Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate[W:376]

[Into the Night]

It not only exists, but is overwhelmingly abundant resulting in a climate science consensus and a major shift in public opinion. Fortunately rising every year, due to said evidence also increasing every year.

Argument by repetition fallacy (chanting).

 

[Into the Night]

That's not only a blog (LMAO stop this please), but by someone who has many times been debunked.

Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

If you don’t know this by now, I can’t do any more for you.

Evasion. Answer the question put to you.

 

[Into the Night]

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf
Page 72-120

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment
Section 2.4

If reading is that is too much (Which it clearly seems to be, as you're still asking for proof even though I've provided countless proof),

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL048794
Paleoclimatology Data | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

None of these are empirical evidence. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric CO2 content. it is not possible to measure the global sea level. Random numbers are not empirical evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm sorry that in your opinion, those links do not provide what you asked for. They answer it just fine to me.

Of course they do. You are a believer in the Church of Global Warming, a fundamentalist style religion. You deny science and mathematics.

I'm still waiting for you to quote a passage from each chapter of those 2 reports, and then refute said passage with verified citation. This "debate" seems a little one sided. How about you go ahead and do this? I can't be the only one providing proof of my claim (and boy, have I).

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Random numbers are not a proof. Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I would predict closer to 99% of scientists whose job security strongly depends on the submissive parroting of the global warming lie are on public record as supporting the lie. Those who can freely speak the truth without fear of losing their job are not as likely to tote the global warming water bucket.

Exactly right. Most scientists are funded from a single source: the government.

 

[VanCleef]

They deny science and mathematics. There is no data.

Tell me which math and science is being denied,

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf
Fourth National Climate Assessment

I expect passages linked in your next reply - and prove it is incorrect. If not, I accept your concession.

 

[Threegoofs]

Evasion. Answer the question put to you.

You’re not in this conversation.

In fact, assume this for all future posts of mine.

 

[Into the Night]

re:quoted material from the Church of Global Warming


Less energy is escaping to space:

That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) acts like a blanket; adding more CO2 makes the 'blanket' thicker, and humans are adding more CO2 all the time.

The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work. It violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

There is no Magick one way blanket. There is no blanket at all.

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Here you bring up a paradox, and is the reason your argument is irrational.

The Moon has no appreciable atmosphere. No CO2, no methane, no 'greenhouse gasses'. Daytime temperatures on the Moon's surface can reach 250 deg F, not just 212 deg F. On Earth, there is not only an atmosphere, but there are 'greenhouse' gasses also. If CO2 is capable of warming the Earth, why is Earth's surface so much COLDER during the day?

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon?

Heat has no temperature, dude. Heat is not thermal energy.

The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun.

So is the Earth. The presence of an atmosphere changes nothing.

At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

it is not possible to slow or trap heat. Heat has no temperature. Temperatures on Earth's surface is moderate because the atmosphere has mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat it or cool it. The atmosphere is also a fluid. It is capable of redistributing thermal energy around the planet somewhat. It also does not heat the Earth. The Earth heats the atmosphere. ALL of it radiates into space, with the surface doing most of the radiation, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.
...deleted conclusions based on this particular circular argument...

No, they don't. There is no such theory or law. Since you seem to think there is, please state the law (the equation) and the theory supporting it, including the author of that theory. Also please explain how this theory falsifies the 1st law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are denying science again.

These gases act like a blanket,

There is no Magick Blanket. Putting a blanket on a rock does not keep it warm.

keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space.

You are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. You cannot reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.

The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket

There is no Magic Blanket. The Earth does not generate significant thermal energy. Putting a blanket around Earth would prevent energy from the Sun from reaching Earth. The effect would be a COLDER Earth, not a warmer one.

 

[Into the Night]

– it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

Blankets do not make you warmer. You are warm blooded. Your body temperature is controlled by sensor cells located at the base of the brain. You generate your own internal heat from the food you eat, not from a blanket. The Earth doesn't generate it's own internal heat (that's significant). Putting a blanket on a dead body does not make it warm. Putting it on a rock does not make a rock warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost.

