Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370479 > unrolled thread

‘Based On Nonsense’

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-20 10:49 -0800
    Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-20 11:00 -0800
      Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-21 17:16 -0800
        Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 00:57 -0500
          Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-21 23:11 -0800
            Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-22 09:30 +0100
              Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 00:41 -0800
                Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 08:40 -0500
                  Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 13:00 -0800
                    Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-26 07:10 +0100
                    Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-26 09:01 -0600
                      Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-26 07:11 -0800
            Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 21:37 -0800
              Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 22:08 -0800
                Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-25 07:40 +0100
                  Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 10:24 -0800
                    Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-25 18:32 +0000
                      Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 12:01 -0800
                      Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-26 04:48 +0100
                        Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-26 14:21 +0000
                          Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-27 08:05 +0100
          Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 11:02 -0600
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 11:20 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 11:38 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-23 20:44 +0000
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 16:35 -0700
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 19:35 -0800
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-25 09:20 -0600
                    Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-25 08:29 -0800
            Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 11:14 -0800
              Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 12:00 -0800
              Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 16:53 -0800
              Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 19:15 -0800
                Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 08:43 -0800
          Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-11-26 08:26 -0500
            Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-09 10:34 +0000
              Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 08:31 -0600
                Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-10 19:29 +0000
    Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-20 12:59 -0800
      Re: 'Based On Nonsense' kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-20 16:48 -0500
        Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-20 15:42 -0800
          Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 17:12 -0800
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-21 06:32 +0100
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-20 22:13 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-21 02:24 -0500
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-21 09:59 +0100
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-21 10:38 -0800
                    Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-22 06:18 +0100
                      Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-23 04:41 +0100
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 06:34 -0800
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:50 -0500
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 11:42 -0800
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-21 09:42 -0600
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-21 16:31 +0000
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:54 -0500
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-21 11:01 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 08:47 -0800
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 14:09 -0500
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-21 17:44 -0800
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2015-11-22 13:38 -0500

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#370503 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 1:48:38 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:

>         Please stop showing how stupid you are.  :-)
> Many facts show, without question, that the Earth
> was _MUCH_ warmer 20000 years ago, and,
> substantially warmer 6000 years ago, and,
> a little warmer 600 years ago.

Climate myth #1...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370509 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 1:48:38 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
> >
> >         Please stop showing how stupid you are.  :-)
> > Many facts show, without question, that the Earth
> > was _MUCH_ warmer 20000 years ago, and,
> > substantially warmer 6000 years ago, and,
> > a little warmer 600 years ago.
> 
> Climate myth #1...
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
sometimes by hundreds of years.  This would seem to indicate that the
temperature increase CAUSED the CO2 rise, not vice versa.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370514 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

Am 21.11.2015 02:12, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>>>          Please stop showing how stupid you are.  :-)
>>> Many facts show, without question, that the Earth
>>> was _MUCH_ warmer 20000 years ago, and,
>>> substantially warmer 6000 years ago, and,
>>> a little warmer 600 years ago.
>>
>> Climate myth #1...
>>
>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
>
> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
> sometimes by hundreds of years.  This would seem to indicate that the
> temperature increase CAUSED the CO2 rise, not vice versa.
>

I believe that CO2 is completely irrelevant.

The observed changes of climate in several regions stem from 'Growing 
Earth' (-> 'GE').

The (assumed9 growth causes several effects, which have an impact on 
climate (of that particular region).

E.g. GE assumes, that with growth the surface of the Earth expands, 
which causes cracks. And into these cracks the water flows. This would 
make sea-levels drop over long periods of time.

And dropping sea-leavels make significant changes to an area, which 
depends on proximity to water.

The entire Sahara could be interpreted as former sea-floor, where todays 
hills and mountains were once islands.

'Pulling out the plug' of such an ocean could easily regarded as 
'climate change'.

But increase of mass (of planet Earth) would also change gravity and 
would have other effects on the physics of the planet. This would also 
change 'climate' (actually 'global mean weather').

Lower gravity would make larger plants and animals possible. And - as a 
matter of fact- they have been much larger (VERY long ago).

