Global Climate Status Report

[babe]

Spontaneous generation was the doctrine introduced by Aristotle. It was never a scientific theory. It existed many hundreds of years before the scientific method was conceived. Early scientists called BS on this and it never stood up to scrutiny. But there was no viable competing idea so it remained untested conventional wisdom. And of course it was disproved using the scientific method.

The scientific method was part of the Renaissance I suppose. But spontaneous generation was pushed on the experimental basis even after the sm was developing. Hypothesis..... proposed test..... experiment..... result..... interpretation......

All that process actually means that any subject is open, and will always be open..... to further investigation..... having a government or priestly class of experts concluding anything as "Truth" is not science. That is and always will be Religion. In our day, State-sanctioned Religion.

 

[babe]

No you don't


The physical principles are driven by the orbital structure of CO2, causing it to absorb lower frequency light, trapping heat. The differences in heat capacity is not what drives climate change.

This truth is accepted by even the staunchest climate deniers, because it is just simple science.

Seriously, where did you study P Chem? This is pretty basic stuff and you should write to your alma mater for a refund.

I'd say you're the one who needs to ask for the refund.

What do you imagine it means when I state that the existence of rotational and stretching modes of chemical bonds in a molecule mean there is a higher heat capacity?

A molecule can absorb light without converting it to physical momentum of any kind, but that generally means an electronic orbital is in an "excited" state, which will in some probability return to ground state with the emission of light. That will result in a small fraction of that light proceeding on down to earth.... or on out to space....depending on which direction you are speaking of as the source. In either case, the atmosphere has a higher net energy content while that is going on. It also means less extraterrestrial energy reaches the Earth, and less terrestrial energy goes out to space. Which do you think is the bigger issue? Well, I admit.... as more heat is stored in the surface and atmosphere, more is radiated out. It will attain equilibrium. But if we did not have polyatomic stuff it'd get damn cold at night. Intolerably hot in the day.

It is the presence of the vibrational modes, and polyatomic electron clouds,that gives greenhouse gases their capacity to convert light energy to stored heat energy. It is the reason why in the sun, metal heats up faster and cools faster than wet soil or anything polyatomic. Metal is atomic not in general polyatomic, with some crystal lattice energy sure, but nothing like actual polyatomic materials.

So with the greenhouse gases, the sun's light, absorbed, is in large part converted to heat, to simple physical motion. Warm. Long lasting Warm.

The presence of polyatomic electronic orbital structure is necessary for the absorption of light of lower frequencies, sure. But heat capacity is the reservoir that holds it and warms the atmosphere.

 

[babe]

Along those lines, last night global warming happened under my electric blanket.

I seriously hope you are joking.

I jokingly hope you're serious.....

 

[babe]

No you don't


The physical principles are driven by the orbital structure of CO2, causing it to absorb lower frequency light, trapping heat. The differences in heat capacity is not what drives climate change.

This truth is accepted by even the staunchest climate deniers, because it is just simple science.

Seriously, where did you study P Chem? This is pretty basic stuff and you should write to your alma mater for a refund.

This truth is accepted by even the staunchest climate deniers, because it is just simple science.

This single sentence contains all the evils I decry in the current "debates".

A slur against some alleged class of despicable "deniers", which actually only exist in your argumental structure.

A Postivist assertion of "Truth" only a true religious fanatic could embrace.

The invocation of "Science" in support of thinking that is about as opposite of investigative research or questioning search for better understanding as is humanly possible.

 

[One Brow]

Lets just say "covered" is a part of the logic of spontaneous generation theory. Can't let anything in to change the "spontaneous" phenomena.

One of the reasons for the cheesecloth experiments was the notion that fresh air was needed for spontaneous generation.

 

[fishonjazz]

Along those lines, last night global warming happened under my electric blanket.

I seriously hope you are joking.

Do you call it a covered wagon or a Dutch oven?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[silesian]

Do you call it a covered wagon or a Dutch oven?

I call her Susan

 

[silesian]

The scientific method was part of the Renaissance I suppose. But spontaneous generation was pushed on the experimental basis even after the sm was developing. Hypothesis..... proposed test..... experiment..... result..... interpretation......

All that process actually means that any subject is open, and will always be open..... to further investigation..... having a government or priestly class of experts concluding anything as "Truth" is not science. That is and always will be Religion. In our day, State-sanctioned Religion.

