Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

I may have used the same wording as Alex uses to mean something slightly different, but what frustrates me is that while Laird has gone to the trouble (with others) to help set up a whole website to discuss things that science says are impossible, he seems to pay undue respect to modern science in other areas.

Dude. Seriously. We have been over this so many times. Have you already forgotten my position? If so, here it is yet again: I don't care what "science" as a monolith has to say about any discipline, I care only what the scientists who actually study that discipline have to say about it. The rest are not qualified to have their opinions respected as authoritative.
 
Be all of that as it may (or may not be), Vortex, the fact remains that none of us in this thread is qualified in this field, so we are all more or less appealing to authority. Sure, the authority may be (and often is, per LoneShaman's postings amongst others) in the form of "a presentation of facts", but none of us is qualified to assess whether that presentation is really presenting facts or misinformation. We are all to an extent fumbling around in the dark.

Here's a good example from a later post of LoneShaman's, which I won't quote in full:



The ultimate argument that LoneShaman seems to endorse in this post (which I haven't looked into carefully, including not having watched the full video) is what we might term "the saturation argument": that we are basically at the point where adding more CO2 isn't going to have any extra effect on retaining heat. He refers to an experiment by Newt Angstrom to back this up.

Great. Science. Detailed facts and arguments. Not an appeal to authority, right?

Well, let's look deeper, because I remembered having encountered a refutation of this argument before, and, sure enough, readily found that refutation:

https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

Great. More science. More detailed facts and arguments (plus a neat video which seems to explain the science clearly). Not an appeal to authority either, right?

Nah. Let's be real. Neither LoneShaman nor I know enough in this domain to properly evaluate the merits of this argument and the counter-argument. But the one happens to coincide with the consensus of people who do know enough, and the other doesn't, so... I know where my money's going on this one.

Speak for yourself Laird. Firstly Skeptical Science is not a reputable source.

Here is the fault in their argument. They say that the upper layers of the atmosphere are thinner and as CO2 saturation fills these layers it is reflected omni directionaly where some of that heat is reflected back into the atmosphere instead of out into space.

So what they are saying is that there is a feedback mechanism trapping further heat. This is patently false.

1. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation into the molecular bonds holding each molecule together. This has no direct effect on air temperature, which is proportional to the average kinetic energy of all the gas molecules in the air, which is proportional to the average velocity of all the gas molecules squared.

2. Radiant thermal energy is function of frequency of oscillation of those bonds, not a function of amplitude or bandwidth as assumed by greenhouse-warming theory.

3. Radiation from a thermal body cannot warm the same body, even if perfectly reflected back.

I supplied references confirming this simple truth. You will have to do better than some internet jock called Dana1981 or a source like Denial101.

I must add that their assumption is just that an assumption. One that has never been tested in the lab or in the field, hence no references. It is what we call a just so story. One that defies physical law.
 
Last edited:
David,

I might take your request more seriously if you bothered to engage with me when I request it, and especially when I resort to repeating my requests to make sure that you don't miss them.

Why don't you, in this thread, take a short break to actually read some of what I have written in response to your "Venus" argument? Recall this post of mine:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...e-and-our-illusion-of-control.412/post-135973

Do you agree that you have erred in failing to take into account that temperature and pressure are correlated, and thus that the greenhouse effect on Venus (and any planet) works by increasing both simultaneously, such that we would not expect to find major differences between the temperatures on Earth and Venus at the same pressure, which is what your argument mistakenly presumes we would expect?
I certainly agree that there seems to be something else wrong on Venus. Lone Shaman has pointed out that there seems to be an anomalous source of heat down there - very suggestive that this is a young planet, still very hot inside. As far as I can see, this males Venus unsuitable as a comparison with Earth, though it is worth noting that standard accounts don't seem to discuss that because it is suggestive of Veselovsky's ideas. Also, if the anomalous heat source was removed, I can't see how it would aid your argument - quite the reverse.
I don't think you can work this out from PV=nRT because that equation enables you to calculate (only approximately) any one of the variables, given all the others. If say you squeeze the sample down to half its volume, both P and T will change while V is halved. If this squeezing is performed in a way that lets the extra heat escape out to the environment that T will remain unchanged, and P will be doubled (approximately).