The only thing, that has no impact whatsoever, that is CO2.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370515 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 1:48:38 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
> > >
> > >         Please stop showing how stupid you are.  :-)
> > > Many facts show, without question, that the Earth
> > > was _MUCH_ warmer 20000 years ago, and,
> > > substantially warmer 6000 years ago, and,
> > > a little warmer 600 years ago.
> > 
> > Climate myth #1...
> > 
> > https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
> 
> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
> sometimes by hundreds of years.  This would seem to indicate that the
> temperature increase CAUSED the CO2 rise, not vice versa.
> 
> Gary

Here you are, plenty to think about...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

\Paul A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370516 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 22:13:45 -0800 (PST), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 1:48:38 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> > >
>> > >         Please stop showing how stupid you are.  :-)
>> > > Many facts show, without question, that the Earth
>> > > was _MUCH_ warmer 20000 years ago, and,
>> > > substantially warmer 6000 years ago, and,
>> > > a little warmer 600 years ago.
>> > 
>> > Climate myth #1...
>> > 
>> > https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
>> 
>> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
>> sometimes by hundreds of years.  This would seem to indicate that the
>> temperature increase CAUSED the CO2 rise, not vice versa.
>> 
>> Gary
>
>Here you are, plenty to think about...
>
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
>
>\Paul A

        There is a lot more to this than you
will find unless you search for certain
specific and definite "facts".

:"Today's contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth by the four major gases are:[41][42]
:water vapor, 36–70%
:carbon dioxide, 9–26%
:methane, 4–9%
:ozone, 3–7%
:
:The mechanism that produces this difference between 
>the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature 
:is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.
: Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's temperature would be 
:about -18 °C (-0.4 °F) .[44][45] The surface temperature would be 
:33 °C (57.6 °F) below Earth's actual surface temperature 
:of approximately 14 °C (57.2 °F).[46]

        The last sentence there is gross misinformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere


        The fact is, AFAIK, the number of 33C difference
is _IF_ the Earth had "NO atmosphere", not, 
"no greenhouse gases".

         I have argued this to no end, the climate
terrorists claim it doesn't matter, that an oxygen
and nitrogen atmosphere would not be able
to raise the temperature of the surface
environment hardly at all.         

        I contend that any non-radiating gases
would possibly get even warmer than the
present IR gas profile.

        I contend a non-radiating atmosphere
would have    N O      W  A  Y      to _cool_,
and the thermal energy absorbed from the
hot surface during sunny days would build
every day until it reached close to the
temperature of the surface during the day.

       (There would be no water or clouds
without oxygen, so every single day would
be sunny).

       (The maximum temperature of the
surface without water could be higher
than the maximum temperature of the
Earth's moon during the middle of the
sun lit  period, because the rocks of
Earth are darker in color).


       Note that this means the entire
premise of greenhouse gas climate
control is grossly mis-stated, it is too
great an error to be accidental,
unless the "scientists" involved
are the most stupid people on Earth.


       It is difficult to find good data on
what the temperature of Earth _would_
be if there was no atmosphere at all,
because all search hits are engrossed
in the "greenhouse effect".

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/atmos.html


       This is a physics issue, but not
a relativity issue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370522 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

Am 21.11.2015 08:24, schrieb kefischer:
  ...
>>>> Climate myth #1...
>>>>
>>>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
>>>
>>> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
>>> sometimes by hundreds of years.  This would seem to indicate that the
>>> temperature increase CAUSED the CO2 rise, not vice versa.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>
>> Here you are, plenty to think about...
>>
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
>>
>> \Paul A
>
>          There is a lot more to this than you
> will find unless you search for certain
> specific and definite "facts".


Quote from this webpage:

"It is reasonable that warming of the oceans is in fact causing CO2 
increase in the paleo record. What I wonder about is how anyone can turn 
this into evidence that CO2 causes warming? "

..

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370548 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Quote from this webpage:
> 
> "It is reasonable that warming of the oceans is in fact causing CO2 
> increase in the paleo record. What I wonder about is how anyone can turn 
> this into evidence that CO2 causes warming? "

Indeed, that IS a quote from that webpage, but the person making the statement was a responder who was making a statement and asking a question. Note that this quote is shown with a pink background, which means it represents either the 'denier' position or represents a responder's sttement/question, whereas writing with a blue background represents the author's words.

Here is the (blue) response to that question (and others)...

