The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[longview]

Three questions.

1. Does CO2 trap heat?...Yes.

2. Is there more CO2 now than in the recent past? ....Yes.

3. What do we do with the extra heat?...

1- only to a point, the rest gets irradiated away into outer space

2- 400 PPB is still trace amount . . . even 800 PPB would not have even 1/10 the heat retention of water vapor OR methane gas (let alone the combination)

3- nothing . . . earth is self regulating . . . 

 

In the 70's the social engineers were planning on extraordinary taxation to "conserve" a scarce resource (mainly petrochemicals) as they were expecting a new little ice age.

 

Since then, they changed their tune and now want to "punish" consumption of carbon.  They keep changing because their computer climate models have been abysmal failures all that time.  Every prediction they have made were embarrassingly wrong.

 

Consider this . . . in the hottest deserts, it still goes back to freezing during the nighttime.  There is no real heat retention except in the oceans.  But that is where we get most of the evaporation for cloud formations.  It has been so cool lately that not enough evaporation is occurring in the north Pacific, hence the reason for California's drought.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1- only to a point, the rest gets irradiated away into outer space

2- 400 PPB is still trace amount . . . even 800 PPB would not have even 1/10 the heat retention of water vapor OR methane gas (let alone the combination)

3- nothing . . . earth is self regulating . . . 

 

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

 

 

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Skeptic

 

Pogi? Is it getting harder for you to find a rebuttal? 

[TheSkepticChristian]

 used it so successfully as a part of his misleading propaganda. 

 

80% of Utah residents don't think humans are primary drivers of global warming, so I agree that misleading propaganda is successful. 

 

Edited April 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Pogi? Is it getting harder for you to find a rebuttal? 

Rebuttal? You have offered nothing more than propaganda.

 

80% of the residents of Utah see through the ruse that is AWG. It just goes to show you that we are smarter than the rest of the country.

 

He probably gave up because there is no point in arguing with...  what did TSS call us? An ostrich.

[pogi]

Pogi? Is it getting harder for you to find a rebuttal? 

 

Sorry, didn't realize you were still actively debating me.  You have no answers to the problems that I find with man-made global warming, so I lost interest.  

 

I kind of gave up after realizing that you could not answer my questions.  My participation fizzled after posting this:

 

Yes, perhaps I am asking the wrong person. I suppose I don't really have any further desire to compare data and the interpretation thereof.  I'll find someone else, elsewhere.

 

[longview]

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

 

 

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years. 

Your post is meaningless.  You are not responding to the fact that CO2 can only absorb so much heat (to a point) then the remainder is radiated out to space.

 

Also, there is no distinction between man-made CO2 and the natural production.  In fact, natural production of CO2 far outstrips that of industrial production.

[TheSkepticChristian]

  You have no answers to the problems that I find with man-made global warming, so I lost interest.  

 

I did answer your easy questions in post 562.

 

I kind of gave up after realizing that you could not answer my questions. 

 

I told you I didn't have a lot of time, but I did answer later in post 562. 

When you said "propaganda" that means that you probably are only looking for questions, not answers. 

 

  My participation fizzled after posting this:

 

but you continued to say a lot in post 559. 

 

 

Your post is meaningless.  You are not responding to the fact that CO2 can only absorb so much heat (to a point) then the remainder is radiated out to space.

 

Also, there is no distinction between man-made CO2 and the natural production.  In fact, natural production of CO2 far outstrips that of industrial production.

 

It is easy to make any claim, but that is not what the climate researchers are observing. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. 

 

 

80% of the residents of Utah see through the ruse that is AWG. It just goes to show you that we are smarter than the rest of the country.

 

I am interested in successful scientific theories, not in popular opinion.  

Edited April 7, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Nephi Inspired]

I recently found an interesting article about the DNA testing done upon Native Americans that, supposedly, disprove the Book of Mormon and that the Native Americas came from somewhere in Asia and are NOT of Hebrew ancestry.

 

The pros and cons are interesting to consider:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

 

[Stargazer]

I recently found an interesting article about the DNA testing done upon Native Americans that, supposedly, disprove the Book of Mormon and that the Native Americas came from somewhere in Asia and are NOT of Hebrew ancestry.

 

The pros and cons are interesting to consider:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

 

I just put myself on a voluntary vacation due to personal issues, but I was attracted to your post due to what you call yourself.