I don't claim to understand the physics of the lapse rate, which seems to be extremely complicated. I am not even sure if the atmosphere can be considered to be in some kind of equilibrium, since the sun is pouring energy in all the time. My comparison was empiricle - comparing the lapse rate on Venus with that on Earth. We know for an absolute fact that temperature varies with altitude here on earth, and there is no reason that I know of, why that would not be the same on Venus. Therefore in any comparison, you must compare temperatures at the same pressure of atmosphere. It is clearly invalid to ignore the depth of the atmosphere on the two planets.

Clearly this heat anomaly has been known for many years - but the public face of science does not seem to recognise this. My clear impression is that modern science simply ignores anomalous evidence that breaks well established ideas.

I think the point is, you can't prove anything in this argument in a simple way. No physicist is going to ignore a simple argument that you or I can concoct. That means that the sceptics - people like Richard Lindzen and Ivar Giaevar must be pointing to an area in which the science is very unclear, so the fact that there are sceptics is telling you something. Science simply does not know everything, nor can it calculate it, but the problem is, it can pretend it knows - even perhaps to itself. This is something you yourself know - which is why you would not accept the consensus opinion of neuroscientists (I assume) that consciousness is purely generated by the electrochemical processes in the brain.

My further argument relates to the quality of the data. There are accurate satelite maesurements of average air temperature, and these show a much smaller temperature increase that the land measurements that climate scientists prefer to use. These temperatures are subject to a whole variety of adjustments - notably for the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) - so a thermometer may have been located in jungle that has gradually been urbanised - which biases temperature measurements several degrees hotter. They are looking for minute temperature variations (about 1C (max) since 1880) and using data, some of which has to be corrected for UHI changes that are much larger.

David
 
Skeptical Science is not a reputable source.

Dude. You've linked to a presentation by the Heartland Institute...

So what they are saying is that there is a feedback mechanism trapping further heat. This is patently false.

Do you really think they're saying it's a "feedback" mechanism though? I think they're just saying that heat is re-radiated.

1. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation into the molecular bonds holding each molecule together. This has no direct effect on air temperature, which is proportional to the average kinetic energy of all the gas molecules in the air, which is proportional to the average velocity of all the gas molecules squared.

Let's say this is true (I am not up to speed on where the radiation is stored within molecules). I don't see that it has any bearing on the Skeptical Science counter-argument.

2. Radiant thermal energy is function of frequency of oscillation of those bonds is not a function of amplitude or bandwidth as assumed by greenhouse-warming theory.

Again, I'm not up to speed on how the energy is re-radiated, but again, I don't see how this affects the Skeptical Science counter-argument even if it is true. Either way, both you and they agree that energy is re-radiated. So why quibble about what that re-radiation is a function of? How is that relevant?

3. Radiation from a thermal body cannot warm the same body, even if perfectly reflected back.

I think the way to conceptualise it is that when the radiation leaves, it cools the body, and then when it is reflected back , it re-warms it.

You will have to do better than [...] a source like Denial101.

In fairness, the dude is a post-doctoral scholar at NASA. Not your average hack.
 
Dude. Seriously. We have been over this so many times. Have you already forgotten my position? If so, here it is yet again: I don't care what "science" as a monolith has to say about any discipline, I care only what the scientists who actually study that discipline have to say about it. The rest are not qualified to have their opinions respected as authoritative.
Except when it comes to neuroscience, medical opinion about NDE's, etc etc.

Come on Laird, what exactly is your position, taken across all sciences?

David
 
Last edited:
n fairness, the dude is a post-doctoral scholar at NASA. Not your average hack.
That is verging on an abusive post. Lone Shaman clearly knows a hell of a lot of science - I would always defer to him unless I was certain about some point, but he doesn't have to produce results that keep his bosses at NASA happy that they can go on raking in money to study climate.