"Response: The paleo record shows that Antarctic temperatures rise about ~800 years before CO2 and Greenland temperatures rise after the CO2 rise. The CO2 warming effect is necessary to explain both how weak orbital forcing can get us out of an ice age and also how an orbital forcing that affects only southern areas can spread through the globe. The paleo record also enables us to compare Co2 forcing with temperature change to calculate climate sensitivity."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370589 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

Am 21.11.2015 19:38, schrieb pnalsing@gmail.com:

>> Quote from this webpage:
>>
>> "It is reasonable that warming of the oceans is in fact causing CO2
>> increase in the paleo record. What I wonder about is how anyone can turn
>> this into evidence that CO2 causes warming? "
>
> Indeed, that IS a quote from that webpage, but the person making the statement was a responder who was making a statement and asking a question. Note that this quote is shown with a pink background, which means it represents either the 'denier' position or represents a responder's sttement/question, whereas writing with a blue background represents the author's words.
>
> Here is the (blue) response to that question (and others)...
>
> "Response: The paleo record shows that Antarctic temperatures rise about ~800 years before CO2 and Greenland temperatures rise after the CO2 rise. The CO2 warming effect is necessary to explain both how weak orbital forcing can get us out of an ice age and also how an orbital forcing that affects only southern areas can spread through the globe. The paleo record also enables us to compare Co2 forcing with temperature change to calculate climate sensitivity."

Simple question: is CO2-warming at least somehow plausible?

Well, let me think..

If I have an effect of a substance, the strength of this effect should 
somehow correspond to the amount of this stuff.

So I assume a continuum of concentration: from 0% (no such stuff at all) 
to 100% (only such substance is there).

Now I assume an effect proportional to the amount of the substance in 
question, hence its concentration.

So we take pure CO2 and measure, how much heat it blocks.

Than we multiply the measured effect with 360 ppm (concentration of CO2 
in our atmosphere).

Since the gas CO2 does not block much radiation, the effect is small, 
even at 100%. But divided by 1,000,000 and multiplied by 360 it would be 
hardly measurable.

Next problem: if CO2 absorbs radiation, it would also distribute it 
(into the emptiness of the universe).

This is a well known effect and would question the so called 'green 
house effect'.

Or (in other terms): does CO2 cause heating or cooling?

Real green houses are made from glass or plastic, which have other 
characteristics than gases. Mainly they prevent exchange of gases and 
minimise convection.

But a gas, like CO2, can#t do that (since it is a gas).


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370670 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

Am 22.11.2015 06:18, schrieb Thomas Heger:

> Simple question: is CO2-warming at least somehow plausible?
>
> Well, let me think..
>
> If I have an effect of a substance, the strength of this effect should
> somehow correspond to the amount of this stuff.
>
> So I assume a continuum of concentration: from 0% (no such stuff at all)
> to 100% (only such substance is there).
>
> Now I assume an effect proportional to the amount of the substance in
> question, hence its concentration.
>
> So we take pure CO2 and measure, how much heat it blocks.
>
> Than we multiply the measured effect with 360 ppm (concentration of CO2
> in our atmosphere).
>
> Since the gas CO2 does not block much radiation, the effect is small,
> even at 100%. But divided by 1,000,000 and multiplied by 360 it would be
> hardly measurable.
>
> Next problem: if CO2 absorbs radiation, it would also distribute it
> (into the emptiness of the universe).
>
> This is a well known effect and would question the so called 'green
> house effect'.
>
> Or (in other terms): does CO2 cause heating or cooling?
>
> Real green houses are made from glass or plastic, which have other
> characteristics than gases. Mainly they prevent exchange of gases and
> minimise convection.
>
> But a gas, like CO2, can#t do that (since it is a gas).
>

There is another, even more severe problem with 'CO2-warming':

we as human beings live in a certain medium: we are mostly standing on 
the ground and are surrounded by air.

This is OUR natural environment, but by no means all there is. E.g. fish 
live in water, worms in the soil and birds and insects (mainly) in the air.

So we had to look not only to air-temperatures, if we speak of 'climate'.

Since water has a much greater specific heat capacity, compared with 
air, the main factor in weather and 'climate' is water - not the 
atmosphere, let alone trace gases like CO2.

If we speak of human influence (on weather), we had to look 
predominantly on other forms of influence (rather than gases):

- agriculture
- deforestation
- water use
- covering of soil with streets and buildings
- pollution by dust and chemicals like NO_x
- pollution of the oceans
- influence of airtraffic
- tourism.

Now  the main factor is water in its various forms, on which humans have 
actually influence.

E.g. the clear-cutting of rainforests turn such jungles into a desert, 
where we have no rain anymore, since there are no clouds.

This would then allow the sun to burn on the ground directly, which 
would cause a change of climate.

