I use Ecosia.
I have actually been pretty critical of researching it due to their claims. But everything I can find, all the open documentation shows that their claims are accurate and on the up and up.
Until I am presented reasonable contradicting information, I am happy to use it.
{steps up on soapbox}
I tend to avoid any company which claims anthropogenic climate change is accelerating adverse effects... I have written a rather lengthy paper utilizing first principles which definitively shows that not only is CO2 not the "control knob" for planetary temperature (Kelvin-Helmholtz gravitational autocompression and solar insolation are), not only is CO2 not causing "global warming", it's actually a net atmospheric radiative polyatomic coolant!
Same for water... they claim it's one of the most prevalent "global warming gases"... it literally acts as a refrigerant (in the strict 'refrigeration cycle' sense) below the tropopause; and we live, at the surface of the planet, in what can be analogized to the evaporator section of a world-sized AC unit... the more DOF (Degrees Of Freedom) any particular atomic or molecular species has increases its ability to shuttle energy from surface to upper atmosphere.
It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual "heat trapping" gases, because in the case of monoatomics (Ar, for instance), they have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit IR; and in the case of homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2, for instance), they can only emit IR when their net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision with other atoms or molecules, which decreases as altitude increases (and thus air density decreases).
In an atmosphere consisting of only monoatomics and/or homonuclear diatomics, the atmosphere could still pick up energy from the surface via conduction (ie: by contacting the surface) just as the polyatomics do; it could still convect just as the polyatomics do... but once in the upper atmosphere, it could not emit that energy to space. The upper atmosphere would thus warm (because it could not radiatively cool), and due to the adiabatic lapse rate, that would necessitate the surface warming, as well.
Remember that radiative emission to space is the only means the planet has of shedding energy... hinder the ~76.2% of energy currently removed from the surface via evaporation, convection and advection (ie: dilute the radiative polyatomics with non-radiative monoatomics and / or homonuclear diatomics), and the planet would have to shed energy via more radiative emission directly from the surface... and that means a higher surface temperature.
If the climate activists really wanted to drop global temperature, they'd be advocating for removing Argon... doing so would drop global temperature just shy of 1 K, and Argon isn't needed by flora or fauna.
The most potentially destructive outcome of the climate alarmists being diametrically opposite to reality as detailed above is that of CO2 sequestration... get CO2 too low and plants die. If plants die, animals die. That's where the planet was headed before humanity began burning fuels... it was just ~50 ppm shy of a very large swath of plant life dying because it could no longer pull CO2 out of the air to produce C6H12O6.
That's why we've experienced so much global greening in the past century or so... more CO2 for the plants to pull from the air. By all rights, if we wanted ideal plant growth, we'd want about 1800 ppm CO2... 4.235 times higher than it is now.
{steps off soapbox}
Apologies for the rant...
Thank you! Thank you for an excellent reasonable logical rejection of the myth of climate change as proposed by our so called experts. I agree our climate is changing. But it ALWAYS has been going through changes mostly caused by the changes in energy we receive from our life giving source the sun. I saw recently that 1600 climate scientists came out openly rejecting the climate change agenda because they said it is not based on science. Where you part of that group if you don't mind my asking?
I can send that paper to anyone wanting it... just message me with your email.
It's not an easy read, it's full of maths and complex topics, but anyone dedicated to knowledge should be able to grasp it.
It's been read by several physicists who found nothing wrong... I'm now attempting to get a Nobel Laureate to review it. Since I'm not a formal scientist, 'peer review' (aka pal review) is inaccessible to me, as is publication via scientific journals.
Thanks for the offer on the paper. But I probably don't have enough math expertise to properly judge it. I am not a scientist but I do have a strong electrical and electronic background. I am 77 years old and grew up in the country working on farms. I just use common sense to recognize B.S. when I see it. As you posted, plants NEED CO2 to survive. They are a great leveling agent for maintaining the CO2 level of our planet. More CO2 means more plant growth. More plant growth means more absorbing of the CO2 by the plants. The whole fake climate change agenda is fueled by the powers that be as a means to grab more power and wealth. Just follow the money to understand where this is coming from. Do you mind if I copy and repost your post on some other forums?
