swansont

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.

You’r overlooking the physics involved. Specifically, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Nobody claimed the science is flawless. One of the flaws of the graph you provided is that does not include the error bars on the results. If you want to know how they came up with that result you need to read their paper, not some shoddy critique, and also not focus on one individual result. It’s cherry-picking.

The information about absorption in gases is quite extensive, certainly the basics are covered. Not finding the data means you haven't looked in the right place. NIST, for example, has an extensive database about atomic and molecular absorption. What "basics" need re-working? Did you ever consider the state of experimental science 160 years ago? Or theoretical, for that matter? Tyndal's work preceded Mendeleev's introduction of the periodic table! Which doesn't matter a whole lot, since the state physics going backward in time, before Tyndall doesn't incorporate a whole lot. The point was to show that better measurements being made over time is a standard part of science, and your dissatisfaction over a convergence of a factor of 2 or 3 is really just indicative of an ignorance of how experimental science progresses. And arguments from a position of ignorance don't carry much weight with most people. How are you arriving at your numbers?

There is no job application here. That’s not a technicality; this is an appointed position. edit: xpost

There are people in the GOP who have spoken out, with fake concern. Evidence to the contrary aside. Perhaps, but who is saying that? But who is claiming that goalposts were moved for this candidate? The only ones I see are the ones who have already suggested that a black woman can’t be qualified, without even knowing who that candidate is, or what her qualifications are. i.e. that being black and a woman automatically equates to being unqualified. edit: the goalposts are where they’ve been for quite a while “Joe Biden isn’t first to prioritize race, gender in picking SCOTUS nominee” https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/28/sean-hannity/joe-biden-isnt-first-prioritize-race-gender-pickin/

The perspective of being a black woman is not a quality possessed by any of the current or past justices. If that’s a quality you want on the court, so that it would be more representative of the population, then black women would be the only qualified group. White men, for example, would not be qualified. The GOP “concern” is manufactured. There should be no trouble finding a black woman with better judicial bona-fides than Amy Coney Barrett, who they deemed qualified to sit on the bench.

How do you feel about the speed of light? It was once thought to be infinite, so it underwent a more dramatic improvement in precision, albeit over a longer time range. https://interestingengineering.com/a-brief-history-of-the-speed-of-light That was for the CO2 absorption spectrum, not climate sensitivity

Did you notice that this refers to food that was being refrigerated?

A plant is making a conscious response?

Googling “carbon dioxide absorption spectrum” only yields about 19 million results The graph shows no such thing. The scale on the graph only covers a factor of 6, and the data doesn’t even span that scale.

Where are you hearing this?

How so? You keep making these vague complaints that make no sense. What would you compare a deviation to, if not the average? Apparently not as well as you thought… Life is part of biology and chemistry, not physics/cosmology. Unless you are arguing that life arose because our location in the cosmos, rather than the conditions on earth.

Have you tried using a search engine?

What’s being manipulated? It’s a small deviation. A bump or divot on the billiard ball, so to speak. From your link: The "Cold Spot" is approximately 70 µK (0.00007 K) colder than the average CMB temperature

As you point out, it’s not sealed, so why would they take that into account? But it’s the concept of why the components don’t fall into the sun; you’ve just added a new element. No doubt it would be more complicated, but the point is that the pressure is not going to keep it centered, since there is a similar pressure at all points. You need a different pressure on opposite sides to give a restoring force in a given direction. No, I don’t agree. The mass loss due to the solar wind is negligible. The sun would have “evaporated” long ago if that were the case. The pressure of the solar wind comes from the momentum of the particles. Their velocity is significant (many keV of KE) and some of this will be lost upon impact with the structure. So there aren’t a lot of atoms. It’s about 1.5 million tons (3 x 10^9kg) per second, as compared to the mass of 2 x 10^30 kg. https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/solar-wind-versus-fusion-how-does-the-sun-lose-mass.html

! Moderator Note You've been told before that this is insufficient for discussion. Get an instagram or tumblr account.