But much more important are the oceans, since about 2/3 of the Earth is 
covered with water. This is by far the main factor in weather and 
climate, even if humans usually don't live there, hence regard such 
changes as unimportant.

Now it is obvious, that any changes in the oceans are directly related 
to climate changes. This is especially the case for pollutions, if that 
would change certain physical parameters like reflection of infrared.

Another way, how humans change the distribution of water, that are 
draining swamps, building canals or regulate rivers. Also wast areas are 
'sucked dry', by human use of ground water.

This and a few other things have influence, but CO2 has almost none.

But CO2 has influence on plant growth, since it is for plants, what O2 
is for humans.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370537 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:13:49 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
> > sometimes by hundreds of years.  This would seem to indicate that the
> > temperature increase CAUSED the CO2 rise, not vice versa.
> > 
> > Gary
> 
> Here you are, plenty to think about...
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
> 
> \Paul A

Thanks Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370552 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On 11/21/2015 09:34 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:13:49 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:12:12 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
>>> sometimes by hundreds of years.  This would seem to indicate that the
>>> temperature increase CAUSED the CO2 rise, not vice versa.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>
>> Here you are, plenty to think about...
>>
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
>>
>> \Paul A
>
> Thanks Paul

Thanks? For feeding you a bunch of garbage science propaganda from a 
failed cartoonist?

You should be kicking Paul's butt for that act. How gullible are you?
Just go pay your energy taxes.


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370562 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 11:50:57 AM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>
> On 11/21/2015 09:34 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:13:49 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Here you are, plenty to think about...
> > >
> > > http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
> > >
> > > \Paul A
> >
> > Thanks Paul
> 
> Thanks? For feeding you a bunch of garbage science propaganda from a 
> failed cartoonist?

Nope.  For providing pro and con arguments to think about.

> You should be kicking Paul's butt for that act.

I don't kick anyone's butt except those who deny reality or are unnecessarily
rude and obnoxious.

> How gullible are you?

I'm not, as you could ascertain in my response to Tom Roberts.

> Just go pay your energy taxes.

You and me both :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370538 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On 11/20/15 11/20/15   7:12 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
>
> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
> sometimes by hundreds of years.

Then what you "heard" is prima-facie  nonsense -- that link is talking about 
many millions of years, and dates so far in the past are uncertain by hundreds 
of thousands of years. So any claim involving "hundreds of years" was made by 
someone ignorant of the basics, and simply is not credible.

Even the dates of (much more recent) ice ages are uncertain by many thousands of 
years.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370539 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
>> sometimes by hundreds of years.
> 
> Then what you "heard" is prima-facie  nonsense -- that link is talking
> about many millions of years, and dates so far in the past are uncertain
> by hundreds of thousands of years. So any claim involving "hundreds of
> years" was made by someone ignorant of the basics, and simply is not
> credible. Even the dates of (much more recent) ice ages are uncertain by
> many thousands of years.

Agree completely. Not to forget the Carbon "dating" of two different 
parts, of the same fossilised mammoth body, showed he both was three and 
ten thousands years old.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370553 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On 11/21/2015 11:31 AM, Jack Monaco wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>>> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
>>> sometimes by hundreds of years.
>>
>> Then what you "heard" is prima-facie  nonsense -- that link is talking
>> about many millions of years, and dates so far in the past are uncertain
>> by hundreds of thousands of years. So any claim involving "hundreds of
>> years" was made by someone ignorant of the basics, and simply is not
>> credible. Even the dates of (much more recent) ice ages are uncertain by
>> many thousands of years.
>
> Agree completely. Not to forget the Carbon "dating" of two different
> parts, of the same fossilised mammoth body, showed he both was three and
> ten thousands years old.

Come on, guys. Science is determined by democratic vote, not data and 
experiment!  If a majority (also called a consensus) of scientists, 
journal editors, government agencies, politicians, and science trade 
group leadership (not the members, mind you, the leaders speak for all) 
all agree on something then that makes the science TRUE beyond question.

Your attempt to deny true science is noted.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370556 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 10:54:36 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:

> Your attempt to deny true science is noted.

You would not recognize true science if your life depended on it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370543 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 8:42:57 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> On 11/20/15 11/20/15   7:12 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
> >
> > I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
> > sometimes by hundreds of years.
> 
> Then what you "heard" is prima-facie  nonsense -- that link is talking
> about many millions of years, and dates so far in the past are uncertain
> by hundreds of thousands of years.