David
 
I don't think you can work this out from PV=nRT because that equation enables you to calculate (only approximately) any one of the variables, given all the others. If say you squeeze the sample down to half its volume, both P and T will change while V is halved. If this squeezing is performed in a way that lets the extra heat escape out to the environment that T will remain unchanged, and P will be doubled (approximately).

I don't see the relevance of any of this. If we are comparing atmospheres, we must compare the same volume of each atmosphere. [ETA: either that or the same number of moles (n). But volume seems simpler.]

We know for an absolute fact that temperature varies with altitude here on earth, and there is no reason that I know of, why that would not be the same on Venus.

But so does pressure!

Therefore in any comparison, you must compare temperatures at the same pressure of atmosphere.

I think the conclusion instead is more likely to be that, certain other variables being equal (like planetary mass/volume, and total volume of atmosphere): therefore in any comparison, you must compare temperatures at the same altitude.
 
Last edited:
Except when it comes to neuroscience, medical opinion about NDE's, etc etc.

Nonsense. My position is consistent on those.

Neuroscience is the study of neurons and the brain, and their relationship to conscious experience, not of consciousness per se. Some neuroscientists might philosophise about the ontological nature of consciousness based on neuroscientific research, but that is outside of the scope of their study - it is philosophy of mind, not neuroscience. Where neuroscientists limit their assertions to those based on the study of relationships between conscious experience and neural functioning, I am happy to accept their expertise.

Why would I care about the "medical opinion" about NDEs of those doctors who don't study NDEs? I only care about the opinion of those doctors who do study them.

You'll have to try harder if you want to catch me out.
 
Hey, I'm not saying it's the silver bullet, but it sure could be a significant piece of the armoury.
Understood. :) That was not directed at you.

I should qualify - that I agree with tax penalties - particularly on the fossil fuel and airline purchases. The income distribution option would only serve to increase the generation of carbon for 65% of the population, and then be neutralized as a value by the net inflation rate in short order.

I would route the dividend into alternative energy research, and sustainable agriculture.
 
Neuroscience is the study of neurons and the brain, and their relationship to conscious experience, not of consciousness per se. Some neuroscientists might philosophise about the ontological nature of consciousness based on neuroscientific research, but that is outside of the scope of their study - it is philosophy of mind, not neuroscience.
I am sure those neuroscientists would beg to differ with you. Why on earth do you think they would express the opinions that many of them do if didn't think that consciousness was a direct consequence of the brain acting alone? In particular, they must have persuaded themselves that the mechanisms they have discovered would be adequate to explain consciousness.

David
 
She who posts the prettiest diagrams wins.. but thanks for that LoneShaman, that was very interesting.
Although illustrates for me that you can't simulate the Earth from a tiny tube of gas, much as we would all like this sort of experiment to provide certainty. This is the mistake scientists make. They think they can isolate a chemical and measure its activity/influence in a sterile vacuum. It is not 'the earth'. To know the earth, we must study the earth, see the consequences of our human activity and extrapolate from that.
fig1_tesoro_flaring.jpg

maxresdefault.jpg

20170712-Pollution-oil-slick-shutterstock-3476b1252g7z1af1s1h79c.jpg

(sorry if these images offend, and I don't know how to make them smaller, on here at least, but hey the problem is big)

All you are saying is 'fossil-fuel is not a problem'
Slam-dunking a scientific 'answer' is only half the story, which you scientist-types love to do. Climate alarm is part of the equation and by slicing away emotive concerns is to deny a relevant element that points to valid concern.
Here is a summary, as I know the alarmists do not really want to entertain another point of view.
I could say the same about you, but I don't.
Arrhenhius was a relative of Greta Thunberg! How very appropriate! What an extraordinary bit of synchronicity spanning generations. History is like poetry.
Since you come from Australia, there is a high chance you have convict ancestors, as I do. Does this mean you, or I, are more likely to be criminal?

