"Whether we like it or not" - Page 32 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15200007
Steve_American wrote:Lurkers, I have shown you that the amount of heating of the air is about 0.0001 of a deg.C/day.

No, you asserted it with a question begging fallacy.
Lurkers, you be the judge, do you think that 120 years ago, Angstrom had the tools to measure the heating of the air in his experiment accurately enough to record the heat that amounts to 0.0001 deg.C/day? I don't believe that he imagined that the air in his experiment heating up mattered at all.

He measured the IR transmission, not the temperature. You obviously know nothing whatever about it.
Lurkers, do you think that Angstrom was careful to be sure that the air in his experiment was isolated so that the tiny amount of heating would not escape into the glass walls of his experimental apparatus? I don't.

:roll:
Lurkers, I don't believe that Angstrom's experiment proved anything. He did not have tools that were accurate enough to pick up the change in temp that was about 0.0001 deg.C. I'm being generous and assuming that he ran his experiment for 24 hours. If, for example, he only ran it for 24/10 =2.4 yours then the heating is less, just 0.00001 deg.C.

:roll:
TtP entire argument hinges on Angstrom's experimental results. If you can't believe that he could measure temps accurately enough to tell the difference between 0.0001 deg.C change and no change, then you don't believe that his results prove what he though it proved.

:roll:
Let me be clear. In Angstrom's experiment, the CO2 inside his glass container was absorbing IR heat/light. The IR was re-emitted. But, some was really stopped inside his container. It was so tiny an amount that a mercury thermometer could not measure it accurately. He would have had to use a very hot heat source for his IR heat/light and run the experiment for days on end, while keeping the air inside it thermally isolated from that hot heat source. That is, if the heat source could heat the air in the container some other way than by the IR light/heat being shined through it, then the result was invalid.

No, he just measured the difference in the amount of IR radiation that made it through the tube.
Above, TtP admits that the effect was tiny. I assert that it was so tiny that it would have been immeasurable.

If it was immeasurable, how could it significantly heat the earth?
Note that, TtP has said that any student can repeat his experiment in a high school (IIRC, he said HS lab) science lab. Do HS science labs have thermometers accurate enough to measure temp changes of just 0.0001 deg.C?

I said an ordinary university physics lab, and I stand by that.
#15200019
Truth To Power wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:

One of the "authors" of that "paper" is Naomi Oreskes, a historian and anti-fossil-fuel hysteria monger with no actual relevant scientific expertise. The paper contrives all sorts of rationalizations for why a visually obvious pause in warming mustn't have happened after all.


This is simply an ad hominem fallacy.

Despite your claim that this study “contrives all sorts of rationalizations for why a visually obvious pause in warming mustn't have happened after all”, I predict that you will not provide an example.
#15200020
Truth To Power wrote:No, you asserted it with a question begging fallacy.

He measured the IR transmission, not the temperature. You obviously know nothing whatever about it.

:roll:

:roll:

:roll:

No, he just measured the difference in the amount of IR radiation that made it through the tube.

If it was immeasurable, how could it significantly heat the earth?

I said an ordinary university physics lab, and I stand by that.


Please rewrite this into a few clear sentences.

Are you arguing that each unit of CO2 you put into the atmosphere has less and less of a warming impact, and that once the atmosphere reaches a saturation point, additional input of CO2 will not really have any major impact?
#15200031
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you arguing that each unit of CO2 you put into the atmosphere has less and less of a warming impact,

That is indisputable.
and that once the atmosphere reaches a saturation point, additional input of CO2 will not really have any major impact?

It's not really a saturation point, but rather a tipping point. With no CO2 at all, the earth would be a frozen high-albedo ball. Add CO2, and it warms up. Add enough CO2, and the ice begins to melt and water vapor is released. This initiates a positive feedback loop that melts effectively all the ice except at the poles, and water vapor becomes the only significant greenhouse gas both because it is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and because it is vastly more abundant in the atmosphere. As long as that tipping point for CO2 is exceeded, water vapor is so abundant that additional CO2 is effectively irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. Angstrom estimated that reducing CO2 would have no significant cooling effect until it got down to ~20% of the pre-industrial level, far below the level that would end plant life. It's not clear how accurate that estimate was, but it is probably in the ball park. That is why the paleo record shows no significant temperature response to a ~40% increase in CO2 at the beginnings of interglacial periods: water vapor and the glacial level of CO2 already absorb all the IR within 100m of the earth's surface anyway.
#15200034
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is simply an ad hominem fallacy.

Nonsense. When someone is cited as an authoritative source, showing that they are not one is not an ad hominem fallacy.
Despite your claim that this study “contrives all sorts of rationalizations for why a visually obvious pause in warming mustn't have happened after all”, I predict that you will not provide an example.