No Magick Blanket.

So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

It doesn't. CO2 has absolutely no ability to warm the Earth using emitted infrared light from Earth.

This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them.

Argument from randU fallacy. Another random number.

(The main components of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.

We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm).

Ice is permeable to CO2. Ice cores are useless for this purpose. There was no one measuring atmospheric CO2 at all in 1770. Argument from randU fallacy. Another random number.

In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm.

First, one station is not sufficient to measure global CO2 content. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
2nd, the Mauna Loa stations has been 'correcting' their data. It is not raw data. It is utterly useless. In statistics, raw data MUST be used. Selection MUST be by randN. Mauna Loa data failed to show the increased CO2 from a nearby major volcanic eruption.

That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.

GIGO. There is no valid data from Mauna Loa. That station does not measure the global CO2 content. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. Going from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.04% of the atmosphere doesn't even affect plant growth significantly.

CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light that happen to be emitted by the Earth's surface. That does not warm the Earth. It's just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the air above it.

 

[Into the Night]

Almost any surface above -60 C emits some 15 um photons, (and plenty of longer wavelength photons/microwaves)
but those photons actually do contain energy.
If that photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, it creates a slight dipole moment, which ether spins or vibrates.
The excited energy state will slowly decay back to ground state, usually within 10 to 50 milliseconds,
unless it passes the energy off the some other atom or molecule by contact before then.
The mean free path at atmospheric pressure is so small, that it almost guarantees, a contact transfer before
the spontaneous decay can occur. In ether case the total energy is never more that what was in the 15 um photon.
NO energy creation!
If photons are emitted, we know that the frequencies of the emitted photons must correspond to an available
energy transfer within the molecule AND (boolean AND) the total energy of all the transfers and emissions MUST be equal to the
energy absorbed.

You created energy by heating the air around the CO2 and then emitting the same energy photon again. Even at -60 deg C, CO2 still emits photons. That is still above absolute zero. A photon does NOT have to be emitted at a quantum frequency.

 

[Into the Night]

Nothing you are saying is accurate.

I have 2,000 pages of evidence.

If it was all false, you would be able to refute it with peer reviewed studies, directly. But you can't.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf
Fourth National Climate Assessment

The scientific and public consensus only exists because the evidence is overwhelming. Nothing more.

Argument by repetition fallacy. Already answered. Argument of the stone fallacy. Redefinition fallacies (random number -> data, study-> proof, consensus -> science, evidence -> proof). Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

Consensus is not used in science. You have no evidence. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Studies are not a proof. Random numbers are not data.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's not only a blog (LMAO stop this please), but by someone who has many times been debunked.

Yes, it is the blog of the Chairman of the Raccah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Professor Nir Shaviv. The blog entry records his remarks at Cambridge University. You are far on the wrong side of this exchange, and no amount of faux condescension can diminish the degree to which you are making yourself a laughing stock.

 

[longview]

It's the same 2 reports I've been linking in multiple threads that you refuse to debunk.

I'll post this again,



I'm going to assume you're not going to do as I ask.

My proxy I'm going to assume you agree AGW is real since you can not refute that comprehensive gold standard report.

The earlier one worked, but lets compare two statement from your two citations.
From Skeptical Science we have,

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

and from the Fourth National Climate Assessment we have this statement.

The naturally occurring GHGs in Earth’s atmosphere—principally water vapor and carbon dioxide—
keep the near-surface air temperature about 60°F (33°C) warmer than it
would be in their absence, assuming albedo is held constant.2

So which causes the 33°C warmer environment, the entire atmosphere, or only the greenhouse gasses including water vapor?

This one is especially good,

For example, it is likely that natural variability has contributed between
−0.18°F (−0.1°C) and 0.18°F (0.1°C) to changes in surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010; by
comparison, anthropogenic GHGs have likely contributed between 0.9°F (0.5°C) and 2.3°F
(1.3°C) to observed surface warming over this same period.