Now to complicate your argument, we must also consider that those benefitting from oil use and its revenue have a valid input, that is:
1. it is polluting, but it makes money and
2.Climate change-by-CO2-influence deniers appear to be those who don't want to have to change the luxurious lifestyle that oil provides.
How selfish is that?
This is what I think the environment movement is saying.
So what do you actually achieve by 'proving' there is no problem?
Do you think you have counteracted the elites and their megalomania?
No, you just weaken a movement determined to contend them.
But then, you're out of here, and salve your conscience, by leaving us with a few 'inconvenient truths'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whoa there Alice, your making a lot out of things I have not said. I will clear the air for you.

To start with the different frequency ranges of absorbtion in greenhouse gasses is not entirely based on one set of experiments done in 1901. It was never meant to simulate the Earth of course and it does not need to in order to demonstrate the point. It merely established frequencies of absorption.

That aspect remains true whether in a tube or in the atmosphere because the molecular bonds which absorb the radiation do not change whether in a tube or the atmosphere, they remain the same regardless. The heat corresponds to the oscillation of those bonds in the molecule. I hope that is clear enough.

All you are saying is 'fossil-fuel is not a problem'
Slam-dunking a scientific 'answer' is only half the story, which you scientist-types love to do. Climate alarm is part of the equation and by slicing away emotive concerns is to deny a relevant element that points to valid concern.

No I have never said that, quite the opposite. I have said that much more important environmental issues, (such as what your pictures show) take a back seat to CO2 which is not a pollutant or a danger. Actually I am more of a mystic than a science type.

Watch out for those 3 fingers pointing back with these dismissive (passive/aggressive?) comments LoneShaman. I could say the same about you, but I don't.

I'm not quite sure what your getting at. If it is about not replying, I either did not have time, or did not think it was relevant. Nah it wasn't passive aggressive, to be perfectly honest, well that was not my intent. It could be interpreted that way, none the less it is still true, and true for all generally. I thought that whole business that provoked that response was absolutely absurd. I don't usually mince words. But I have most definitely exercised restraint.

As for your points.

Now to complicate your argument, we must also consider that those benefitting from oil use and its revenue have a valid input, that is:
1. it is polluting, but it makes money and

Yes it is polluting and it does make money, it's also not the only source of CO2.

2.Climate change-by-CO2-influence deniers appear to be those who don't want to have to change the luxurious lifestyle that oil provides.
How selfish is that?

Well maybe, I'm not sure that activists or believers do either, I am not sure they even realize what changes are implied.

So what do you actually achieve by 'proving' there is no problem?

Saving an immense amount of money, lower prices that will keep people above the poverty line, cheaper and less regulated infrastructure for third world countries to aid in their own recovery, industry, finances, and well being. Possibly saving lives that would otherwise be denied the energy to stay alive in extreme cold. Saving people from psychological anguish brought on by climate alarmism. A child killed themselves recently because of fear of environmental collapse! There are probably many more reasons I can't think of at the moment.

Do you think you have counteracted the elites and their megalomania?
No, you just weaken a movement determined to contend them.
But then, you're out of here, and salve your conscience, by leaving us with a few 'inconvenient truths

You still don't get it apparently, the movement does not contend them, it endorses them. You have it completely backwards.
 
Last edited:
This is what I think the environment movement is saying.
So what do you actually achieve by 'proving' there is no problem?

To me - the 'environmental movement' is the greatest obstacle I face in my company campaign to bring investments into green, sustainable and carbon reducing technologies. Nobody wants to risk money in class hatred, no matter how virtuous it may be framed.

If I am in a presentation and a denier walks in the room, I am OK with that. If an environment thug walks in, I know I have no hope of selling an environmental benefit solution. All trust is shattered, because they aren't there to examine plans, designs, investment and impact - they are just there to yell at who they have been told are the bad guys.

Who cares about enemies when you have them as your 'friends'?

