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

Groups > sci.physics > #556748 > unrolled thread

the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:16 -0800
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:33 -0600
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 23:53 -0800
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:29 -0600
          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 09:50 -0800
            Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:44 -0600
              Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:01 -0800
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 13:07 -0600
                Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:11 -0600
                  Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:15 -0800
                    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:25 -0600
                      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 19:33 +0000
                      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 11:48 -0800
                        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:03 -0600
                          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 20:39 +0000
                        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 18:27 -0600
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:45 -0800
          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:57 -0500
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:43 -0800
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-26 12:52 -0600
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-25 21:15 -0600
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 14:59 -0800
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:04 -0600
        Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:06 +0000
          Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 15:27 -0800
            Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 23:40 +0000
    Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-26 03:13 +0000
      Re: the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:09 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#556748 — the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience

http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2011/08/26/how-to-get-off-the-ground-with-nothing-but-water-almost/#comment-39153


You talk like an engineer, not a scientist. For a scientific notion to be valid it must be falsifiable. Compare this statement with your statement above about "fitting the data."

The Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion fit the data. But it was invalid science. Even when data emerged (Galileo) that, clearly, refuted it people kept believing in it for hundreds of years.

"It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false. It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning."

The convection model is vague. It is unfalsifiable. You yourself have demonstrated this vividly and repeatedly. The observation that warm, moist air stays along the surface and does not constantly rush up through the cool, dry air above IS evidence. This IS data. This data has been put before you, and you have ignored it. So, why do you keep asking me for data? Why don't you ask Toolbox to supply you there data? Guess what. They don't have any. All they have is what they presented on their site, which isn't measured.

Do you know the difference between something measured and something derived?

"The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable."

Like greenhouse effect, the convection model is meaningless pseudoscience in that the people that promote it, meteorologists, refuse to test it. The weight of moist air vs. dry air has never been tested.

It is just believed.

What facts could emerge that would falsify it for you? The answer is none. There are no facts that could falsify it because it is but a vague, unfalsifyable belief, like greenhouse effect.

Source:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#556752

On 2/25/16 8:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> Like greenhouse effect, the convection model is meaningless
> pseudoscience in that the people that promote it, meteorologists,
> refuse to test it. The weight of moist air vs. dry air has never been
> tested.



The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
   http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

   In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
   atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the
   planet's temperature. These scientists were interested
   chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon
   dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
   At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
   emissions from human industry might someday bring a global
   warming. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of
   carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,
   but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
   almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s
   discovered that global warming truly was possible.

   In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
   dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
   to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
   carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
   influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
   gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
   level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
   developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
   essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.


Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
   http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
   http://scienceofdoom.com/about/

   Who is the Audience?

   People interested in the science behind the climate stories
   we read about every day. People who want to learn. People
   who want to contribute to other people learning about
   climate science.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#556796

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:33:53 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/25/16 8:16 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > Like greenhouse effect, the convection model is meaningless
> > pseudoscience in that the people that promote it, meteorologists,
> > refuse to test it. The weight of moist air vs. dry air has never been
> > tested.
> 
> 
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> 
>    In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
>    atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect"

Actual greenhouses trap heat the same way a car in the parking lot, on a sunny day, traps heat.  Greenhouses stop gasses from conducting.  No gas can stop another gas from conducting.  The phrase "greenhouse effect" is cleverly chosen propaganda designed to create a tactile connection in the audiences mind of this notion that heat is being trapped.  Scientifically it's nonsense.  Gases don't trap heat.  


 which affects the
>    planet's temperature. These scientists were interested
>    chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon
>    dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
>    At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
>    emissions from human industry might someday bring a global
>    warming.

His calculations were absurdly abstract. There was no connection to reality. It's just propaganda.   Propagandist like to use dead people because there is no fear of them contradicting anything stated.  



 In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of
>    carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,
>    but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
>    almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s
>    discovered that global warming truly was possible.

Anything is possible.  

> 
>    In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
>    dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
>    to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
>    carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
>    influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
>    gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
>    level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
>    developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
>    essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.

It's just speculation.  Scientifically it's meaningless.


> 
> 
> Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
>    http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
>    http://scienceofdoom.com/about/
> 
>    Who is the Audience?
> 
>    People interested in the science behind the climate stories
>    we read about every day. People who want to learn. People
>    who want to contribute to other people learning about
>    climate science.