Not Figure 2 of this link which Paul posted:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

It covers 22,000 years.

> So any claim involving "hundreds of years" was made by 
> someone ignorant of the basics, and simply is not credible.
> 
> Even the dates of (much more recent) ice ages are uncertain by many
> thousands of years.
> 
> Tom Roberts

So you are saying the error bars are much to large to conclude anything
about past climate change.  I agree, so that puts Al Gore's sensation-
seeking graphs squarely in the nonsense category.  I think there has
been much hyperbole both pro and con on the subject.

I believe we should conserve our resources but not be hysterical about
climate change.  Some of the proposals surrounding anthropogenic CO2
emission would be economically ruinous and do no more than make an
insignificant dent in the problem.  China and the third-world countries
will never get on the bandwagon, so we're just poking ourselves in the
eye for nothing.

It would appear that past changes in the solar "constant" and Milankovich
cycles are the initial forcing functions, with CO2 providing an amplifying
factor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The sun is also getting hotter as it ages, but this is a very long-term
effect.  As I suggested in another thread, we can always put up sun
screens in orbit to control the insolation and we wouldn't need the vote
of the rest of the world to do it.  Well, maybe Siberians would be a bit
unhappy, but we could put up some mirrors to reflect a little more light
to their neck of the woods to compensate :-)

Perhaps this is what the inhabitants of Tabby's star have done:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIC_8462852

And a little more CO2 helps the plants grow better.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370558 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On 11/21/2015 11:47 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 8:42:57 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>
>> On 11/20/15 11/20/15   7:12 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
>>>
>>> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
>>> sometimes by hundreds of years.
>>
>> Then what you "heard" is prima-facie  nonsense -- that link is talking
>> about many millions of years, and dates so far in the past are uncertain
>> by hundreds of thousands of years.
>
> Not Figure 2 of this link which Paul posted:
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
>
> It covers 22,000 years.
>
>> So any claim involving "hundreds of years" was made by
>> someone ignorant of the basics, and simply is not credible.
>>
>> Even the dates of (much more recent) ice ages are uncertain by many
>> thousands of years.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> So you are saying the error bars are much to large to conclude anything
> about past climate change.  I agree, so that puts Al Gore's sensation-
> seeking graphs squarely in the nonsense category.  I think there has
> been much hyperbole both pro and con on the subject.

Algore is a politician. Duh! Is it any surprise that when his lips move 
there are lies? Note how he suddenly got very rich by promoting the 
"global warming", now called "climate change" energy tax. Note also how 
his home is one of the biggest CO2 sources in the western Hemisphere.

> I believe we should conserve our resources but not be hysterical about
> climate change.  Some of the proposals surrounding anthropogenic CO2
> emission would be economically ruinous and do no more than make an
> insignificant dent in the problem.  China and the third-world countries
> will never get on the bandwagon, so we're just poking ourselves in the
> eye for nothing.

It's actually WORSE than that (if you can imagine it). While spewing 
tons of CO2 into the air is not especially a good idea, it's 
considerably better than cutting off all energy and returning to bronze 
Age life. Even worse, is that there actually ARE serious pollution 
problems out there (like say the Pacific plastic pile) that truly ARE 
endangering our food chain. But still the plan is to collect a huge pile 
of cash (Trillions of dollars a year) and WASTE it by giving it to Third 
World leader. Meanwhile all the real pollution problems continue to get 
no attention. Talk about poking yourself in the eye! And its all just so 
a few con men can get super rich and live out their days as masters in a 
wonderful slave state until the earth collapses. You and I are scheduled 
to be their slaves if not killed.

> It would appear that past changes in the solar "constant" and Milankovich
> cycles are the initial forcing functions, with CO2 providing an amplifying
> factor:

Obviously the sun powers it all. CO2 bands are saturated and only the 
wings are allowed through making it a MINOR greenhouse gas.