 

Are you not aware that this is a 31-page thread about Global Warming?  You need to read the board guidelines and GET A CLUE.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Stargazer

[Nephi Inspired]

The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

 

It says nothing about global warming in the title. If it did I would not have shared the post here

I shared that link because of the fact that LDS church essentially says that science's evaluation of the Book of Mormon

 

IS NOT CREDIBLE!

 

If I were allowed to create my own topic thread I would not have put this post here.

What's the scene with not allowing me to create my own topic thread?

[Nephi Inspired]

I came here ESPECIALLY to share things that inspire me about the Book of Mormon

in a Mormon friendly environment and the first thing I find is I am not allowed to create topic threads

and the first response I get is from a person who is APPARENTLY, not Mormon friendly.

I'm not even allowed to edit my posts to fix grammatical errors.

Not what I would call a 'warm welcome'

[Nephi Inspired]

It's a response I would expect from Laman and Lemuel

[strappinglad]

Nephi Inspired , please be aware that a new member must have 25 posts before he/she is allowed to start a thread or edit. Nothing against you personally, it just has been board policy forever. I believe it is in the guidelines somewhere. The Social hall does allow threads for newbs . A review of topics may find one that fits yours better than this one.

I can see where your post does have some relevance to the topic but it needed to be clarified by you in that way. Be patient with us ,we are occasionally brusk.

Edited April 7, 2015 by strappinglad

[oats]

I think, in reply to the OP - we may be getting to a point where our collective understanding and perspective allows us to see the limits and boundaries of science, language, and models. Maybe we are beginning to see the flaws and limits in our own thought processes and logic.

 

Our ability to collect information and transform it into models which we can easily understand and communicates allows us a much broader vision of what exists. It also allows us a better self-awareness of our current limitations.

 

For example, a few centuries ago our ancestors lacked the understanding that the earth revolved around the sun. That perspective was shattered by discoveries enabled by advancements in technology and mathematical language (and revelation if you will).

 

Anyone who thinks the sun revolves around the earth now is universally considered backwards. Yet we still embrace, at heart, the same form of ignorance that enabled people to think of the earth as the center of the universe. On a general scale we parallel that ignorance by placing our models at the center of our thought. We work with the idea that the universe fits our models (mathematical, scientific, language) in the same way people thought the sun revolved around the earth. Now it is common to think the way the universe works revolves around the models we've made to predict how it works.

 

More people now have access to greater amounts of information, which can be collected by greater technology. We can aggregate and analyse that information to create better, more accurate intelligence. Collectively we are beginning to see that to consider something 'right' or 'true' means that we must accept an assumption or axiom, or a reference point of uncertainty. 

It humbles me. It ought to humble humanity. It tells me that nobody is above the law, that there is always something greater. Maybe not unlike the analogy(?) the Lord uses to teach Abraham:
 

9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

 

 

Not only this, but it clarifies to me that the greater characteristic of being intelligent is the ability to correct myself and act more correctly than I currently do. It does not mean that I must be 'right' or 'true' or that I must know everything. Of course this understanding is contingent on whether or not real intelligence revolves around my definition of intelligence

 

It also clarifies, to me at least, that there is close connection between the LDS sense of revelation and the advancement enabled by the language of science. They both look to increase our light and knowledge, and advance our intelligence. 

Edited April 7, 2015 by oats

[thesometimesaint]

1- only to a point, the rest gets irradiated away into outer space

2- 400 PPB is still trace amount . . . even 800 PPB would not have even 1/10 the heat retention of water vapor OR methane gas (let alone the combination)

3- nothing . . . earth is self regulating . . . 

 

In the 70's the social engineers were planning on extraordinary taxation to "conserve" a scarce resource (mainly petrochemicals) as they were expecting a new little ice age.

 

Since then, they changed their tune and now want to "punish" consumption of carbon.  They keep changing because their computer climate models have been abysmal failures all that time.  Every prediction they have made were embarrassingly wrong.

 

Consider this . . . in the hottest deserts, it still goes back to freezing during the nighttime.  There is no real heat retention except in the oceans.  But that is where we get most of the evaporation for cloud formations.  It has been so cool lately that not enough evaporation is occurring in the north Pacific, hence the reason for California's drought.

 

No. The heat goes to the equilibrium of the new CO2, and other Greenhouse Gas concentration. 

 

Trace amounts are all that are necessary. Your body has trace amounts of Iron. Without that trace amount you wouldn't be alive.

SEE

 

It was republicans that proposed taxes on Carbon.