Careful with that logic:
A block of Swiss cheese has holes in it. The larger the block of cheese, the larger the holes. The larger the holes, the less cheese you have. Therefore, the more you cheese you have, the less cheese you have.
It's not pseudoscience, it's bog standard QM, particle theory, cavity theory, thermodynamics and the fundamental physical laws; using the concepts taken from the book Thermal Physics, Second Edition by Philip M. Morse, Professor of Physics at MIT, co-founding editor of Annals of Physics, co-founder of MIT Acoustics Laboratory, first Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, founder of MIT Computation Center.
Once you see the error the climatologists have committed, all the rest falls into place. I was a CAGW believer once upon a time, too... it was a real head-slap moment when I figured it out.
If you'd like a look at that paper, message me... it's changed a lot of minds.
Don't ruin your good reputation here by defending the demonstrably indefensible, Aravisian, especially without first checking out the absolute debunkment of same.
In a peer reviewed journal? If so, by all means post the link.
That is why scientific measurements have been showing a consistent heating trend, right?
Oh, that's right... your claims do not match observation - which again is not how performing science works. It is not about force-fitting the facts to match your presuppositions.
You are using a Red Herring.
The claim is that Methane, CO2 trap heat.
Water vapor is a variable that can trap heat or can release it.
You are misrepresenting what the science says, then you are presenting it in the manner that you claimed they were doing.
Agreed.
Agreed.
This is not true, actually. There are several means of losing energy to space.
Heat can be carried from Earth with other atmospheric particles that are regularly carried to space. This is called Thermal Escape. Advection, Conduction and Latent Heat Transfer all apply, by varying degrees. This is part of why some call climate science "complex."
While it can help to simplify things for explaining them - it will not do to oversimplify things when trying to gauge their scientific merit or to create an hypothesis.
And simplifying to mislead is, of course, entirely inappropriate.
A second time - you are using a Red Herring.
This can happen if a person either misunderstands what they read or...
If they get caught up trying to "prove the science wrong" that they start chasing random thoughts that they think lead them to conclusions.
You meant, 1 degree C, I believe. But reducing the mean global temperature by 1 Kelvin and by 1 degree Celsius is actually the same thing because the magnitude of the change is the same.
If you meant differently, please clarify.
But shifting the goal posts to Argon is meant to detract from the point that Humans have been dumping approximately 35 gigatonnes of COâ‚‚ into the atmosphere each year for the last several decades. This has risen the net COâ‚‚ to over 410 ppm. Natural process like erosion, algae and land photosynthesis, sea life carrying carbon to the bottom of the ocean etc simply cannot keep up.
The pre-industrial age before modern deforestation, industrial pollution and COâ‚‚ release has shown to be relatively stable for stretches of Millions of Years, studied through ocean cores and ice cores.
Your attempt here is to provide some dissent that Anthropogenic Climate Change is not at fault. It is presented as sideways as it is because it is utterly nonsensical. Due to its nonsensical nature, you must present it under a veil lest its obvious nature be more easily recognized.
Which is, frankly, appalling. It demonstrates that you know well that you are trying to hide the information and disguise it.
This is more than just a red herring - it is false.
Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric COâ‚‚ levels were around 280 ppm. You are suggesting that 230 ppm is the threshold for a "massive plant die-off". How do you support this in any meaningful scientific way? Again, you didn't - because you could not. Yes, some plants would die off just as many others would thrive.
You presented another unsupportable argument by oversimplifying it then presenting it sideways.
You are focusing only on plant growth of Some Heat Adapted Land plants and then presenting that as a global argument. That is completely unscientific and it makes no rational sense.
1800ppm of atmospheric COâ‚‚ might be "ideal" for some species of plants. And indeed at our current 410ppm, we have seen more green. This rational follows that the angiosperms would do a bit better with more COâ‚‚ to breath. But it's not all about them, is it?