Anyone calling it truth is not correct. Is there anyone besides cooky politicians who are calling it truth? Certainly no "real" scientists. Honestly I have heard a huge number of people calling it a Theory with broad scientific consensus. Can you provide some names of people who call it truth?

 

[babe]

Looks like some attempt to trivialize this thread.....

As I noted above, a big.... as in VERY LARGE..... issue in climate is the oceanic heat content. Most researchers look at sea surface temps. Sometimes, when trying to explain a super typhoon or something else way off the charts from "normal", there is some attribution to ocean temps in the top 100 meters. We have a little more data on that.... and it is discussed by professionals making long range projections of various natural "Oscillations" in weather patterns.

Here is what NOAA has to say about oceanic temperature profiles....

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/thermocline.html

As I noted earlier, at appreciable depths, the temp of oceans is generally near 4 C, the point at which water is normally at its greatest density.

That fact is, apparently, not exactly ironclad. NOAA says at greater depths the temp is even lower. I mention the tremendous pressures at these depths, and increasing deuterium replacing hydrogen in water molecules. Some filipino entrepreneurs are trying to finance a "heavy water" mine by pumping seawater from the Philippine Trench....30,000 feet deep.... to the surface because they say it's likely deuterium oxide, a valuable necessity for some nuclear and fusion projects, and of military importance. Other isotopes of other elements may also accumulate at great depth.

But the theory of a huge Planet Earth Thermostat involving ocean waters and ice caps in counterbalancing cycles is the topic I bring into this thread, to say that "Science"...… not "Religion" not "Statistm" not "Progressive Population Manipulations", aka "lies", is subject to contested theories and findings of fact.

I don't need to be a "Climate Denier" to say increased global temps, including oceanic heat increases, are a necessary event in bringing in an Ice Age, and any human contributions to that do not necessarily deny the possible eventual Ice Age.

 

[silesian]

The scientific method was part of the Renaissance I suppose. But spontaneous generation was pushed on the experimental basis even after the sm was developing. Hypothesis..... proposed test..... experiment..... result..... interpretation......

Yeah, some did poorly designed experiments where they were "sterilizing" plant and animal matter and seeing life emerge. A pretty cool idea but they lacked the knowhow to understand that their sterilization left misroscopic life behind. And they were incapable of seeing the residual life. It was evidence supporting the hypothesis, but they made poor claims based on flawed experimental methods.

Comparing today's scientific method to the nascent efforts hundreds of years ago is..... well, let's call it a stretch at best.

 

[babe]

Anyone calling it truth is not correct. Is there anyone besides cooky politicians who are calling it truth? Certainly no "real" scientists. Honestly I have heard a huge number of people calling it a Theory with broad scientific consensus. Can you provide some names of people who call it truth?

well, besides kooky politicians and media hucksters, lessee.....

Most of the kids in say Thriller's class and a lot of other public schools pretty much get it that way, just like "Evolution" in the particular as a proof against religious "Bible" beliefs, for most people.

But you're right..…. modern philosophers along the secular humanist trajectory don't believe we have any "Truth", and that is why it's OK for us to do whatever we want, think whatever we want. Maybe. The concerning thing about todays push for socialism ala "Social Democrats" and the Chinese government.... is that somebody needs to regulate peoples' speech in public places quite particularly, for the sake of harmony in the public square.....

As I noted above, Marxism and in general Progressivism are not actually secular humanist philosophies anymore. The push for global governance to "save the Planet" has moved the needle towards a Positivist public management program where people need to be indoctrinated.

We're not far from "The Ministry of Truth" in our governance......

But hey, progressive advocates are pretty cagey. The whole idea of gradualism works pretty good as long as you don't come right out and say it like you really think.

 

[babe]

Yeah, some did poorly designed experiments where they were "sterilizing" plant and animal matter and seeing life emerge. A pretty cool idea but they lacked the knowhow to understand that their sterilization left misroscopic life behind. And they were incapable of seeing the residual life. It was evidence supporting the hypothesis, but they made poor claims based on flawed experimental methods.

Comparing today's scientific method to the nascent efforts hundreds of years ago is..... well, let's call it a stretch at best.

nah. You're saying we're in some kind of optimum understanding or maximum in our science.

I'm saying I think a hundred years or two will prove more radical than the past two hundred years.

But I do kinda agree that we're doing pretty good.... and if we can keep on the track of objective research, we have good prospects for "progress".