SEE http://www.npr.org/2014/06/03/318414868/gop-demonizes-once-favored-cap-and-trade-policy

 

The earths heat is not self regulating. All it can do is go to equilibrium.

[Nephi Inspired]

Nephi Inspired , please be aware that a new member must have 25 posts before he/she is allowed to start a thread or edit. Nothing against you personally, it just has been board policy forever. I believe it is in the guidelines somewhere. The Social hall does allow threads for newbs . A review of topics may find one that fits yours better than this one.

I can see where your post does have some relevance to the topic but it needed to be clarified by you in that way. Be patient with us ,we are occasionally brusk.

 

Thank you for your kind reply

 

It's the type of reply I expect from a forum

 

that is supposed to be Mormon friendly

[Nephi Inspired]

If I could edit my posts I would have added this to my above post.

First of all let me state that I no longer blindly believe ANY INFORMATION

I have not personally verified as true

 

Yes, that includes science, religion, the evening news, etc....

I do not reject information I have not personally verified,

but I hold it in question until I do verify it.

 

I've been tricked too many times and I finally put my proverbial foot down

on all those who would intimidate me into blindly believing anything!

 

Granted there are certain things I must blindly believe

but these things are empirically verified. For example:

 

I must blindly believe that life is worth living or I cannot function

 

I must blindly believe that if I work towards a worthwhile endeavor

I will achieve positive results or I will not strive for anything

 

I DO NOT have to blindly believe in science or religion!

I've learned something from the Piltdown Man hoax scandal

that BLIND FAITH IN SCIENCE ATHEISTS refuse to learn.

 

Before you blindly believe all the science postulations on this topic thread,

that you have not personally verified as true and accurate,

I suggest you study into the Piltdown Man scandal

and how the Piltdown Man was in SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS

as an empirical example of Darwin's precious "missing link" for 40 years

before it was proven to be a hoax.

 

The science brainwashed tend to relay science as though

'You can always trust mainstream science!'

From my studies that is far from the case

 

I believe those in power have THEIR controlled science

tell us whatever THEY want us to believe on any subject.

If they put a taboo on ANY SUBJECT mainstream scientists

risk losing their careers if they openly talk about those subjects

 

Among those subjects are:

 

Psychic abilities

 

UFOs

 

and

 

The concept of Intelligent design

 

People blindly believe the Earth is round

for the VERY SAME REASON they once believed the Earth was flat!!

 

THEY HAVE BLIND FAITH IN OFFICIAL AUTHORITY FIGURES!

 

To ANYONE who says to me that everyone knows the Earth is round I say:

 

Well, the Earth is pretty flat where I live. If the Earth is round where you live

that must be terribly inconvenient!

 

Do you know for a fact that the SUPPOSED curvature of the Earth you see

when you view the horizon of the ocean is not some sort of optical illusion?

NO, YOU DON'T!! You blindly believe it is not an optical illusion

for the very same reason people once blindly believed the Earth was flat.

 

So, I suggest you keep this in mind as you bandy your supposed scientific facts

about global warming. Is there any hidden agenda in this information?

Are you being told what those secretly in charge of the world

 

WANT YOU TO BELIEVE?

 

It's important to consider this before presenting scientific information

 

SCIENCE SHOULD NEVER BE BLINDLY TRUSTED!

 

I suggest you learn from the Piltdown Man scandal

[Calm]

You blindly believe it is not an optical illusion

for the very same reason people once blindly believed the Earth was flat.

 

I do not believe that those who thought the earth was flat had pictures from space telling them it was so.

 

IMO nothing should be blindly trusted.  The scriptures provide ways to examine life and grow faith through experience.

Edited April 7, 2015 by calmoriah

[Nephi Inspired]

I do not believe that those who thought the earth was flat had pictures from space telling them it was so.

 

So, when you see a picture of a UFO do you blindly believe it is real?

SUPPOSEDLY, photos of the moon have been airbrush altered

so that the rest of us cannot see there are obviously created structures on the moon

 

When YOU go out into space THEN you will know for certain what is out there

until you do all you have to go on is blind faith in the evidence presented

just as all once had blind faith that the Piltdown Man

was Darwin's precious "missing link"

[Calm]

I have studied the mathematics and physics that demonstrate the why of the shape of the earth.  I have done that myself and confirmed that it works.

 

The amount and varied sources of pictures and videos and live feed from space from all over the world are sufficiently greater than UFO pictures and can be duplicated pretty much on demand.

