SamuelTheLamanite Posted February 7, 2018 Author Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: God does not make a habit of opening doors we are not willing to walk through in any case. I am not sure what you mean. Do prophets only say things that we want to hear? Edited February 7, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I am not sure what you mean. Do prophets only say things that we want to hear? No, but he is not likely to bless us with solutions if we would not implement. Plus the world is incredibly wicked so that hampers God blessing the world.
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 50 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: In all honesty kiwis65 most of us are not concerned at all about climate change and overpopulation. As an apostle our prophet President Nelson basically said overpopulation is false doctrine. "Now, let me ask you a question. Is the world truly overpopulated? ... So the real question is, do we have faith in the word of the Lord? He said, “For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare” (D&C 104:17)." http://www2.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2010_01_26_Nelson.htm. I believe in the words of President Nelson, so I am not worried about a possible monster pandemic disease, God will take care of us. Who is going to give billions of dollars necessary for the research and better colliders? We Mormon are more concerned about other things such as secular attacks on our religious freedom, so don't expect us to donate to projects like LPPFusion. There are such projects asking for money, but won't get a single dollar from me https://lppfusion.com/funding/donate-to-help-the-research/ We would join the fight to combat climate change. Projects like lppfusion would see an increase in funding. Our small state Utah wouldn't be number six in carbon dioxide pollution https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865604170/Utah-ranks-No-6-in-the-country-on-carbon-dioxide-pollution.html "A new report ranking carbon dioxide emissions produced by power plants puts Utah's rate at No. 6 in the nation but also notes significant strides made by industry in reducing other pollutants." If the prophet announces man made climate change is bad (not necessarily the end of the world) it would be very significant. But honestly Nehor, God is more concerned about Bishops being recorded than he is about climate change. There is no need to worry about climate change because God hasn't revealed it to our prophets. An important mission of the church is our "spiritual and temporal well-being". We have things like the word of wisdom because God takes care of us, so I am going to place all my trust in the church and not worry about climate change. No warning, No need to worry. What does population control have to do with this? God will not allow a pandemic? Are we reading the same book of Revelation? If so how can you say plagues are out of the question? Please speak for yourself. I do donate to scientific endeavors as I can. I also do not donate to organizations protecting religious freedom. I am not even sure what that would be. As to your refusal to believe it can possibly be a danger unless a prophet has spoken perhaps the words of Elder Oaks from early last year will satisfy this need: “These are challenging times, filled with big worries: wars and rumors of wars, possible epidemics of infectious diseases, droughts, floods, and global warming. Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife. Nations whose prosperity depends on world peace and free trade worry about disturbing developments that threaten either or both of these. We are even challenged by the politics of conflict and the uncertainties sponsored by the aggressive new presidential administration in the world’s most powerful nation.” https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/push-back-against-the-world?lang=eng&_r=1&cid=HP_WE_1-3-2017_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL2-3 Uh oh. Looks like an apostle is saying it is a real worry. 3
longview Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 11 hours ago, kiwi57 said: The point that this experiment fails to notice is that the bottle itself is doing the function that CO2 does in the atmosphere - only it's doing it far more efficiently. Thus, the small difference in CO2 levels between the two bottles will only make a minuscule difference compared to the effect of the bottles themselves. Now we are getting somewhere. Are you saying that the membranes of both bottles are capturing the infrared energy equally? Leaving little or no IR to pass through to interior gasses? How much IR could completely pass through the bottles into the room? Maybe the membranes are reflecting the IR? This suggests the use of a photometer that will accurately measure IR. In addition to temperature readings, we will need to note three more readings: 1- IR level between Sun and window; 2- IR level between window and the bottles; 3- IR level between the bottles and the room. Record the readings hourly. This brings up a whole new set of questions. Which points out the utter futility of ANY kind of computer models to represent sufficient parts of the complex and chaotic atmosphere. It is sheer hubris for the social engineers to claim to know what they are doing!
MiserereNobis Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 27 minutes ago, longview said: Now we are getting somewhere. Are you saying that the membranes of both bottles are capturing the infrared energy equally? Leaving little or no IR to pass through to interior gasses? How much IR could completely pass through the bottles into the room? Maybe the membranes are reflecting the IR? This suggests the use of a photometer that will accurately measure IR. In addition to temperature readings, we will need to note three more readings: 1- IR level between Sun and window; 2- IR level between window and the bottles; 3- IR level between the bottles and the room. Record the readings hourly. This brings up a whole new set of questions. Which points out the utter futility of ANY kind of computer models to represent sufficient parts of the complex and chaotic atmosphere. It is sheer hubris for the social engineers to claim to know what they are doing! The bottle experiment fundamentally does not work as a representation of earth’s atmosphere and the effects of CO2. Please go back and read the scientific article I posted to find out its flaws.