Not only have they not measured the change in energy over a change in CO2 level,
they have an enormous range of how much was likely contributed. This is called uncertainty!
In the section labeled, 2.2 Radiative Forcing (RF) and Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF)
They do not mention that they have actually measured any Radiative Forcing vs changes in CO2 level.

 

[Jack Hays]

There’s no single piece...there’s a BOATLOAD of pieces!

No. There is none.

 

[Threegoofs]

 

[longview]

You created energy by heating the air around the CO2 and then emitting the same energy photon again. Even at -60 deg C, CO2 still emits photons. That is still above absolute zero. A photon does NOT have to be emitted at a quantum frequency.

No, there is no more energy available than what was contained in the 15 um photon (667 cm-1).
That energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change state.
in the case of contact transfer, that is a form of convection, the other choice is radiation,
which as I said is very unlikely because of long period to spontaneous decay.

 

[Jack Hays]

Claims of attribution are not evidence of causation.

 

[longview]

There is in NCA4 no evidence that human activity has generated warming.

I think there is a bit of uncertainty there, because human activity could include people artificially adjusting the temperature data sets.:mrgreen:

 

[Jack Hays]

I think there is a bit of uncertainty there, because human activity could include people artificially adjusting the temperature data sets.:mrgreen:

Point conceded.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm going to continue to make these "arguments"

So you are going to continue to chant. Color me not surprised.

until the facts are refuted.

Learn what a 'fact' is. Buzzword fallacy.

Nearly all the actual data (peer reviewed papers) is on my side.

Papers are not data. There is no data. Argument from randU fallacy.

I'm not just going to let that go because some kid on the internet said "bu bu bu fallacy".

Denial of logic, probably because you are illiterate in that as well.

I need these facts to be shown as false. Directly.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

Otherwise I can do the same with evolution,

The Theory of Evolution isn't a theory of science either. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.

smoking cancer,

The theory that smoking causes cancer has been falsified. Smoking causes other problems, but cancer isn't one of them.

vaccines,

Compositional error fallacy. The theory behind some vaccines have been falsified. We don't use them anymore. Others are still based on theories of science. We still use them.

etc.

Can't make up any more crap?

I can just say "NO THEY ARE FAKE, FALLACY FALLACY YOUR STUDIES MEAN NOTHING!" That's not a rebuttal bro.

Yes it is. If you are going to make an argument, make a valid one. Stop chanting fallacies and I will stop calling you on them. It's really very simple. A fallacy is an error in logic, just like a math error. It renders an argument invalid.

Your biggest problem is your chanting. You keep making the same statements over and over even though numerous people have made valid counter-arguments against them. Discarding an argument without cause is called an argument of the stone fallacy. Chanting in this way is called a argument by repetition fallacy. Making up or quoting random numbers and using them as if they were data is called an argument from randU fallacy. Attempting to force someone into an argument of ignorance fallacy is an attempted force of a negative proof fallacy. No one is required to prove a negative. No one is required to prove your claims are wrong. YOU must show the claims are right, not just keep repeating them. You cannot shift the burden of proof in this way.

You must show how your claims falsify the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These are theories of science which you deny. You cannot just ignore them.They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. Simply repeating the claims or pointing to others that simply repeat the claims does not show anything.

You are woefully illiterate in logic. You also are woefully illiterate in statistical mathematics. You mindlessly quote some random numbers someone quoted to you as if they were god-given truisms. Yours is a religion. It is a fundamentalist style religion. It is called the Church of Global Warming. Consensus is not used in science. It is only used in religions and in politics (when someone votes).

 

[Into the Night]

Refute the overwhelming evidence confirming AGW I linked with your own peer reviewed studies. Said studies must directly show specific passages are false.

Already did. Argument of the stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Tell me which math and science is being denied,

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf
Fourth National Climate Assessment

I expect passages linked in your next reply - and prove it is incorrect. If not, I accept your concession.

Already did. Argument of the stone fallacy. You are denying statistical mathematics. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

You’re not in this conversation.

In fact, assume this for all future posts of mine.

Evasion. Answer the question put to you.

 

[Into the Night]

Argument from randU fallacy. More random numbers.