The thick political tar-and-feather mentality of the fanatic breeds mistrust. And lack of trust stultifies investment. This is a process called self-sublation. The movement is both right and its own worst enemy at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can work this out from PV=nRT because that equation enables you to calculate (only approximately) any one of the variables, given all the others. If say you squeeze the sample down to half its volume, both P and T will change while V is halved. If this squeezing is performed in a way that lets the extra heat escape out to the environment that T will remain unchanged, and P will be doubled (approximately).

I don't see the relevance of any of this.

OK, having thought about it, I can see how you might have intended it to be relevant:

Whereas I have suggested that, in holding V, n, and R constant, the only way for the greenhouse effect to increase T is by simultaneously increasing P, you might be seen to be suggesting that we needn't hold V constant, and that another way to increase T is to increase V (whilst holding P constant). In this scenario, your original argument would be valid: we would expect T on Venus to be much higher than T on Earth for the same P.

However, is there any evidence that this is the mechanism by which T increases in a greenhouse effect, at least on Venus? I can think of several reasons why it isn't likely:

  1. If the temperature on Venus had been increased by simultaneously increasing the volume of its atmosphere, then we would expect the density of its atmosphere to have decreased significantly; instead, it is much denser than Earth's atmosphere.
  2. The pressure on the surface of Venus is very high - much greater than Earth's - which suggests that the first mechanism was the dominant one (that temperature was increased by simultaneously increasing pressure).
  3. To increase the volume of the atmosphere, it has to be extended upwards, but this must be done against gravity. To increase the pressure of the atmosphere, in contrast, requires no battle against the countervailing force of gravity, and thus is the more likely method by which temperature was increased.
  4. If the volume of Venus's atmosphere had increased, we would, per the previous point, expect its height to have increased significantly too. Is there any evidence that Venus has an exceptionally high atmosphere? Provisionally, I'd suggest "No", given brief research on Wikipedia in which I found that the Earth's atmosphere is actually much higher than Venus's atmosphere. Of course, there are other factors which this doesn't take into account, such as the mass and volume of both planets and both of their atmosphere's, but it's at least suggestive.

So, it looks to me that the dominant means by which the greenhouse effect on Venus would have increased temperature is not by increasing volume but by increasing pressure, although the former might have played some role. So, comparing temperatures between the two planets at the same altitude is more appropriate than comparing them at the same pressure, and your argument against a greenhouse effect on Venus seems to be unsound.
 
LoneShaman,
Taken in isolation as a chemical-based experiment, it is possible to show CO2's impact on light; but does that relate to CO2's impact on say, inhalation? It is saying CO2 has little impact in this particular experimental situation, but cannot observe/comment on CO2's effect in any other. It is an isolationist approach to divining information. It is one-sided and 'microscopic' i.e. not 'macroscopic'

I don't clearly know what you mean by "I'm more of a mystic than a science type" I'm not dissing science as not having a valid view, but only in its puny, self-referential basis, of presuming to have all the answers by stripping away perception in context. Perhaps only geniuses like Einstein and Tesla are fluent in both. Even Greta has admonished that world 'leaders' "listen to the scientists" though you may say 'this, not that, scientist' which is more 'splicing' of information. The mistake is to separate the parts to find the whole truth. You won't.
'all science, or 'all mystic' are both one-sided and ridiculous because they rely on leaving out many other 'elements'- including observation of the whole, which has far more information on interaction too.
Your argument isolates, with some very science-y diagrams, 'the element of CO2 in the upper atmosphere as it affects global warming'(?) And you find it does not. But you have lost the big picture which is that CO2 is a by-product of (one of) the fossil-fuel industry, producing other ill-effects, as my pictures show. Then you take that conclusion, that 'CO2 is not a problem' add some urgency by combining it with the oil-baron's, very recent fake-concern for the environment as part of a plot to continue/ramp up controlling/eliminating us (and which i agree is highly likely). So if I don't accept your contention that 'CO2 is not a problem', I am being manipulated by the elite, fair-game for a dismissive Twain quote, and doing the very opposite of contending them.

