palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change
- Thread starter palerider
- Start date
Werbung:
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
You are not using the forum quote system right. Simply hit the "More Options" button and you can see a preview of what your post will look like so you can correct it.
For the second time when you responded to my statement that you don't believe in modern physics, you called me a liar and your counterpoint is that you don't believe in modern science. That is pretty weird. Now you also say physicists don't understand modern science. That is also pretty weird. Physicists understand all that is needed to explain thermal radiation. Of course you don't understand it.
You keep having a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Your statement, energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object always refers to thermal energy, or net energy. Always.
I keep asking for a reference, but you never give one because there isn't one. Your response is always to repeat the same misunderstanding over and over. Look at the hyperphysics site, they use that wording but they clearly illustrate that they are referring to thermal energy, not just one way photons.
You keep avoiding a LINK to the second law that says that photons can only go from hot to cold objects. None exists. My conclusion: you are just a troll
For the second time when you responded to my statement that you don't believe in modern physics, you called me a liar and your counterpoint is that you don't believe in modern science. That is pretty weird. Now you also say physicists don't understand modern science. That is also pretty weird. Physicists understand all that is needed to explain thermal radiation. Of course you don't understand it.
You keep having a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Your statement, energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object always refers to thermal energy, or net energy. Always.
I keep asking for a reference, but you never give one because there isn't one. Your response is always to repeat the same misunderstanding over and over. Look at the hyperphysics site, they use that wording but they clearly illustrate that they are referring to thermal energy, not just one way photons.
You keep avoiding a LINK to the second law that says that photons can only go from hot to cold objects. None exists. My conclusion: you are just a troll
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Find any spelling errors?...how about punctuation?
Back to ignore with you....you really aren't worth talking to...You couldn't show that any physical law has been rewritten due to QM...you couldn't show that science actually understands what is happening at the quantum level...in fact, you couldn't contradict any of my statements at all with facts...the best you can do is rail at me because I don't share your unquestioning faith...that is religion lagboltz....not science.
You think scientists lack the language skills to actually say net when they mean net? The language of science is precise to a fault...especially in the are of physics...if they meant to say net, then it would say net...it wouldn't be left for you to assume that they mean net....your habitual, and inaccurate interpretation of everything you read grows more tiresome by the minute.
The second law is sufficient for any sane individual...if what it says doesn't suit you, then petition someone to alter the language to mean what you want it to mean...I am sure that you could get some climate pseudoscientist to do it for you if you provide sufficient grant money...
I may or may not take you off ignore again...doesn't seem to be much point in it though...you can't read and understand what the words say...you are apparently doomed to misinterpret every thing you read for all time. It's like talking to a semi literate dyslexic....I say words and you repeat different words with different meaning...It's truly like you can't read.
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
No. Go to your post I'm referring to, and click reply. You will see that nothing comes up to reply to. It's almost as if you don't want me to reply.
It is well known that QM has rewritten all the laws of atomic physics starting in the early part of the 1900's.
The 2nd law has been quoted in word form in many many different ways from diverse sources.
Which of the following statements of the law do you disagree with?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/second+law+of+thermodynamics
Second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy
http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/a/lawthermo_4.htm
It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one.
http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookEner1.html
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=216
"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Heatengines.html
The second law states that heat flows naturally from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, but that it will not flow naturally the other way.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5278
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time
http://physics.csustan.edu/Ian/HowThingsWork/Topics/Temperature/ThermoLaws/Refrigerators.htm
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat will spontaneously always flow from a hot region to a cold region. By itself it never flows the other way, but can be made to do so under the influence of an external agency.
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node78.html
Heat flows spontaneously from a hot body ot a cool one.
http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/a/lawthermo_4.htm
It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one.
Reformulated as a statement regarding entropy, the second law reads: In any closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase.
'Global Warming' Expedition Stopped In Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice... http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/07...tion-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/
Darn warming has tripped the warmers up again.
They went north to see all the sea but we're blocked by ice. Seems it's actually chiller up there than the warmers claim.
But you all knew that if you were playing attention.
Darn warming has tripped the warmers up again.
They went north to see all the sea but we're blocked by ice. Seems it's actually chiller up there than the warmers claim.
But you all knew that if you were playing attention.
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
This is like the story some time back about a ship getting stuck in the ice in Antarctica while proving the ice melt. What that story failed to mention was that the ice was driven by a storm, and locked the ship in. It wasn't that there was more ice. It was just that the pieces of ice had been blown around the ship.