> And a little more CO2 helps the plants grow better.
>
> Gary

As I said spewing combustion products by the ton (especially from coal) 
is not especially a great idea, but even though those in power have the 
solution to the fossil fuel problem (fossil fuels are much better used 
as raw materials for chemicals than to burn to keep your butt warm) they 
will not release the secret unless forced because they see free energy 
will erode their political grip on the world. And that's the truth. 
Eventually they will lose their battle.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370578 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 11:09:15 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> On 11/21/2015 11:47 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 8:42:57 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/20/15 11/20/15   7:12 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
> >>>
> >>> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose,
> >>> sometimes by hundreds of years.
> >>
> >> Then what you "heard" is prima-facie  nonsense -- that link is talking
> >> about many millions of years, and dates so far in the past are uncertain
> >> by hundreds of thousands of years.
> >
> > Not Figure 2 of this link which Paul posted:
> >
> > http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
> >
> > It covers 22,000 years.
> >
> >> So any claim involving "hundreds of years" was made by
> >> someone ignorant of the basics, and simply is not credible.
> >>
> >> Even the dates of (much more recent) ice ages are uncertain by many
> >> thousands of years.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> > So you are saying the error bars are much to large to conclude anything
> > about past climate change.  I agree, so that puts Al Gore's sensation-
> > seeking graphs squarely in the nonsense category.  I think there has
> > been much hyperbole both pro and con on the subject.
> 
> Algore is a politician. Duh! Is it any surprise that when his lips move 
> there are lies? Note how he suddenly got very rich by promoting the 
> "global warming", now called "climate change" energy tax. Note also how 
> his home is one of the biggest CO2 sources in the western Hemisphere.
> 
> > I believe we should conserve our resources but not be hysterical about
> > climate change.  Some of the proposals surrounding anthropogenic CO2
> > emission would be economically ruinous and do no more than make an
> > insignificant dent in the problem.  China and the third-world countries
> > will never get on the bandwagon, so we're just poking ourselves in the
> > eye for nothing.
> 
> It's actually WORSE than that (if you can imagine it). While spewing 
> tons of CO2 into the air is not especially a good idea, it's 
> considerably better than cutting off all energy and returning to bronze 
> Age life. Even worse, is that there actually ARE serious pollution 
> problems out there (like say the Pacific plastic pile) that truly ARE 
> endangering our food chain. But still the plan is to collect a huge pile 
> of cash (Trillions of dollars a year) and WASTE it by giving it to Third 
> World leader. Meanwhile all the real pollution problems continue to get 
> no attention. Talk about poking yourself in the eye! And its all just so 
> a few con men can get super rich and live out their days as masters in a 
> wonderful slave state until the earth collapses. You and I are scheduled 
> to be their slaves if not killed.
> 
> > It would appear that past changes in the solar "constant" and Milankovich
> > cycles are the initial forcing functions, with CO2 providing an amplifying
> > factor:
> 
> Obviously the sun powers it all. CO2 bands are saturated and only the 
> wings are allowed through making it a MINOR greenhouse gas.
> 
> > And a little more CO2 helps the plants grow better.
> >
> > Gary
> 
> As I said spewing combustion products by the ton (especially from coal) 
> is not especially a great idea, but even though those in power have the 
> solution to the fossil fuel problem (fossil fuels are much better used 
> as raw materials for chemicals than to burn to keep your butt warm) they 
> will not release the secret unless forced because they see free energy 
> will erode their political grip on the world. And that's the truth. 
> Eventually they will lose their battle.

I can agree with almost everything you have said in this particular post, but I don't think you are correct when you state "... those in power have the solution to the fossil fuel problem...". That solution would not be limited to politicians, but would certainly include the scientific community that developed/ discovered it... and these guys like to publish to gain recognition and accolades... hence, they have limited motivation for secrets... they would much rather capitalize on it!

\Paul A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370647 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes:
> I have heard that "ancient" CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature
> rose, sometimes by hundreds of years.

CO2 levels rose after the temperature STARTED to rise, but temperature
continued to rise as CO2 levels rose.  In this context, CO2 is a
feedback, and feedbacks always lag to some extent that depends on the
process.  Interglacials seem to start with small variations in solar
forcing due to periodic variations in earths orbit called Milankovitch
cycles.  That's followed by rapid feedbacks, principally water vapor
increase and albedo changes from ice melting.  CO2 increase is a slower
feedback that only kicks in after a fair amount of ice has melted and
the oceans warmed.

> This would seem to indicate that the temperature increase CAUSED the
> CO2 rise, not vice versa.

That would be correct if the rising CO2 were not accompanied by
continuing warming, but that doesn't seem to be the case--CO2 at the
start of interglacials looks like a classical positive feedback, with
temperature increase causing the initial CO2 increase, which in turn
leads to more temperature increase.

In the current context, CO2 released by fossil fuel consumption is
a forcing, not a feedback, so it is expected to lead rather than lag.

-dan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web