I can't see your point in correlating, by way of CO2-in-a-tube experiment, that the environmental movement is 'wrong'? I believe you must also support it, as living remotely in Australia is going to mean almost exclusive off-grid energy? It is hard to see how we can progress with this line of argument, so let's drop it. Thanks, Alice
 
Last edited by a moderator:
an environment thug
just because I'm emotional about this issue does not mean I'm a 'thug'. In fact yelling is said to indicate not being heard. I think LoneShaman's prophetic proviso, about the elite, confirms the environment movement is not being heard, it is being manipulated. And you've already assumed
I have no hope of selling an environmental benefit solution.
 
LoneShaman,
Taken in isolation as a chemical-based experiment, it is possible to show CO2's impact on light; but does that relate to CO2's impact on say, inhalation? It is saying CO2 has little impact in this particular experimental situation, but cannot observe/comment on CO2's effect in any other. It is an isolationist approach to divining information. It is one-sided and 'microscopic' i.e. not 'macroscopic'

There certainly are other aspects in relation to CO2. One in particular is that it is essential for life. Given that it basically a trace gas, inhalation is not an issue. We can only speak in terms of effects as it relates to this particular issue, that being AGW.

I don't clearly know what you mean by "I'm more of a mystic than a science type" I'm not dissing science as not having a valid view, but only in its puny, self-referential basis, of presuming to have all the answers by stripping away perception in context. Perhaps only geniuses like Einstein and Tesla are fluent in both. Even Greta has admonished that world 'leaders' "listen to the scientists" though you may say 'this, not that, scientist' which is more 'splicing' of information. The mistake is to separate the parts to find the whole truth. You won't.

When I say I'm more mystic than scientist, I am saying that I do "not splice" off information as materialists do to in forming a picture of reality. You are slicing off parts of me and doing the same as a materialist does to reality and making the same mistake. You could not be more wrong when you say "You won't". Science and mysticism require each other, I listen to both.

To use an analogy from Alan Watts. There are two types of people. Prickly People vs Gooey people.

"Prickly people are precise, rigorous, logical, they like everything chopped up and clear. Goo people like it vague"

"For example in physics, prickly people believe the ultimate constituents of matter are particles, goo people believe it's waves. In philosophy prickly people are logical positivist and goo people are idealists. And they are always arguing with each other. "

"What they don't realize is that neither one can take their position without the other person. Because you wouldn't know you were advocating prickles unless there was someone else advocating goo. You wouldn't know what a prickle was unless you knew what goo was."

"Because life is not either prickles or goo. It's gooey prickles and prickley goo."

Your argument isolates, with some very science-y diagrams, 'the element of CO2 in the upper atmosphere as it affects global warming'(?) And you find it does not. But you have lost the big picture which is that CO2 is a by-product of (one of) the fossil-fuel industry, producing other ill-effects, as my pictures show.

You just aren't not reading or comprehending what I have written several times. One of my main issues with the CO2 thing is that it forces other more important environmental issues into the background. It detracts the seriousness from them with a false issue.

Then you take that conclusion, that 'CO2 is not a problem' add some urgency by combining it with the oil-baron's, very recent fake-concern for the environment as part of a plot to continue/ramp up controlling/eliminating us (and which i agree is highly likely). So if I don't accept your contention that 'CO2 is not a problem', I am being manipulated by the elite, fair-game for a dismissive Twain quote, and doing the very opposite of contending them.

It is here that you are "losing site of the big picture".

I can't see your point in correlating, by way of CO2-in-a-tube experiment, that the environmental movement is 'wrong'? I believe you must also support it, as living remotely in Australia is going to mean almost exclusive off-grid energy? It is hard to see how we can progress with this line of argument, so let's drop it. Thanks, Alice

It is not about a tube experiment, to use your own words again... you are slicing off pieces and missing the big picture.

I do believe in living in harmony with nature and believe in working to have a cleaner world. It is hard to progress when you either do not understand or refuse to accept my views that you criticize me for not having!
 
Back
Top