swansont

Johnn was added because we can't tell what the point of their posts are

Yes, which means one is discussing a vanishingly narrow slice of the issue. Hence my "heavy lifting" comment.

The earth. The earth ultimately loses energy via radiation, and will emit in a blackbody spectrum. There are a number of processes involved in global warming, but that's all modifications of internal processes. You were discussing why were are at 15ºC rather than -18 and the implications for the power involved. Being warmer means you radiate more heat, but the amount goes up as T4. If you use the S-B law, you can figure out why the earth would be at -18C without an atmosphere. It's explained in the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law#Effective_temperature_of_the_Earth You can also see what effect the atmosphere and other processes have by looking at the radiated power at 15C. (note that the number that goes into the equation has to be in Kelvins, as in the link. This impacts some of your calculations) Then we could look at the other errors you made in your analysis. Your linear assumption was just the big one that jumped out at me.

You know, there are several people on SFN who have discussed this and might be willing to dive into the science again, if that was going to be fruitful. Based on the veneer of argument that you've made, though, you are signaling that you aren't really interested in pursuing that. If you are interested in a substantive discussion, though, just say so. But you will need to back up any claims you make, actually delve into science, and would be expected to refrain from rhetoric. One example. The reason CO2 lagged in the past but why we are in a different situation now would be something to discuss. But it has to go beyond the denialist talking points.

What goes on in this thread has almost zero impact on people going into climate science. They can simply not visit the site. It's pretty easy to do. Billions of people don't visit this site every day. If one is to enter the field, they would have to learn the science and assess the data. But that's true of any science. I fail to see how being required to become competent at your job can be characterized as a deterrent to going into that field. What "negative clicking" and "sheer emotion" are you referring to? If you agree that the data doesn't exist, how can you claim that it's happening?

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 disallows word documents. PDF if you have to upload a document, but in any event you need to post the information here (e.g. copy-paste the equations, or post a picture of them), so that people don't have to download files

The fact that some people have no beans to spill is a huge practical as well as ethical argument against torture. People will confess to anything to make the torture stop, which is why coerced confessions are generally disallowed. Where the rule of law is truly in place, at least. Even if they do have information, there is no assurance that they won't lie or mislead. What if they claim that there is another accomplice, who is in fact innocent. Do you go and torture them, too? If it's a nuke that's going to detonate in an hour, what's to keep them from just giving a wrong location once or twice, and literally run out the clock?

The fact that some people complain quite vociferously about getting negative rep means that it has an effect, so there is some hope that it might make people think a little about what they post. Yes. I think that was also tied in with the system that doled out rep points weighted by your own rep, so that a new member would have some amount of clout if they wanted to up- or down-vote. But as iNow noted, there were a few of us whose quantum of reputation grew to be quite large, so that system was abandoned. Except when they complain about the downvote, which happens, and can become a distraction. The staff would prefer that posts that are over the line get reported so these tangents are minimized (not that modnotes always stop the tangents, but it often helps to do so)

If you had looked at the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you would see that radiated power is not linearly proportional to temperature - it depends on T4. Your use of a linear relationship is incorrect. The number is wrong (except at some specific temperature, where it will be approximately correct), and the idea that a power will have a constant relation to a temperature change is also wrong. I don't understand - this says that 93% of the members agree that at least 40% of the warming is anthropogenic, and only 1% disagree that climate change is occurring. How is that to be equated with questioning climate science? Also, it would be nice to have a reference for the cited IPCC claim. Because what I found from the IPCC is "The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900" https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/ And the graph I posted earlier shows that we've warmed about 1.3-1.4ºC since then, so the IPCC does not claim "totality" Lastly, meteorologists study weather, not climate, so while they are better equipped to understand many of the arguments involved, the fact that about a quarter of them put the contribution possibly as low as 40% (for all we know, they could think it's 59%) isn't the denunciation that it's being portrayed as. Seeing as we've seen a few instances now of Scafetta playing fast and loose with the verifiable facts, perhaps you should be placing less trust in their unsubstantiated claims.

These potential energy gains are due to interactions between constituent particles. It's a problem trying to ignore them and assign the mass to the field. The mass belongs to the system as a whole.