I do not need to even bother bringing up all the other factors that an 1800ppm COâ‚‚ concentration would catastrophically effect like melting poles and sea level rise and the Global Average rise by over 6 degrees C. No... I will just point at ONE thing for you to consider:
Ocean Acidification. We have already seen this effect in history - the Great Dying. The largest and most devastating Global Mass extinction the Earth has ever endured.
You are advocating a very dangerous idea with your red herrings by ignoring large swaths of climate science and cherry-picking only what you wish others to see.
You rebutted your own claims with this post. You complain about the Large mass of "so-called experts" and then openly admit that you have no understanding of the science that the Experts Do Have.
You would do well to read up here, first:
There are lots of links to the evidence to follow.
Common Sense from a farm won't help you here.
Just a point but how does this follow the money when the money is in Fossil Fuels? I mean, that money we can plainly see and follow!
What money are the "Powers that Be in Climate Change" chasing here? The problem that makes people want to deny anthropogenic climate change is the very fact that there is no money in correcting it and it is expensive to correct it. That creates fear of having to correct it - making it easier to deny the problem, instead.
What Power are the climate scientsits chasing here?
Does being a climate scientist get you power? Does being an engineer that makes airplanes safer get you Power?
Does being a biologist studying how Orcas migrate get you Power?
Your common sense lacks any logic.
Most importantly, it lacks any means for you to Show Us Any of this money trail.
It's just a Conspiracy Claim without merit or evidence. It doesn't even follow common sense!
You do not need to work for a University or be a PhD nor a "formal scientist" in order to submit papers for peer review.
It is not inaccessible.
I have published papers, even, on the refraction of light through mediums and the group velocity of the beam.
This is not a Red Herring, this is an excuse to explain away why Mr_Magoo's paper is not published. The actuality is that publishing a paper requires that it meet rigorous standards of data matching, proper math and proper presentation and papers that cannot support themselves with verifiable information, observable evidence, supported by previous works (Of others, too), poor math or that present cherry-picked claims while neglecting global evidence (Global to the topic) are most likely going to be rejected at the gate.
Most PhD students have to make multiple attempts to get a paper submitted, even.
I see that lacking level 3 membership, you cannot access the Lounge.
Very well, I will see if I can move (temporarily) the thread to "Chat about Zorin".
This is temporary since the topic does not really fit anywhere on this forum and I am likely to close the topic.
I can debunk your climate change conspiracy claims left, right up down and any direction you want.
Unlike you and Citfa, I actually am a scientist. I know the math.
And I know the science.
You posted an off topic rant that you acknowledged was off-topic. My reputation is not dependent on you getting your way and what you want.
For the rest of this topic - all members please stay on the topic of Browsers, not pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and Conspiracy Claims.
No... the Climate Scientists are not out to get you.
Mr. Magoo,
Thank you for your paper. I did understand a lot more of it than I thought I would. Let me try to summarize it in simple terms if I can. Please correct any misunderstanding I may have gotten. First you are showing that the climate alarmist are using the wrong mathematical formulas for their calculations. They are using formulas based on the wild assumption that heat energy can flow from a cold object back to a warmer object. So in their imaginary world water can magically flow uphill.
Also they are claiming that CO2 and H2O cause global heating and your understanding of Quantum Theory shows that those two are actually responsible for keeping the earth from overheating because they have the ability to carry heat from the earth to the upper atmosphere where the heat can be radiated into space. Of course these gases do this through the natural convection cycles of the earth.
Do I have it correct so far?
In a peer reviewed journal? If so, by all means post the link.
As I stated, I'm not a formal scientist, so "peer review" is inaccessible to me. Several physicists have read it, have found nothing wrong in it... and some warmist physicists have actually broken off debate when cornered with the logic contained within the paper (Bob Wentworth on WUWT most notably, Michael Mann on Jo Nova's site, as well).
That is why scientific measurements have been showing a consistent heating trend, right?
Oh, that's right... your claims do not match observation - which again is not how performing science works. It is not about force-fitting the facts to match your presuppositions.
My claims perfectly match empirical observation (note below that temperature hasn't increased for more than 8 years and the trend is actually negative)... they do not match the 'observations' of the fatally-flawed climate models upon which CAGW hinges.