It's just propaganda.

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

#556838

On 2/26/16 1:53 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> Actual greenhouses trap heat the same way a car in the parking lot, on a sunny day, traps heat.  Greenhouses stop gasses from conducting.


   Are you capable of articulating the role of radiation, conduction and
   convection in the case of a sun warmed automobile in the parking lot,
   on a sunny day?

   Can you describe how radiation, conduction and convection work in the
   troposphere?

   James, Can you describe what the greenhouse gas effect is and how it
   works on the earth?  Can you describe what the surface temperature
   would be without any H20 gas in the atmosphere?

   Have you worked through this material an the associated thermodynamics
   involved?

Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
   http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
   http://scienceofdoom.com/about/

   Who is the Audience?

   People interested in the science behind the climate stories
   we read about every day. People who want to learn. People
   who want to contribute to other people learning about
   climate science.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#556896

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 6:29:04 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 1:53 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > Actual greenhouses trap heat the same way a car in the parking lot, on a sunny day, traps heat.  Greenhouses stop gasses from conducting.
> 
> 
>    Are you capable of articulating the role of radiation, conduction and
>    convection in the case of a sun warmed automobile in the parking lot,
>    on a sunny day?
> 
>    Can you describe how radiation, conduction and convection work in the
>    troposphere?
> 
>    James, Can you describe what the greenhouse gas effect is and how it
>    works on the earth?  Can you describe what the surface temperature
>    would be without any H20 gas in the atmosphere?
> 
>    Have you worked through this material an the associated thermodynamics
>    involved?

Yes, and none of it works the way a greenhouse works.

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

#556912

On 2/26/16 11:50 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> Yes, and none of it works the way a greenhouse works.
>

   James, these linked resources are for you. Please spend some
   time beefing up your historical background.

Discovery of Global Warming - February 2015 version
   https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
   http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

   In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
   atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the
   planet's temperature. These scientists were interested
   chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon
   dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
   At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
   emissions from human industry might someday bring a global
   warming. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of
   carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,
   but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
   almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s
   discovered that global warming truly was possible.

   In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
   dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
   to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
   carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
   influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
   gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
   level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
   developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
   essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.


Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
   http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
   http://scienceofdoom.com/about/



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#556923

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:45:03 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 11:50 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and none of it works the way a greenhouse works.
> >
> 
>    James, these linked resources are for you. Please spend some
>    time beefing up your historical background.

This would have been informative to me about ten years ago.  So, you're a little late Sam.

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

#556930

On 2/26/2016 1:01 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:45:03 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/26/16 11:50 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, and none of it works the way a greenhouse works.
>>>
>>
>>     James, these linked resources are for you. Please spend some
>>     time beefing up your historical background.
>
> This would have been informative to me about ten years ago.  So, you're a little late Sam.
>


It is not Sam's fault that you cannot stay up to date.

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

#556933

On 2/26/16 1:01 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> This would have been informative to me about ten years ago.  So, you're a little late Sam.

   I'll bet there is something new under the sun that you would learn
   by reading these links, James.

Discovery of Global Warming - February 2015 version
   https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
   http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

   In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
   atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the
   planet's temperature. These scientists were interested
   chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon
   dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
   At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
   emissions from human industry might someday bring a global
   warming. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of
   carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,
   but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
   almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s
   discovered that global warming truly was possible.

   In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
   dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
   to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
   carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
   influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
   gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
   level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
   developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
   essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.


Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
   http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
   http://scienceofdoom.com/about/



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#556937

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:11:06 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 1:01 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > This would have been informative to me about ten years ago.  So, you're a little late Sam.
> 
>    I'll bet there is something new under the sun that you would learn
>    by reading these links, James.
> 
> Discovery of Global Warming - February 2015 version
>    https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> 
>    In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
>    atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the
>    planet's temperature. These scientists were interested
>    chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon
>    dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
>    At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
>    emissions from human industry might someday bring a global
>    warming. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of
>    carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,
>    but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
>    almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s
>    discovered that global warming truly was possible.
> 
>    In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
>    dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
>    to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
>    carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
>    influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
>    gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
>    level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
>    developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
>    essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.
> 
> 
> Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
>    http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
>    http://scienceofdoom.com/about/

All religions have literature that they use to claim adherents.

