The Sun-Climate Effect

Now you think I have to quote YOU to YOU??

 

So, did you ever come up with a single experiment that backs what you say?

 

No, he did not.

 

"Without credentials" is not the same thing as without expertise. You don't understand the difference; that was his point.

 

This is a ridiculous question.

Today's understanding of climatology comes from large numbers of studies of affects that include everything from our sun to upper atmosphere, to Earth's surface and deep into our oceans.

Suggesting there could be one experiment that would back such a conclusion as you suggest is absolutely not a legitimate approach to this issue.

 

That IS the topic of his first post pointing at Einstein.

His whole point was that people like Einstein, with no qualifications, even patent office workers, can turn the whole direction of the world wide consensus.

But, of course that's a ridiculous argument, as Einstein had those qualifications.

He didn't like that I pointed out that those he was relying on had no qualifications. He just wanted to pitch education and experience as irrelevant.

 

He picked Einstein and two others as those who made progress without credentials!!

LOL!

And, he mentioned Edwin Humanson, a noted expert who worked closely with Edwin Hubble!!!

Sorry, but education and experience in the field is important.

So, going to someone who wants to make money by writing software tools is NOT deserving of the kind of confidence it would take to upset the field of climatology. Something I pointed out and stand by.

 

Indeed. His point, which you still do not grasp, is that credentials =/= qualifications.

 

Wrong again. Climate "science" is not falsifiable so it is genuinely not science. It is putting forth a hypothesis that has no way of being tested to see if it is actually true. The actual mechanism of it can't be proven to any degree. So all the "peer reviewed" BS in the world doesn't make it true. And furthermore, it makes climate science absolutely useless for anything practical.

And that is the sum total of the climate change fraud. Create a hypothesis that funds you (because you can't get a real job) and push it down the road endlessly hyping whatever you dream up to keep the funding flowing and employ all your fellow con men to "peer review" your stuff to keep you all employed.

Mean while the emporer has no clothes. Still.

 

Quantum field theory is another case of serious theory commonly used that is accepted, yet can't be investigated thoroughly enough to consider that it is falsifiable.

The requirement of falsifiability, touted by Popper, isn't considered a limit.

Review and duplication of work is performed by unrelated groups.

You haven't demonstrated ANY reason to believe there is fraud going on.

You are proposing a conspiracy that covers numerous sciences that are practiced throughout the world. Yet, you have NO evidence of such a conspiracy. Besides, such a conspiracy would be impossible for any question as significant as whether humans are the primary reason for Earth's warming. The coordination of false results is a stupendous roadblock. Coercing scientists from many disciplines and many countries to LIE in some coordinated way and then keep it secret would be a ludicrous endeavor.

Besides, the real rewards go to those who propose and successfully defend new approaches to some field.

Every scientist's dream is to upset the applecart, showing a new way of looking at a problem.

 

Is quantum field theory being used to irresponsibly destroy civilization?

Whether scientific theory is proven is really dependent on what's at stake. The push to eliminate CO2 is dangerous and stupid. People like you have to do better than just quoting papers about things you know nothing about and then assuring us that that science is somehow settled. Just because, you know, they're experts.

 

Your first sentence ignores the reason for mentioning that theory. It is a rejection of your idea concerning falsifiability.

The process of science does NOT INCLUDE a method of positive proof. There are solid reasons for that. There IS proof of falsity. Plus, science depends on duplication, constant review (not just review before publishing), etc. to ensure that false ideas get rejected. Science isn't instant. It took ten years for Einstein's relativity to get accepted. And, testing of that theory has continued every day since then.

Yes, ignoring experts, those with credentials, those who have studied the field as a full time effort, those whose ideas are constantly examined by others who have done the same - THAT kind of process is ludicrous.

 

So to summarize, you can't explain how 0.04% of the atmosphere can unreasonably manage to warm the other 99.96%. You can't name a single real experiment that proves it's happening. And basically your whole argument is based on your blind faith that university scientists wouldn't lie because you think they're above that (but again, can't prove it in any way).

And that pathetic argument makes me "ludicrous".

Go away child and come back when you know something.

 

Will Read More.

 

It's not my job to explain that.

But, the general principle is that there is a balance between arriving solar radiation and departing heat from Earth into space.

Our atmosphere is changing such that arriving radiation is not affected, but the departure of heat, a different form of radiation, is being slightly impeded due to human activity.

Since it is only the balance that is at issue, relatively small change can cause Earth to gradually accumulate more heat. It's like a see-saw with an elephant on each side. A tiny percent of the weight of an elephant can be added to one side, thus causing the system to be out of balance.

Again, there are huge numbers of experiments related to all parts of our environment - from solar activity to upper atmosphere down to Earth's surface.

No single study covers the whole system. And, there are thousands of studies being made throughout the world. It is the aggregate that makes the difference.

 

And again, it's BS and you're being lied to.

 

OK, so it is your opinion against the vast majority of scientists world wide, working on fields related to climatology.

 

No, it is my opinion and the majority of real scientists working in fields like physics against the vast majority of scientists working solely in academia in climatology. I'm sure you're surprised to learn that there are a lot of scientists in industry that produce useful real world information that doesn't get published.

 

Then cite sources that have serious credentials and spend less time with the ad hom.

 

You don't understand, they have real jobs and don't publish. They have no reason to. Thier careers aren't built on pimping for global warming.

 

No, it only changes the equilibrium point. After that, heat in and heat out balance again.

No, a see-saw has positive feedback because the board is mounted above the bar. The feedbacks in the climate system are mostly negative, which is why the earth's climate does not oscillate wildly. The main exception is the ice-albedo feedback that has been the principal cause of the alternation between glacial and interglacial periods since the beginning of the Pleistocene -- which CO2-centered climate theory absurdly attributes to the CO2 solubility feedback.

In actual science, it's the quality of the logic behind a study that makes the difference. That quality is mostly rather low in the case of CO2-centered climate studies, so it really doesn't matter how many of them there are, how politically favored the "scientists" who write them, or how prestigious the journals that publish them. They are still trash that the actual climate will continue to prove wrong.

 

Yes, I suspect a new balance will get formed - though I haven't found cites for that theory.

But, the catch is that CO2 and other atmospheric chemistry continues to increase. So, how is a steady state going to be reached if the reason for the imbalance continues to increase?

 

As I understand it the current CO2 increase is about 2-3ppm; I would guess that give plenty of time for equilibrium to be reached.

 

That is the rate of upsetting the equilibrium.

 

Seriously? Changing a concentration by 2-4ppm is the equivalivent of two drops in a 1000 liter pool; a drop or rain on a football field.