If you believe the data that always seems to be 'adjusted' in one direction only... and if you discount the fact that NASA has allowed their ground-based temperature measurement network to decline to the point that the majority of sites are now in areas where UHI affects them... and you completely discount the satellite measurements showing a complete cessation of warming for multiple years... and only if you completely ignore temperatures prior to the depths of the Little Ice Age (where the climatologists start their measurement period so they can claim "hottest year ever!").
In reality, the real-time global temperature, based upon 70878 temperature measurement stations, as of just a few minutes ago, is 57.35°F / 14.08°C / 287.23 K.
https://temperature.global/
Don't they use 288 K as the global temperature that they claim is rapidly increasing? Haven't they used 288 K for more than a decade? Where's that warming, besides within the flawed climate models? I'm old enough to remember their attempt at adjusting global temperature from 288 K to 287.64 K... it wasn't that long ago... and now it's 287.23 K via empirical measurement.
You are using a Red Herring.
The claim is that Methane, CO2 trap heat.
Water vapor is a variable that can trap heat or can release it.
You are misrepresenting what the science says, then you are presenting it in the manner that you claimed they were doing.
I am stating exactly what "The Science" says, Aravisian.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WaterVapor/water_vapor2.php
“Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, the additional water in the atmosphere further heats the surface, leading to even more water evaporating,” he explains. And even though carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that gets all of the attention, it can’t compete with water vapor in heat-trapping power.
It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual "heat trapping" gases, because in the case of monoatomics (Ar, for instance), they have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit IR; and in the case of homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2, for instance), they can only emit IR when their net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision with other atoms or molecules, which decreases as altitude increases (and thus air density decreases).
Agreed.
Then you've just mooted your own argument.
The upper atmosphere would thus warm (because it could not radiatively cool), and due to the adiabatic lapse rate, that would necessitate the surface warming, as well.
Agreed.
And again, you've just mooted your own argument.
Remember that radiative emission to space is the only means the planet has of shedding energy...
This is not true, actually. There are several means of losing energy to space.
Heat can be carried from Earth with other atmospheric particles that are regularly carried to space. This is called Thermal Escape.
It's known as Atmospheric Escape. Its effect is negligible. The planet loses ~90000000 grams of atmosphere per day... and we can calculate the amount of energy that is therefore lost:
Let us assume an altitude of 80 km, with a concomitant temperature of 198.64â„Ş and concomitant pressure of 0.1072332 Pa.
There are 0.0000649275 mol m-3 at that temperature and pressure.
90000000 grams / 28.96 g mol-1 = 3107734.8066298 mol lost per day.
3107734.8066298 mol / 0.0000649275 mol m-3 = 47864692258.747 m^3
That gives 0.160849 J mol -1 * 3107734.8066298 mol = 499,876.0359116 J
That's 473.79106487 BTU PER DAY.
The average person emits 7899.6226415094 BTU (2000 Calories) per day.
Did I say it was negligible? Yeah. LOL
Advection, Conduction and Latent Heat Transfer all apply, by varying degrees.
You'll be getting right on describing exactly how advection, conduction and latent heat transfer can occur to a vacuum.
If the climate activists really wanted to drop global temperature, they'd be advocating for removing Argon... doing so would drop global temperature just shy of 1 K, and Argon isn't needed by flora or fauna.
A second time - you are using a Red Herring.
I've got the calculations if you want them... they're long and complex, but vetted by several physicists. I'm currently attempting to convince a Nobel Laureate to review the paper.
This can happen if a person either misunderstands what they read or...
If they get caught up trying to "prove the science wrong" that they start chasing random thoughts that they think lead them to conclusions.
Oh, make no mistake, "The Science" is wrong, because the climatologists committed a very fundamental error, which I prove in the paper I've written. I even use their own Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Balance graphic to demonstrate exactly where they went wrong, and correct their error.
You meant, 1 degree C, I believe.
In the scientific endeavors, Kelvin is used because it is base zero (at 0 K there is zero energy, at zero energy temperature is 0 K, neglecting zitterbewegung.