[Nephi Inspired]

I have studied the mathematics and physics that demonstrate the why of the shape of the earth.  I have done that myself and confirmed that it works.

 

The amount and varied sources of pictures and videos and live feed from space from all over the world are sufficiently greater than UFO pictures and can be duplicated pretty much on demand.

 

What I empirically know is the Earth is pretty flat where I live.

If the Earth is round where you live that must be terribly inconvenient

 

Does your precious math suddenly make the Earth round where you live?

 

Are you absolutely certain all photos from the Hubble telescope are real?

Really? You've been out there and verified the truth for yourself?

 

As for myself:

 

Maybe the Earth is round and maybe it's not

Maybe Jesus rose from the dead and maybe He didn't

Maybe global warming is real and maybe it is not

Maybe what is supposedly going on in Nigeria is true or maybe...

 

etc....

[Nephi Inspired]

It no longer works for me to blindly believe ANY INFORMATION

I have not personally verified as true and accurate.

 

I've been there and done that and been tricked too often!

[thesometimesaint]

If I could edit my posts I would have added this to my above post.

First of all let me state that I no longer blindly believe ANY INFORMATION

I have not personally verified as true

 

Yes, that includes science, religion, the evening news, etc....

I do not reject information I have not personally verified,

but I hold it in question until I do verify it.

 

I've been tricked too many times and I finally put my proverbial foot down

on all those who would intimidate me into blindly believing anything!

 

Granted there are certain things I must blindly believe

but these things are empirically verified. For example:

 

I must blindly believe that life is worth living or I cannot function

 

I must blindly believe that if I work towards a worthwhile endeavor

I will achieve positive results or I will not strive for anything

 

I DO NOT have to blindly believe in science or religion!

I've learned something from the Piltdown Man hoax scandal

that BLIND FAITH IN SCIENCE ATHEISTS refuse to learn.

 

Before you blindly believe all the science postulations on this topic thread,

that you have not personally verified as true and accurate,

I suggest you study into the Piltdown Man scandal

and how the Piltdown Man was in SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS

as an empirical example of Darwin's precious "missing link" for 40 years

before it was proven to be a hoax.

 

The science brainwashed tend to relay science as though

'You can always trust mainstream science!'

From my studies that is far from the case

 

I believe those in power have THEIR controlled science

tell us whatever THEY want us to believe on any subject.

If they put a taboo on ANY SUBJECT mainstream scientists

risk losing their careers if they openly talk about those subjects

 

Among those subjects are:

 

Psychic abilities

 

UFOs

 

and

 

The concept of Intelligent design

 

People blindly believe the Earth is round

for the VERY SAME REASON they once believed the Earth was flat!!

 

THEY HAVE BLIND FAITH IN OFFICIAL AUTHORITY FIGURES!

 

To ANYONE who says to me that everyone knows the Earth is round I say:

 

Well, the Earth is pretty flat where I live. If the Earth is round where you live

that must be terribly inconvenient!

 

Do you know for a fact that the SUPPOSED curvature of the Earth you see

when you view the horizon of the ocean is not some sort of optical illusion?

NO, YOU DON'T!! You blindly believe it is not an optical illusion

for the very same reason people once blindly believed the Earth was flat.

 

So, I suggest you keep this in mind as you bandy your supposed scientific facts

about global warming. Is there any hidden agenda in this information?

Are you being told what those secretly in charge of the world

 

WANT YOU TO BELIEVE?

 

It's important to consider this before presenting scientific information

 

SCIENCE SHOULD NEVER BE BLINDLY TRUSTED!

 

I suggest you learn from the Piltdown Man scandal

 

It was science that disproved the FRAUD that was Piltdown man.

SEE http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/460690/Piltdown-man

 

More to the point nothing of the natural world should be taken on faith. But must be repeatedly measured/tested.

It was the ancient Greeks who proved the earth was round like a ball. Further measurements confirm it is very slightly pear shaped.

[Nephi Inspired]

Science proves something it true then proves it to be a fraud

Why should you blindly believe ANYTHING science currently says?

Tomorrow science may prove it to be untrue.

 

I used to be brainwashed to blindly believe mainstream science.

My days of such gullibility are OVER

 

If you want to blindly believe all that information about global warming

go right ahead! I don't intend to even try to stop you

 

As for me: Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't

What I do know is there is no indication that the overall temperature

is any different than it usually is in my area of the world

May it always stay moderate no matter what science may say!