And you will be wrong, as usual. One example is, "In effect, the claim was that the most recent decadal-scale fluctuation in GMST was somehow extraordinary or substantially different from past GMST fluctuations." That is a blatant contrivance to shift the ground and the burden of proof. The claim was not that the pause in warming was extraordinary, but that the warming itself was NOT extraordinary, as evidenced by the fluctuation and pause.
#15200035
Truth To Power wrote:That is indisputable.

It's not really a saturation point, but rather a tipping point. With no CO2 at all, the earth would be a frozen high-albedo ball. Add CO2, and it warms up. Add enough CO2, and the ice begins to melt and water vapor is released. This initiates a positive feedback loop that melts effectively all the ice except at the poles, and water vapor becomes the only significant greenhouse gas both because it is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and because it is vastly more abundant in the atmosphere. As long as that tipping point for CO2 is exceeded, water vapor is so abundant that additional CO2 is effectively irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. Angstrom estimated that reducing CO2 would have no significant cooling effect until it got down to ~20% of the pre-industrial level, far below the level that would end plant life. It's not clear how accurate that estimate was, but it is probably in the ball park. That is why the paleo record shows no significant temperature response to a ~40% increase in CO2 at the beginnings of interglacial periods: water vapor and the glacial level of CO2 already absorb all the IR within 100m of the earth's surface anyway.


Provide evidence for this claim.

Also, Angstrom was shown to be incorrect.

Truth To Power wrote:Nonsense. When someone is cited as an authoritative source, showing that they are not one is not an ad hominem fallacy.


You did not do that.

Do that now.

If not, you are making an ad hominem fallacy.

And you will be wrong, as usual. One example is, "In effect, the claim was that the most recent decadal-scale fluctuation in GMST was somehow extraordinary or substantially different from past GMST fluctuations." That is a blatant contrivance to shift the ground and the burden of proof. The claim was not that the pause in warming was extraordinary, but that the warming itself was NOT extraordinary, as evidenced by the fluctuation and pause.


Post the context of this quote so we can see exactly what the authors are saying.

Until you do so, you are obviously cherry picking statements that you can spin into strawmen.
#15200039
Truth To Power wrote:No, you asserted it with a question begging fallacy.

He measured the IR transmission, not the temperature. You obviously know nothing whatever about it.

:roll:

:roll:

:roll:

No, he just measured the difference in the amount of IR radiation that made it through the tube.

If it was immeasurable, how could it significantly heat the earth?

I said an ordinary university physics lab, and I stand by that.


So, TtP admits that all Angstrom did was measure the amount of IR light/heat that passed through the glass tube that contained the air. He didn't even try to measure any change in temp. Also, he didn't measure the IR light/heat energy that was reradiated sideways or back toward the IR source.
. . . Remember on a sphere there are only 2 directions that matter, up and down. If the IR is being absorbed within for example 100 meters, then going sideways is not changing their altitude. Going sideways will always mean the IR must go much further through the air to reach space than if it went up.

If this is true, then Angstrom did a very primitive experiment. If he didn't try to measure any temp change in the air in the tube and didn't try to isolate that air from other heat or cooling sources, then he would not have noticed that adding more CO2 into the air in the tube, did block some tiny amount of CO2 and did heat the air in the tube or the glass walls of the tube. But like I said and TtP, functionally agreed, the per day amount of heating is very small or tiny. I said 0.0001 deg.C/day, but this TtP doesn't agree with.

I wonder how many of the Lurkers can agree with my rough efforts to do a 'back of an envelope' estimate of how much energy/day is being trapped in the dirt, water, and air of, or near, the Earth's surface?
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 28 Nov 2021 16:15, edited 1 time in total.
#15200058
@Godstud,

Today I found this that supports my claim that it is not unlikely that if humanity does too little then civilization will fail in the next few decades.
This is by Extinction Rebellion. It's 2 hour long. You can use speed = 1.25 and skip to 7 min. mark.
However in the 1st 10 min. he references an article by 3 leading climate scientists.
In this article the 3 scientists say that at cop-25 in 2015 none of these 3 met even one climate scientist there who thought there is any chance that we can keep the temp increase below 1.5 deg.C.
That was 6 years ago.
In the video, he says that we have been lied to, massively.
I expect that there is *now* no chance of keeping the temp increase below 2 deg.C.
This means that a few tipping points will be tipped. In fact some of my sources say that 3-5 have already been tripped at our current 1.2 deg.C increase.
All tipping points are by definition irreversible.
This is why I think that it is likely we will reach a 3 deg.C increase no matter what we do. And this means that grain harvests will be much lower and more tipping points will be tripped.
Google 'effect of temp on grain harvests' to see the problem.

Truth to Power is in total denial about this situation.

The link =>


.
Last edited by Steve_American on 28 Nov 2021 16:17, edited 1 time in total.
#15200079
@Truth To Power

Koch and Ångström's 30 cm tube.

