|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Well I guess the fact that it is called the wave model of light might clue you in to the fact that it deals with light as a wave. The fact that it is the waves that propagate - like the radiation - might be a further clue. So should the fact that the radiation behaves like a wave. Faraday proposed the idea, Maxwell developed it and Herz confirmed it experimentally. To be perfectly honest, don't you think you might be doing the paper a disservice by trying to defend it without understanding it? I might also ask, what makes you think that the electromagnetic field, and the disturbances in it, cannot exist in empty space? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Have you even read the abstracts of the papers. Referring, for instance, to experimental refutations of Lu's claims, for instance, would seem to be a substantive point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My argument is that nucitelli and cook have no argument whatsoever. That would not be an argument. That would be your assertion. An argument would require you to demonstrate what they said. So far I don't see any arguments from you. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So you believe light exists between source and where it illuminates an object? Where is your evidence?? You can measure the magnetic and electric field strengths at all points between the source and the destination. When you do so, you will find a time varying magnetic and electric field at every point and varying in both time and space. A propagating, time varying electo-magnetic field is a wave. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
I have a cube of ice.
I let it melt. It makes a puddle. I chill the puddle from the centre... and only half of it re-freezes Yet still, even though I have half the amount of ice, the area covered by the frozen half-puddle is still much larger than the area of the original ice cube. Polar ice caps go through winter and summer cycles.Parts melt, spread out, and re-freeze. When talking about the amount of ice decreasing... we need to talk about volume, not area. A greater area of ice is consistent with both an ice decrease and an ice increase.What matters is the thickness of the resulting ice that re-freezes. Did your source leave out the thickness?If so, and since that is indeed the more important factor for identifying if the amount of ice is increasing or decreasing... why do you think they left it out?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So you believe waves exist in empty space? How do you come to that conclusion? I've provided an answer to this in response to another of your posts. There is plenty of evidence that light propagates through empty space. But for the third time here I ask you to show us Ward's exposition on this. I refuse to believe that he holds the beliefs you express here. These beliefs are not required to make an argument that we need to use plank's constant to calculate photon energy. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So according to that statement all scientist who do not belive in global warming are idiots. I did not say that, and it does not follow from my statement. What my statement does suggest is that people who believe that they've found a simple concept that all AGW scientists routinely miss are unlikely to be correct. If something is missed it is unlikely to be something like failing to properly calculate photon energy. Is that clear?
BTW there was 170,000 sq miles more polar ice this year than there was in 1979. Already addressed. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If so, and since that is indeed the more important factor for identifying if the amount of ice is increasing or decreasing... why do you think they left it out? The reason for doing this is that in the popular press, much is made of the extent of the ice as an indicator of global warming. For reasons given here, that's probably a bogus thing to do because the extent can increase even when the overall ocean temperature decreases. The result is people like ICANT making a bogus argument despite the fact that they accept that the earth's temperature is increasing. Edited by NoNukes, : Change 'the' to 'they' Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The sun is growing every year. Solar storms are getting more violent as time moves along. Do you have any evidence that the sun is growing every year? I am not aware of any scientific evidence of that, and of course 2 Peter 3:12 does not say anything about the sun growing before the point at which heavens catch on fire. And isn't a bit ridiculous to suggest that the sun is growing every year and then to argue that the ice extent shows something different? Obviously you do not believe that the ice extent is an argument against global warming, regardless of its cause. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6
|
Hi NoNukes,
NoNuke writes: Do you have any evidence that the sun is growing every year? If it is not growing every year it will never get big enough to swallow the earth.
quote:http://www.scientificamerican.com/...ally-engulf-earth-maybe Some folks think the earth may move out of the way of the sun.So the debate continues on. But the sun is getting bigger. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
As you pointed out however, for UV to take prominence over infrared in causing global warming, it must be shown that its flux ( quantity per square meter ) is at least close to that of infrared. I have not determined that yet. If it can be shown that mid level UV flux striking earths surface in the late 20 th century was at least on the same order of magnitude as infrared during that time, would you be willing to say your confidence in co2 as the prime cause of global warming is less than 50% ? It is the light coming from the Earth that matters.
Notice the Earth's thermal spectrum, and how it resides in the IR end of the spectrum. Notice also that CO2 absorbs IR radiation in that spectrum. This means that the heat radiated by the Earth is absorbed by the CO2. Part of that energy is converted straight to kinetic energy (i.e. temperature). The other part is emitted in a random direction which sometimes happens to be back at the Earth. Therefore, CO2 absorbs heat that would otherwise radiate out into space. The more CO2 you have, the more you will trap. This is an inescapable physical truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: The result is people like ICANT making a bogus argument despite the fact that they accept that the earth's temperature is increasing. The problem is I don't think it is getting warmer because of mankinds pollution. Which is believed to be a lot faster than what the sun is doing. With the sun we are talking billions of years. With man made problems I have not a clue as to what the time frame is. It is whatever those fellows that depend on the grant money to keep them in their lavish lifestyle says. Because if the grant money ceases they are out of a job. That tells me they have a real bias for promoting their product. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
The problem is I don't think it is getting warmer because of mankinds pollution. Which is believed to be a lot faster than what the sun is doing. With the sun we are talking billions of years. With man made problems I have not a clue as to what the time frame is. It is whatever those fellows that depend on the grant money to keep them in their lavish lifestyle says. Because if the grant money ceases they are out of a job. That tells me they have a real bias for promoting their product. Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: So according to that statement all scientist who do not belive in global warming are idiots.
I did not say that, and it does not follow from my statement. You actually said the following.
NoNukes writes: Let me suggest that whatever the actual truth is about AGW, the scientist that believe in it are not idiots The scientist that believe in it are not idiots. And you do not include any of the scientist that do not believe in it as not being idiots. That means you have concluded that the scientist along with anyone else who do not believe in it is idiots. In other words as far as you are concerned there is only one possible conclusion.
NoNukes writes: What my statement does suggest is that people who believe that they've found a simple concept that all AGW scientists routinely miss are unlikely to be correct. If you had made that statement in the beginning my above rant would not have taken place. Because in it you leave room however so small for other conclusions. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2015/08/150820152817.htm
The July average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.46F (0.81C) above the 20th century average. As July is climatologically the warmest month for the year, this was also the all-time highest monthly temperature in the 1880-2015 record, at 61.86F (16.61C), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.14F (0.08C).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024