But shifting the goal posts to Argon is meant to detract from the point that Humans have been dumping approximately 35 gigatonnes of COâ‚‚ into the atmosphere each year for the last several decades. This has risen the net COâ‚‚ to over 410 ppm.
Even NOAA admitted that anthropogenic CO2 only accounts for 3.63% of total CO2 flux (then they changed it to a ludicrous 33%)... there is no way that anthropogenic CO2 could have increased atmospheric concentration by that much. If our contribution was so great, the ~20% decrease in anthropogenic CO2 during the Covid lockdowns would have shown up in the Keeling curve... it did not.
Your attempt here is to provide some dissent that Anthropogenic Climate Change is not at fault.
I'm not only stating that humanity did not cause 'Anthropogenic Climate Change', I prove that they could not, in the paper I've written. Because the entire mechanism by which the climatologists claim CAGW to occur is unphysical.
Which is, frankly, appalling. It demonstrates that you know well that you are trying to hide the information and disguise it.
Conspiracy ideation doesn't become you, Aravisian... especially given that you've not even bothered to review the data which utterly debunks your position, utilizing bog-standard QM, particle theory, cavity theory, thermodynamics and the fundamental physical laws. The concepts are taken from Thermal Physics, Second Edition by Philip M. Morse, Professor of Physics at MIT, co-founding editor of Annals of Physics, co-founder of MIT Acoustics Laboratory, first Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, founder of MIT Computation Center.
You're not arguing against me... you're arguing against reality.
Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric COâ‚‚ levels were around 280 ppm. You are suggesting that 230 ppm is the threshold for a "massive plant die-off". How do you support this in any meaningful scientific way? Again, you didn't - because you could not. Yes, some plants would die off just as many others would thrive.
At 220 ppm, C3 plants under ideal conditions will reduce photosynthesis by ~50 to 60%. And we all know conditions are rarely ideal.
Thanks for the offer on the paper. But I probably don't have enough math expertise to properly judge it. I am not a scientist b
????
Care to explain your both claiming you are and you are not a scientist? That you both would and would not be able to grasp the math?
Yet you somehow are 'qualified' to discount a scientifically-based paper as "Climate Science Denials" without reviewing the data debunking "The Science". Amazing.
You rebutted your own claims with this post. You complain about the Large mass of "so-called experts" and then openly admit that you have no understanding of the science that the Experts Do Have.
Oh, I understand it perfectly well... so well that I've corrected the mistake made by the climatologists in my paper and demonstrate where they went wrong... and wouldn't you know it, my calculations come far closer to empirically-measured data than theirs does... or were you not aware that all of their failed predictions (which is all of their predictions) are based upon failed models which were never correlated to real-world climate conditions at any time?
The only "global warming" taking place is in those models... in the real world, temperature hasn't increased for more than 8 years, and in fact the trend is currently -0.003 C decade-1 over that time frame, per UAHv6.
You know what tipped me off to the error the climatologists had committed? Entropy... they claim all objects > 0 K emit, which means that even at thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy would have to change (look at the definition of entropy)... it doesn't, because at TE, the system reaches a quiescent state (the definition of TE) where no energy flows. They've been treating real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects! Idealized blackbody objects don't exist... they're idealizations.
So this "backradiation" the climatologists have invented out of thin air (via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) does not and cannot exist, and even if it did, it could not warm the surface due to 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense.
Just read the paper... if you can't understand it, no big deal. At least you made the effort to challenge your preconceptions. I mean, if I can convince a formerly CAGW-supporting climatologist to not only renounce CAGW, but to offer a public apology and write a book about it... well, there's a good chance you'll figure out the error they made, too.
You do not need to work for a University or be a PhD nor a "formal scientist" in order to submit papers for peer review.
Then you've never attempted to submit a paper to the same climatologists who are grubbing at the trough of CAGW.
Exactly so... in fact, I perform dimensional analysis to demonstrate that their claim that energy can spontaneously flow from lower to higher energy density is exactly equivalent to claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill.