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, longview said: Now we are getting somewhere. Are you saying that the membranes of both bottles are capturing the infrared energy equally? Leaving little or no IR to pass through to interior gasses? How much IR could completely pass through the bottles into the room? Maybe the membranes are reflecting the IR? This suggests the use of a photometer that will accurately measure IR. In addition to temperature readings, we will need to note three more readings: 1- IR level between Sun and window; 2- IR level between window and the bottles; 3- IR level between the bottles and the room. Record the readings hourly. This brings up a whole new set of questions. Which points out the utter futility of ANY kind of computer models to represent sufficient parts of the complex and chaotic atmosphere. It is sheer hubris for the social engineers to claim to know what they are doing! So because your pathetic experiment was discredited as simplistic and unworkable you are now by fiat going to declare all experiments and models invalid because it is obviously too complex because the bottle experiment is found to not track all the variables. And you are accusing others of hubris? Is this a desperation “Your models are all stupid TOO!!” Defense? Edited February 7, 2018 by The Nehor
longview Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: The bottle experiment fundamentally does not work as a representation of earth’s atmosphere and the effects of CO2. Please go back and read the scientific article I posted to find out its flaws. No reason to give up on isolating certain variables for simple structured experiments. We should be able to determine the effects of sunlight on different concentrations of CO2. Maybe plastic bottles is not the way to go but we should be able to set up an apparatus to precisely measure the inputs and outputs. At least try to get the components (subsets) understood and go from there, adding more and more configurations. We simply cannot trust the computer models projections.
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, longview said: No reason to give up on isolating certain variables for simple structured experiments. We should be able to determine the effects of sunlight on different concentrations of CO2. Maybe plastic bottles is not the way to go but we should be able to set up an apparatus to precisely measure the inputs and outputs. At least try to get the components (subsets) understood and go from there, adding more and more configurations. We simply cannot trust the computer models projections. Actually we can accept that the computer models are not perfect but they are generally correct and continue to work on refining them. Going back to irrelevant elementary school experiments is just a obstructionist dodge to keep the question “unsettled” so that we do not ever have to do anything.
longview Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: So because your pathetic experimen was discredited as simplistic and unworkable you are now by fiat going to declare all experiments no models invalid because it is obviously too complex because the bottle experiment is found to not track all the variables. No fiat here. I have not given up on this experiment or any others. It is important to answer questions using physical processes. Just as important is knowing what questions to ask. The people deserve to know how sunlight effects CO2 using verifiable and repeatable experiments. To shield yourself with the mind boggling complexity of the atmosphere is an irresponsible cop out.
longview Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 21 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Actually we can accept that the computer models are not perfect but they are generally correct and continue to work on refining them. No short term predictions in the last 30 or 40 years have panned out. There is no credibility in the computer models because they refuse outsiders to examine the contents. It is extremely irresponsible to stampede the public into ruinous constriction of the quality of life and overbearing government.
MiserereNobis Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 39 minutes ago, longview said: I have not given up on this experiment or any others. Are you reading my posts? That experiment using CO2 is fundamentally flawed as shown the paper I posted previously. That paper is also not the only peer-reviewed scientific article criticizing such experiments. Here is another one. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall, but here's the abstract: Quote 'Climate change in a shoebox': a critical review M Bertò1, C Della Volpe2,3 and L M Gratton1 Published 31 January 2014 • 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd European Journal of Physics, Volume 35, Number 2 Abstract The laboratory replication of the greenhouse effect appears deceptively simple. Using a cubic box illuminated by an ordinary lamp, one may show some of the phenomena present in the climate system. It is nonetheless necessary to use a lot of physical ingenuity to understand the complex interaction of radiative and convective phenomena which characterizes such a simple system. In this paper we introduce a critical review of some experiments in the literature and suggest a new and original experimental set up using an unusual gas; in this way we overcome some of the limitations of the typical laboratory experiment, confirming the possibility of using it in educational physics laboratories without any lack of physical plausibility. You should give up on experiments that are shown to be flawed and not applicable to what you are trying to test. 1
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 57 minutes ago, longview said: No fiat here. I have not given up on this experiment or any others. It is important to answer questions using physical processes. Just as important is knowing what questions to ask. The people deserve to know how sunlight effects CO2 using verifiable and repeatable experiments. To shield yourself with the mind boggling complexity of the atmosphere is an irresponsible cop out. You say this as if no one has ever looked at it. Do you think they built these models and just guessed how everything would interact? Is this how you evvision this working? ”Hmmmm.....maybe nitrogen sings songs when hit by sunlight. Put that in the model. Argon probably teleports into space when hit by the sun....explains why the percentage is so low. Anyone know what CO2 does? No? Let’s just say it has a greenhouse effect in the upper atmosphere and call it done. Okay, according to the model the atmosphere will start wailing like a banshee and we will run out of Oxygen within twelve hours. Publish immediately before we run out of time!