Now we have this one which deniers will again ignore the entire story.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160719123906.htm
And then you have to ignore the last paragraph:
"Wahdams says he expects less than one million square kilometers by summers end, but the current amount of Arctic sea ice is 10.6 million square kilometers, according to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The NSIDC puts the rate of ice loss for June at just about 60,ooo square kilometers a day. If that number were to hold, it would take approximately 160 days for the Arctic to dip down to the predicted one million square kilometers."
So, it is going to take longer, so what?
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
But you love stories....like the one about the mass extinction that we are supposed to be currently in....and the one about catastrophic sea level increase sinking the gulf coast...and the one about man warming the global climate...and the litany goes on...stories seem to be your stock in trade....so why don't you like this one?
Did you note that your article begins with a caveat?...typical of the climate change religion...faith...you must have faith....and believe in doom....Your article begins...
"aquamarine pools of melt water on the ice surface that may be accelerating the overall sea ice retreat"
Tell me....what do you suppose the arctic ice looked like during the Holocene Optimum, between 10,000 and 4,000 years ago when the temperatures were about a degree warmer than the present? What might it have looked like during the Medieval warm period when the temperature was slightly over half a degree warmer than the present? Do you think the present state of the ice in the arctic is unprecedented?...do you gasp and have palpitations over the fact that the ice melts in the summer? Do you note the degree of fraud present in the reporting on the state of arctic ice? Have you ever wondered at the starting point from which the "average" amount of ice in the arctic which happened to be the point in time at which the extent of the arctic ice was at its greatest extent for decades? Back up the start point for the average extent of arctic ice a few years and the average would look very differently.
Do you buy all this climate fraud because of your political leanings or are you really just that historically and scientifically illiterate?
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Setting aside your usual arrogance, and ignorance, did you know that over 40% of the birds on the Hawaiian Islands have gone extinct? And you have yet to prove that man is not contributing to the rise in temperatures.
Where is "faith" mentioned? Science, something you have a limited knowledge of, begins with a hypothesis which is then proven, or disproven, by research. What has been proven is that the ice in the Arctic is melting, and, believe it or not, it is warmer temperatures that cause ice to melt.
Sorry fool, and you are a fool, at some point I had expected an honest, and adult, conversation with you. That soon ended just as I am sure Legboltz is finding out that there is no rational discussion possible with you. You wish ot ignore all of the findings made by science in the past 40 years, and instead rely on your 8th. grade education. And, of course, even Einstein had nothing on you for intellect. Well, in your mind anyway.
Unlike you I don't pretend to know everything there is about the climate, thermodynamics, etc. And you seem quite confident to make it appear as if the words of others are those of mine. Typical for the person who has no basis for his argument save for ridicule. What I do know is this. Salmon runs are down, as are the number of cod, halibut, etc. Walruses in the Arctic are starving due to the lack of ice floes for them to hunt from. Coral reefs are dying, and the small fish that gathered there are disappearing thus other sea creatures are dying off. In the rain forests trees are being cut down at a massive rate causing the extinction of creature we know nothing about not to mention the plant life. Streams I used to be able to drink from are now undrinkable die to pollution from farms, manufacturing plants, etc. I know that the ice on Greenland is melting at a rapid rate due to the collection of ash, and other pollutants, causing the surface to attract heat, nor reflect it.
There are many things I know based on observation, not on your blind acceptance of out of date science. Of course, you, like the Lemming, will just fall over the cliff never knowing what happened, or why.
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
There is a lot more ground to cover on the science side, but he said that he has put me on ignore. He couldn't take the heat.
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
Nothing whatsoever to do with climate change...and nothing at all to do with a mass extinction which is not happening.
And your inability to provide even one bit of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate pretty much makes my argument for me....your insistence that I prove a negative for you just highlights the weakness of your position.
The claim is that man is causing the ice to melt...not that ice melts...the "BELIEF" that man is causing the ice to melt without the first bit of actual empirical evidence is where the faith comes in. In fact, by definition it is faith...faith is belief not based on proof. Clearly there is nothing like proof that man is altering the global climate so your belief can only be faith.
If it were science, when I ask for observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate, you would be able to produce at least some of that sort of evidence.....and yet you can't. Like you said, science is about proving or disproving hypothesis....the hypothesis is that man is altering the global climate...where is the observed, measured, quantified evidence that he is, in fact, altering the global climate....do you believe the fact that we just happen to be standing here during a period of climate change is that sort of evidence?
