibility or credentials on this topic that backs up your position that AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics?
     
  6. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which makes almost no structural sense, does it, as heat loss continues even with the ability to warm temporarily. If it wasn't, we could never experience differentiation, could we? If the blanket was static, and heat could never escape, the temperatures would never differ. Now, add how humidity works, and your argument almost entirely collapses...
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  7. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure.

    Yes, as you said, CO2 will absorb the IR that it is able to absorb (as IR is at various frequencies, and CO2 can only absorb IR within a limited frequency range). The rest "goes where it will", as you said. This absorption of IR will warm the CO2 molecule somewhat, as you said.

    So, I was fine with that part of your post. I'm not sure what more you're wishing to discuss there...
     
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For the most part, they don't.

    From what I have seen, drluggit has a much better understanding of science than those agencies and organizations do.
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  9. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have any credibility or credentials on this subject in real life? Can you provide a link to a single person with credibility or credentials on this subject that supports your theory that AGW would violate the Laws of Thermodynamics?
     
  10. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your citations don't help you here. It still doesn't demonstrate the level of effect that anthropogenic sources create. Moreover, it fails, entirely, to address the concern that nature itself is responsible for ~96% of CO2 emissions globally. So, again, demonstrate how the ~<4% of total emissions is likely causing any of the recorded warming. There are several studies recently that report that perhaps as much as ~<1% of current warming may (operative word) be associable to anthropogenic reasons. So, explain why as a policy concern any actions you would recommend would be effective in either curbing or stopping the changes that are almost entirely created naturally?
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  11. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Science is unaffected by what is presented on a Wikipedia page.
     
  12. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proving that your theories can survive peer review analysis makes your theory much stronger.
     
  13. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quick question here, and I know you will likely take offense to this, but show how effective peer review is these days. If, as you suggest, we must rely on peers reviewing then perhaps you can create a certainty only if those reviews themselves are effective, no? And if, as many of the current recent audits of these reviews points out, in the data, not only have the reviews been biased, most never actually took place other than a superficial review of methods and untested outcomes. If, as you suggest, we can then only rely on these review processes, it appears that your faith then is in the message, not the messengers, or their methods. That begs of faith of a different kind. And we know what motivates that....
     
  14. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, it does. In graphical form as well as text. Here is the graph.

    upload_2020-2-19_15-27-4.png

    Here is another.

    upload_2020-2-19_15-28-32.png

    Again, yes it does. The CO2 which gets emitted naturally each other also gets absorbed, naturally, each year. Meanwhile the ~4% of CO2 that gets emitted by humans accumulates in the atmosphere, year over year. That is why the CO2 concentration line was roughly flat for the first ~150 years of the data and then starts to increase quite dramatically over the next 100 years. Graph below.

    upload_2020-2-19_15-32-2.png

    There is a discussion in the post about the amount of CO2 which is accumulated through anthropomorphic sources, but here is some additional information on how we know that the CO2 which is accumulated in the upper atmosphere is almost exclusively driven by human emissions.

    https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

    upload_2020-2-19_15-34-28.png

    I am unaware of any such study and I would venture to guess that you are confusing the "global average temperature" with "current warming." Humans are responsible for nearly all of the current warming which, to date, is roughly around one degree celsius over the last 100 years - although it is a rate that is accelerating. But even if you chose instead to claim that Humans are responsible for roughly 1 degree of the current global average temperature, then being responsible for 1 degree Celsius would make humans responsible for at least 5%.
     
    EarthSky likes this.
  15. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I take no offense at questioning the validity of the peer review process and indeed there are a host of reasons to believe that the peer reviewed process can be manipulated and some aspects are flawed, but that doesn't mean that peer review is worthless, as you suggest.
     
  16. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually I want you to go all the way back to where you made the claim that all the energy that came in went back out, because that is why extra CO2 causes global warming.
     
  17. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ...because you deny them, as your religion requires you to do.

    ... IF the axioms of statistical mathematics are being followed... My whole point is that they are not being followed, thus we can't.

    See above. You do not have enough thermometers to yield a result within any usable accuracy, and those thermometers are not uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer. You will have loads of location and time bias in your results. A simple average is meaningless here. You need to declare and justify a variance, and calculate a margin of error using such declared variance in order to give that average any meaning. The more accurate you wish your analysis to be (ie, a more narrowed down margin of error), the more thermometers you will need.