“you have to assume that there was no doubt at all that the pedophile you held was truly guilty” (emphasis added) is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

The original claim was that this was some special event - that nobody else did this before. That’s what being rebutted. ”it demeans the ability of the affirmatively chosen candidate because the goalposts were moved in their favour for them to get the job.” I even asked you to point this out earlier, when it first came up, and you admitted you couldn’t point to anything iNow had said “it’s okay when we do it” is about the objections to the actions (response) rather than “you did it so we can” being used to justify this action, which has not happened here.

This was your unsupported claim, so you don’t get to cite it as support for the exact same claim. edit: I gave numbers (from https://www.co2levels.org ) “285 ppm (ca 1850) to 310 ppm (ca 1950)” That 25 ppm, or almost a 10% rise

Who is making this argument in support of/as justification for Biden’s position? i.e. not trotted out as a strawman

“particle with zero mass can have a momentum other than zero only when moving at an infinite greater speed” Infinite speed is Newtonian and not possible in SR. The latter limits speeds to c, which is the speed of massless particles

How about not ignoring relativity? We know that massless particles move at c and have momentum E/c

I’d like you to quote where they said that, seeing as you put it in quotes.

You made a claim. I posted actual data to show it lacked merit. Then you moved the goalpost and cherry-picked some data. Unfortunately yes, I do expect that sort of thing, but that doesn’t mean I have to let it pass unchallenged. This glosses over the logarithmic nature of the impact; the climate impact is tied to a doubling of the CO2 levels, not the value itself. Meaning that a given numerical increase has a bigger impact when the levels are low. So going from 285 ppm (ca 1850) to 310 ppm (ca 1950) had a bigger impact on temperature than going from 355 ppm (~1990) to 380 ppm (~2007) The recent rise is more dramatic, and so is the rise in temperature. But there’s nothing misleading in including earlier data. Nobody claimed otherwise. Do you have any inclination to discuss science? I doubt I’m the only one tired of the rhetoric and posturing.

! Moderator Note We can’t tell what’s yours and what’s from others. If you’re going to reference another post give us a link or proper use of the quote function. If you’re responding to someone else it should go in that thread. Make more sense if you try this again.

I was going by your argument, which you now have changed. Yes, you can cherry-pick individual dates to come up with different answers. But why make this about intellectual dishonesty?

From ~1885-1950 it’s 0.3 degrees in 65 years - 0.046 degrees per decade From 1980-2020 it’s 0.8 degrees in 40 years - 0.2 degrees per decade

Yes. That’s what I stated. That was my point. They would all have error bars, and could be further misrepresenting the information. I did an image search on “the shrinking co2 climate sensitivity” and quickly found places it was posted with its attribution: “Scafetta 2017”

I think you’re misusing “skeptic” here. A skeptic is one who is unconvinced without an examination of the evidence. Which is fine for someone entering a field, when they lack exposure to the evidence and haven’t learned the science. If you instead meant a denialist, then sure - you aren’t likely to enter a field that requires such time and effort if you’ve already decided it was bunk. But people who are saying that something is wrong while not understanding the topic or not being aware of the evidence - they aren’t skeptics. You’re also misrepresenting or misunderstanding scientists when you say all of them entering this field are activists. Some of them might be, but I’d guess that most just want to go and do the science. This is the same BS leveled at other areas of science, e.g. people who think scientists support relativity only because they worship Einstein, when scientists would be ecstatic to discover new science. To make any comparison to self-selection based on belief misses the mark. That’s the price of admission for religion. All that science requires is the ability to make objective assessments of evidence in comparison to models we have of nature.

The value of 6 used in the graph? It comes from this paper https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/15/22/1520-0442_2002_015_3117_aobeot_2.0.co_2.xml “From the probability distribution of ΔT2× we obtain a 90% confidence interval, whose lower bound (the 5th percentile) is 1.6 K. The median is 6.1 K, above the canonical range of 1.5–4.5 K; the mode is 2.1 K.” See fig. 2. It’s not a normal distribution (closer to a Poisson), so the median is skewed high. Quite high. It makes more sense to use the mode, i.e. the most likely value, of 2.1K. As the graph shows, it’s much more likely the value is around 2 than around 6. Kinda changes the whole argument, but I suspect that was the point.

EM radiation is massless. One must conclude the associated fields are massless. But the radiation has momentum.