Confirmation bias

Even if the experiment had been done accurately, it’s unclear whether they would have considered a one percent change in transmission significant since they already regarded their measured half percent change as insignificant.

How it should have been done

Image
Note how the proportion of light transmitted through a tube of CO2 goes down as the tube is made longer.

What changes as CO2 increases

Image
CO2 saturation at 300ppm the pre-industrial level,

Image
Quadrupling the CO2 adds new absorption bands, reducing the transmission of IR.


:)
#15200119
Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence for this claim.

I just did.
Also, Angstrom was shown to be incorrect.

No, he was not, as I have already explained to you multiple times. All you have managed to post as evidence for that claim is an absurdly dishonest smear job from one of the most dishonest climate-related websites on the Internet.
You did not do that.

I most certainly did.
Do that now.

I did.
If not, you are making an ad hominem fallacy.

Garbage, as already proved.
Post the context of this quote so we can see exactly what the authors are saying.

I already posted what they said, directly and verbatim -- conspicuously unlike you when you falsely claim I said things I did not say, and do not even attempt to support your false claims with quotes. Here is the full paragraph; I don't know what more context you think you need to understand it:

"Given that climatologists were well aware that GMST fluctuates on decadal (and longer) time scales, the emergence of a claim in the climate literature from about 2009 that climate change as represented by GMST had entered a 'pause' or 'hiatus' was a strong claim. In effect, the claim was that the most recent decadal-scale fluctuation in GMST was somehow extraordinary or substantially different from past GMST fluctuations. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that the fluctuation was given a name ('pause' or 'hiatus') and with the claim frequently made in pause-papers that this fluctuation (but not others) was not consistent with the GMST response to increases in greenhouse gases (Lewandowsky et al 2016)."

Until you do so, you are obviously cherry picking statements that you can spin into strawmen.

You are the very last person on this planet who can accuse anyone else of strawman fallacies, and I will thank you to remember it.
#15200126
Steve_American wrote:This is by Extinction Rebellion.

Extinction Rebellion = science-free idiocy.
However in the 1st 10 min. he references an article by 3 leading climate scientists.
In this article the 3 scientists say that at cop-25 in 2015 none of these 3 met even one climate scientist there who thought there is any chance that we can keep the temp increase below 1.5 deg.C.
That was 6 years ago.

And since that time, 2021 has been cooler than 2020, 2019, 2017 and 2016. How much more empirical evidence will they need before they will become willing to consider the possibility that they are wrong?
In the video, he says that we have been lied to, massively.

We have indeed: by anti-CO2 hysteria-mongers.
I expect that there is *now* no chance of keeping the temp increase below 2 deg.C.
This means that a few tipping points will be tipped. In fact some of my sources say that 3-5 have already been tripped at our current 1.2 deg.C increase.

Nonsense with no basis in fact.
All tipping points are by definition irreversible.

Wrong, as proved by the glaciation cycle.
This is why I think that it is likely we will reach a 3 deg.C increase no matter what we do. And this means that grain harvests will be much lower and more tipping points will be tripped.

Grain harvests continue to increase.
Google 'effect of temp on grain harvests' to see the problem.

Google "actual world production of grain" to see who is lying to you.
Truth to Power is in total denial about this situation.

I guess that must be why the facts keep proving me right...
#15200131
Truth To Power wrote:I just did.

No, he was not, as I have already explained to you multiple times. All you have managed to post as evidence for that claim is an absurdly dishonest smear job from one of the most dishonest climate-related websites on the Internet.

I most certainly did.

I did.

Garbage, as already proved.


No, you did not provide evidence.

At this point, your argument based on Angstrom’s findings can be dismissed based on a lack of evidence from you.

You also have not shown that there is any problem with Ms. Oreskes. Your ad hominem fallacy about her is also dismissed as nothing more than an insult from you.

I already posted what they said, directly and verbatim -- conspicuously unlike you when you falsely claim I said things I did not say, and do not even attempt to support your false claims with quotes. Here is the full paragraph; I don't know what more context you think you need to understand it:


You do not seem to know what “context” means.

Context is the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

In this case, you need to quote the paragraphs that precede, include, and follow the text you quoted.

Do that now.

You are the very last person on this planet who can accuse anyone else of strawman fallacies, and I will thank you to remember it.


Ad hominem. Ignored.

And your whole post did not discuss climate change at all.
#15200133
Truth To Power wrote:I wonder how many know enough science to be shaking their heads at your antics, as I am.


Note that you do not provide or present any science to support your claims.

Your last three posts, for example, contain no science at all.
#15200135
Steve_American wrote:So, TtP admits that all Angstrom did was measure the amount of IR light/heat that passed through the glass tube that contained the air.