I never follow whacko links.  If somebody comes to a discussion group and drops links it just advertises the fact that they are too dullwitted to formulate an argument. 

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

#556948

On 2/26/16 1:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> I never follow whacko links.


   You never follow science links. You have an opportunity to break
   out of your ignorance, James.


Discovery of Global Warming - February 2015 version
   https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
   http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

   In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
   atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the
   planet's temperature. These scientists were interested
   chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon
   dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
   At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
   emissions from human industry might someday bring a global
   warming. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of
   carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,
   but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
   almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s
   discovered that global warming truly was possible.

   In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
   dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
   to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
   carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
   influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
   gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
   level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
   developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
   essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.


Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
   http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
   http://scienceofdoom.com/about/


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#556956

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/16 1:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> I never follow whacko links.
> 
> 
>   You never follow science links. You have an opportunity to break
>   out of your ignorance, James.

And you just copy other people's material seldom saying anything of
your own that is correct.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#556959

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:25:46 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/26/16 1:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > I never follow whacko links.
> 
> 
>    You never follow science links. 

Not from whackos. 

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

#556967

On 2/26/16 1:48 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:25:46 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/26/16 1:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> I never follow whacko links.
>>
>>
>>     You never follow science links.
>
> Not from whackos [sic].
>

   What research did you do that led you to believe the material
   served by the American Institute of Physics is from wackos.

Discovery of Global Warming - February 2015 version
   https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
   http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

   In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
   atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the
   planet's temperature. These scientists were interested
   chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon
   dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past.
   At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
   emissions from human industry might someday bring a global
   warming. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of
   carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature,
   but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
   almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s
   discovered that global warming truly was possible.

   In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
   dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
   to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
   carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
   influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
   gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
   level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
   developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
   essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.


Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
   http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
   http://scienceofdoom.com/about/

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#556997

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/16 1:48 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:25:46 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> On 2/26/16 1:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> I never follow whacko links.
>>>
>>>
>>>     You never follow science links.
>>
>> Not from whackos [sic].
>>
> 
>   What research did you do that led you to believe the material
>   served by the American Institute of Physics is from wackos.

Probable right here:
 
>   http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
>   http://scienceofdoom.com/about/

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#557095

On 2/26/2016 1:48 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:25:46 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/26/16 1:15 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> I never follow whacko links.
>>
>>
>>     You never follow science links.
>
take a look at the links below James, proof and evidence you are missing.

James McGinn Book Review

Customer Reviews;
1.0 out of 5 stars
insane rambling
*By K. Parker* on July 3, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to 
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many 
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also 
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective 
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that 
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on 
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense 
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even 
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.


1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of time, a non-funny joke
*By hunter* on July 16, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density, 
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses 
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves 
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading 
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive 
self publishing by a moron.




*direct film evidence of convection*;

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFwH0BVd3Q


*direct film evidence of Water Vapor*,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQX6c_Ln2To

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g74X2nnBTw



*COLD STEAM direct evidence on film*;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMNSvpB9dY



*Water Vapor explained to little James by Mr. Wizard*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKmWp7ek2A

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

#556849

McFly said
Anything is possible
---------------

No it's not

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

#556920

On 02/26/2016 09:45 AM, HVAC wrote:
> McFly said
> Anything is possible
> ---------------
>
> No it's not
>
True. For example HVAC growing a brain and making intelligent comments 
is clearly impossible.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#556848

Feb 25Sam Wormley

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect 
   http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm 

   In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the 
   atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the 
   planet's temperature. These scientists were interested 
   chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon 
   dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. 
   At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that 
   emissions from human industry might someday bring a global 
   warming. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of 
   carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, 
   but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was 
   almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s 
   discovered that global warming truly was possible. 

   In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon 
   dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began 
   to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of 
   carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was 
   influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the 
   gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising 
   level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only 
   developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate 
   essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. 
------------

This is why we need 50 new nuclear power plants over the next 20 years

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

#556916

On 2/26/2016 8:43 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> Feb 25Sam Wormley
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

<snip stuff>

> ------------
>
> This is why we need 50 new nuclear power plants over the next 20 years
>

I agree, and New Jersey is a great place to put them.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web