    What is the temperature of Rhode Island right now?

    Oh, it can be done (as in, there definitely IS a way to do it), but we don't have enough thermometers to actually do it and yield any result that is useably accurate, thus why I (in a more simplistic sense) claim that it is not possible to do.

    Yup. That'll show you the changes at that particular location at the particular times that you measured.

    Yes it does. You cannot have location and time bias in your data. Measuring the temperature of X spot says nothing about what the temperature of Y spot is. What you also keep forgetting is that temperature has an insanely high variance. Variances as high as 20degF per mile are fairly common.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  18. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pointing out a logical fallacy that you are committing is quite literally forming a counter-argument. That is quite literally the opposite of "avoiding questions". It is directly addressing them.

    I even fully explained why I called out each fallacy. You are choosing to deny logic, as your religion requires you to do.

    RQAA. (Repetitious Question Already Addressed).

    A "holy link" is not science. A scientist is not science. Credentials are not science. I've already told you how AGW violates thermodynamics. RQAA.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  19. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct.

    Science is, simply, "a set of falsifiable theories". That's all science is. All the "supporting evidence", "experiments", "methods", "peer review", "publications", "websites", "consensus", etc. in the world will not in any way bless, sanctify, or otherwise make holy, any theory (suddenly transforming it into a "theory of science"). What sets science apart from religion is the fact that one can perform a null hypothesis test on the theory (due to it being falsifiable).

    Both science and religion start at an identical logical standpoint, which is with a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument, and an argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Once the theory (explanatory argument) is formed, one now has in their hands a circular argument (since ALL theories begin as circular arguments). Contrary to what you might have falsely learned in some logic class in college, a circular argument in and of itself is NOT a fallacy (an error of logic). A circular argument takes the logical form A->A, thus a circular argument is logically valid since the conclusion follows from the predicate. A circular argument fallacy, on the other hand, occurs whenever one attempts to prove a circular argument (using the conclusion of a circular argument as proof of the conclusion as True). The circular argument fallacy takes the logical form (A->A)->A.

    It is at this very point that science and religion separate. Religion is unable to move beyond being circular in nature. The most one can do is toss a bunch of supporting evidence at it. Evidence is simply any statement that supports an argument. This is why religion is best defined as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it".

    Science, on the other hand, begins as a circular argument in the same manner, since all theories (explanatory arguments) begin as circular arguments. The difference with science is that the particular theory in question is falsifiable. The theory can be tested (against a null hypothesis), but that testing must be accessible, practical, quantifiable, specific, and produce a specific result. If a theory survives internal testing (against logic... ie, the theory is logically sound) and external testing (as described prior), then the theory becomes a theory of science and remains a theory of science until it fails to survive such a test (aka "is falsified"). At that point, the "once a theory of science" is now completely and utterly destroyed.

    So, as you can see, there was NO supporting evidence involved here, like there was with religion. ONLY conflicting evidence was used to falsify the theory. Thus, science is best defined as "a set of falsifiable theories". Surviving null hypothesis testing is what allows a theory to become a theory of science, and is what separates science from religion.

    This logical framework of religion and science is what many people do not understand (and/or deny). This is why they will believe that theories such as the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, and the Theory of Global Warming are "science". They are not science, as they are not falsifiable in any accessible manner. They are instead religions, and will always remain religions.
     
    AFM, drluggit and BuckyBadger like this.
  20. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    CO2 doesn't "take a day off". It doesn't "cease all action" after absorbing IR. How is CO2's absorbing the IR emitted from the surface heating the surface? This is becoming laughable.

    The whole atmosphere is a lid that traps heat? Even though heat constantly flows through it and out into space? Do you realize how laughable this is?

    Earth doesn't have "a climate". Neither does the moon. Earth has numerous climates.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  21. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct. I also typically dismiss "holy links" on sight as well, as I expect my interlocutors to form their own arguments.

    RQAA.
     
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    RQAA.
     
  23. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay. Let's go through the whole continuous process piece by piece to see where we begin to disagree.

    [1] The sun is heating the Earth's surface via radiation (thus warming the Earth's surface). Agreed?
     
  25. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At what point did you answer whether you have any credentials or credibility on this subject?

    Also, I am not asking for a holy link. I am asking for one link.
     

Share This Page