:lol: :lol: :lol: So now correcting your hilarious misapprehensions about Angstrom's experiment is "admitting" some sort of guilty secret. Don't you understand what it means when you always have to resort to such despicable propaganda tricks?
He didn't even try to measure any change in temp.

Because that was not what he was measuring. Duh.

So now that lying fiend Angstrom is guilty of secretly not measuring temperatures! I knew it! How can we trust the results of any experiment that wasn't the experiment you erroneously thought it was?
Also, he didn't measure the IR light/heat energy that was reradiated sideways or back toward the IR source.

Because unlike some people, he was aware of the fact that the total re-emissions would be equal to the absorption.
. . . Remember on a sphere there are only 2 directions that matter, up and down. If the IR is being absorbed within for example 100 meters, then going sideways is not changing their altitude. Going sideways will always mean the IR must go much further through the air to reach space than if it went up.

Are you trying to say that such emissions are not equally likely in all directions?
If this is true, then Angstrom did a very primitive experiment.

That is correct. And even that primitive experiment proved that adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air does not significantly alter its IR absorption properties.
If he didn't try to measure any temp change in the air in the tube and didn't try to isolate that air from other heat or cooling sources, then he would not have noticed that adding more CO2 into the air in the tube, did block some tiny amount of CO2 and did heat the air in the tube or the glass walls of the tube.

It was just easier and more direct to measure the IR transmission than the temperature change. Duh.
But like I said and TtP, functionally agreed, the per day amount of heating is very small or tiny. I said 0.0001 deg.C/day, but this TtP doesn't agree with.

If you assume all observed heating is due to CO2, then you are right. But I see no reason to assume 0.0001C/day is any more plausible as the effect of increased CO2 than 0.00001C or 0.000001C.
I wonder how many of the Lurkers can agree with my rough efforts to do a 'back of an envelope' estimate of how much energy/day is being trapped in the dirt, water, and air of, or near, the Earth's surface?

I wonder how many know enough science to be shaking their heads at your antics, as I am.
#15200137
Truth To Power wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: So now correcting your hilarious misapprehensions about Angstrom's experiment is "admitting" some sort of guilty secret. Don't you understand what it means when you always have to resort to such despicable propaganda tricks?

Because that was not what he was measuring. Duh.

So now that lying fiend Angstrom is guilty of secretly not measuring temperatures! I knew it! How can we trust the results of any experiment that wasn't the experiment you erroneously thought it was?

Because unlike some people, he was aware of the fact that the total re-emissions would be equal to the absorption.

Are you trying to say that such emissions are not equally likely in all directions?

That is correct. And even that primitive experiment proved that adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air does not significantly alter its IR absorption properties.

It was just easier and more direct to measure the IR transmission than the temperature change. Duh.

If you assume all observed heating is due to CO2, then you are right. But I see no reason to assume 0.0001C/day is any more plausible as the effect of increased CO2 than 0.00001C or 0.000001C.

I wonder how many know enough science to be shaking their heads at your antics, as I am.


Again, Angstrom was proven wrong.
#15200139
Pants-of-dog wrote:Note that you do not provide or present any science to support your claims.

That is just another bald falsehood, as we have come to expect from you.
Your last three posts, for example, contain no science at all.

Your last six posts in a row contain no science at all, and the one before that contained only claims of "science" for which you provided no support and which I showed were factually incorrect.

Cast out first the beam that is in thine own eye, PoD.

Clear?
#15200140
Truth To Power wrote:That is just another bald falsehood, as we have come to expect from you.

Your last six posts in a row contain no science at all, and the one before that contained only claims of "science" for which you provided no support and which I showed were factually incorrect.

Cast out first the beam that is in thine own eye, PoD.

Clear?


People can read your posts and note the complete lack of any link to, or discussion of, actual science.

And this is true even if you accuse me of the same.
Last edited by Pants-of-dog on 28 Nov 2021 17:46, edited 1 time in total.
#15200141
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, Angstrom was proven wrong.

Again, that is nothing but a bald falsehood on your part, and the only "evidence" you have ever offered for it is a grotesquely dishonest smear job that I comprehensively and conclusively demolished. Where is the peer-reviewed science showing Angstrom was wrong, hmmm?

Post it.

Do it now.

Right now.

Clear?
#15200142
Truth To Power wrote:Again, that is nothing but a bald falsehood on your part, and the only "evidence" you have ever offered for it is a grotesquely dishonest smear job that I comprehensively and conclusively demolished. Where is the peer-reviewed science showing Angstrom was wrong, hmmm?

Post it.

Do it now.

Right now.

Clear?


Ask me nicely.
  • 1
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 43

Nor Russia neither Turkey is comparable to China.[…]

@Unthinking Majority You have point the differen[…]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMADxiHohqY

Westerners aren't evil, they literally invented […]