Their fundamental mistake (one of many) is that they treat real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects. The S-B (Stefan-Boltzmann) equation is different for each, as explicated in the paper.
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
As I said, once you see it, all the rest falls into place and you realize how ludicrous their claims are.
Ad hom?
Let's be clear - this is not the case. Climate Change models do not violate the Second law of Thermodynamics.
I have not seen the paper that Mr_Magoo emailed to you - but if it is making hte above claim, it is either wrong or a Red Herring.
This statement is false and does not match the data.
Evidence?
You are focusing on short term trends in order to try to create an illusion while you disregard and ignore the long term trends. This is highly misleading since it seeks to show only a tiny sample, claim a fault, while hiding the actual global mean temperature fluctuations.
This is now the second time I must acknowledge that the effort you are making must be deliberate.
You used one quote (Which that quote is accurate, by the way). However, that is not the entirety of Climate Modeling. As I pointed out, water vapor can heat and it also can cool. This is known and accounted for in Climate Modeling.
But your claim is to suggest that Water Vapor cools and only cools. This is demonstrably false.
I have not in either case. I agreed with points that you made which were reasonably accurate. However, you use those accurate statements merely and only to give the illusion that your claims contain accuracy.
I rebutted your other claims.
But I am honest and agree with accurate statements. Those statements do not, in any way, invalidate the other comments.
This was a smart tactic.
Yes, a daily measurement is indeed negligable.
It is also 100% irrelevant.
I pointed out that your claim that the only way the Earth loses heat is through radiation as incorrect. And it is very incorrect.
And you also did your math wrong.
You assumed a potential energy whereas you need to calculate the kinetic energy.
Your use of the 80 km height is a red herring. You are trying to make it appear as though you are doing the math - but you are actually just throwing some numbers as assumptions and applying some arithmetic to them.
You would need to calculate the escape energy based on the molecule temperature and mass, not based on a height of 80km, which has no relevance to the equation.
And neither of which are even relevant. Because the escape trajectories are due to the Earths Magnetic Field carrying away particles and heat - NOT due to molecules achieving escape velocity.
So not only did you do the math wrong, with the wrong values, you focused on the wrong mechanism, too.
Using your mechanism does provide a result that is negligible. But you used the negligible mechanism and not the correct one.
This, again, leads me to suspect you are intentional in your efforts to mislead. Why would you choose that mechanism otherwise? It makes no sense to use Escape Velocity... at all. In any way. Unless - you could use it to try to make it appear as though something is negligible.
Another Red Herring.
The space in which at atmosphere thins is not a Vacuum.
These mechanisms are not applied in a vacuum, they are natural process of weather on Earth. Again - you intentionally and deliberately aim to mislead. This is not a mistake - you knew what you were doing and aimed that way.
Another red herring. You presented your claim as "the Earths Global Mean Temp would drop by 1K". How does the above address this in any way?
It doesn't. It is just word salad intended to misdirect.
You quoted Citfa saying he was not a scientist and then quoted me saying I was.
You did not attribute the quote to Citfa - and left that attribution blank.
At which point _ It is clear this is not a progressively capable argument.
This type of obfuscation and misdirection is not welcome. It cannot be effectively be debated because you are not interested in examining the evidence as a whole.
This is not a topic that is about Zorin OS, GnuLinux nor Programming. I "allowed" it briefly in order to give you a chance to answer my rebuttal in an effort of fairness. The result was more cherry-picking and misleading statements.
Accuracy is important and on this forum, we promote Accuracy.
This thread is now closed. The Original Posters behavior of
There are plenty of other forums you can try passing off your conspiracy claims and pseudoscience in like JREF, CosmoQuest, scienceforum.org and so on.
The Zorin Forum is not the appropriate venue for such nonsense.
By the way, I have heard that same fallacy that "I presented my ideas elsewhere and changed others minds and they didn't think I was wrong. They couldn't find anything wrong with my claims" from Flat Earth claims, Apollo Moon landing claims, Cantors Limit theory is wrong claims, Herbert D Claims and every other host of Conspiracy Claims. It is the most common tactic used.