By honest and adult, I can only presume that you mean that because you believe it that I should believe it and then we discuss how much we believe it? That isn't honest or adult...that is little more than a religious discussion. I am asking questions, and asking for evidence that supports what you believe to be true. That is what adult conversation looks like from my end....for it to look like honest adult conversation from your side, you then present the actual observed, measured, quantified evidence which supports your position...not opinion pieces which simply presume that the basic hypothesis is true and then build upon that. That's what is wrong with climate science already.
And in your frustration at those in which you believe for not providing you with any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence with which to support your belief, you strike out and hurl insult at me....questioning my education when in fact, it is my education which leads me to ask the very questions which you don't seem to answer. My education taught me what the scientific method looks like...and the sorts of questions that should be a snap to answer if the scientific method were being observed...and yet, you don't seem to come up with any at all.
If we were having an honest and adult conversation, when you find that you are unable to provide even one piece of observed, measured, quantified data which supports your belief that man is altering the global climate, you might have some comment on that inability, rather than simply asking me to prove a negative...in an honest conversation, you might question your belief in light of there being no observed, measured, quantified data to support it....we are, after all, talking about the climate...an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity.
I show you evidence upon evidence upon evidence of the malfeasance happening in climate science and you ignore it all in favor of opinion pieces which assume the basic hypothesis to be true and then further comment on the disaster to come..."assuming the basic hypothesis to be true"...that's what honest and adult conversation looks like to you?
Neither do I...but I don't take what is told to me as truth, especially when there is evidence to the contrary...I ask questions and when there is no answer to those questions forthcoming, I wonder why...and then I wonder upon what is the belief based if there are no answers available for basic questions. Belief in back radiation based on a mathematical model when every observation ever made failed to detect it is faith...not science....questioning the validity of the mathematical model based on every observation ever made is precisely what science is...
When you provide the words of others in support of your belief aren't you making them yours or at least attesting to their validity? I try not to provide you with opinion pieces because without actual evidence to support the claims....or the discussion, they are pointless. I try to provide actual evidence to support my claim...in the case of data tampering with the temperature record...I have shown the data from the agencies in question...their own data shows tampering...I am just pointing out what their own data shows.
And precisely what you are guilty of...you provide opinion pieces in lieu of actual evidence...I, on the other hand have provided actual data. When I ridicule you, it is because you are unable to provide actual data in support of your position...you can not say the same about me...For example...regarding the claims of catastrophic sea level rise...I provided data from NASA from 1980 regarding sea level increase...
And data from 20 years later in which the data from the past had been systematically eradicated....do you believe that we didn't know how to read tide gages in 1980 and the data just needed to be changed?
That isn't an opinion piece which assumes a basic hypothesis to be true...that is evidence that government agencies are tampering with data which is then used to support a claim...and political action. The scientific method demands an answer to the questions....faith simply accepts and believes the basic hypothesis to be true... Which of us actually has no basis for his ridicule?
I know those things to...but I don't believe climate change is the problem...and I know that they can't be addressed so long as the climate change scam is sucking all the air out of the room and the treasure from the coffers.
Did walruses die during the previous warm periods when the ice was surely even less than today?..and do you actually know that walruses are starving or are you simply accepting that the basic hypothesis is true from the same sort of people who lied and said that the polar bear numbers were decreasing dramatically while in fact, they are growing.
Any of that actually attributable to climate change...or are they the result of problems with industry and land use that could actually be address and progress made if climate change were not sucking all the air from the room and all the treasure from the coffers?
But you don't seem to be able to separate them from the climate change scam and see them as problems that aren't going to be addressed till the climate change hoax is put to bed.
Conversely there is observable, quantifiable and repeatable evidence that the sun (that giant ball of thermonuclear energu out there in space) is. Ask CERN.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...-by-heat-from-Earth-s-core-NOT-global-warming
Ruh roh...
The earth itself is trying to kill us !
Who else remembers some years back when they found under water volcanos up in the artic were causing melts ?
Ruh roh...
The earth itself is trying to kill us !
Who else remembers some years back when they found under water volcanos up in the artic were causing melts ?
palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
According to climate wackaloons, everything is ether due to man made climate change or George Bush...or both.
Werbung:
Pretty sure George has no control over what happens at or below the earth's crust.