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 37 minutes ago, longview said: No short term predictions in the last 30 or 40 years have panned out. There is no credibility in the computer models because they refuse outsiders to examine the contents. It is extremely irresponsible to stampede the public into ruinous constriction of the quality of life and overbearing government. By that you mean none of them have panned out exactly which is true. The demand to study computer code is sometimes refused. I understand why if quacks like the “two bottle” guy are going to ignorantly go over it. I find it strange that you believe clean air is “ruinous constriction of the quality of life”. One of the things almost everyone agrees on is that government needs the power to restrict negative externalities associated with economic activity. We restrict the fouling of common resources like air and water and the natural beauty of some (not all) of our land. If this constitutes overbearing government and ruins your quality of life I am okay with ruining your quality of life. 1
USU78 Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: What does population control have to do with this? God will not allow a pandemic? Are we reading the same book of Revelation? If so how can you say plagues are out of the question? Please speak for yourself. I do donate to scientific endeavors as I can. I also do not donate to organizations protecting religious freedom. I am not even sure what that would be. As to your refusal to believe it can possibly be a danger unless a prophet has spoken perhaps the words of Elder Oaks from early last year will satisfy this need: “These are challenging times, filled with big worries: wars and rumors of wars, possible epidemics of infectious diseases, droughts, floods, and global warming. Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife. Nations whose prosperity depends on world peace and free trade worry about disturbing developments that threaten either or both of these. We are even challenged by the politics of conflict and the uncertainties sponsored by the aggressive new presidential administration in the world’s most powerful nation.” https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/push-back-against-the-world?lang=eng&_r=1&cid=HP_WE_1-3-2017_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL2-3 Uh oh. Looks like an apostle is saying it is a real worry. If the proposed solution to a phenomenon is to (a) not marry (b) not have children (c) reduce possibility of others having children (d) not exhale because by living your are as bad a polluter as an acid rain spewing chemical plant, then You can rest assured that the the proponent of said solution for said phenomenon is either (a) not serious (b) crazy (c) a bully (d) crazy. 1
Teancum Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Why? How? If you are interested I have a few books for you to read.
Teancum Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Why? How? Why? Because you make decisions on issues that have evidence based on myths, faith and superstition. that have end up having horrible consequences. How? because say climate change is real and we can take steps to minimize but to many think the end of the world is coming (when it is not, other than by our own stupidity and perhaps a nuclear war which is still highly possible) then we don't make the correct choices and endanger our species and others.
ttribe Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 6 pages?! Every single thread by the OP = Every. Single. One. 2
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 30 minutes ago, ttribe said: 6 pages?! Every single thread by the OP = Every. Single. One. Maybe. If so he is very good at it.
ttribe Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Maybe. If so he is very good at it. I'm not disputing the quality of his trolling. In fact, I'm shining a big ol' light on it.
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 45 minutes ago, ttribe said: I'm not disputing the quality of his trolling. In fact, I'm shining a big ol' light on it. I am not convinced but it is possible. Most trolls would be more inflammatory or take the clueless persona thing a little too far and tip their hand. So if it is trolling I am impressed. Kudos.
clarkgoble Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, longview said: No short term predictions in the last 30 or 40 years have panned out. There is no credibility in the computer models because they refuse outsiders to examine the contents. It is extremely irresponsible to stampede the public into ruinous constriction of the quality of life and overbearing government. Against my better judgement I'm going to post to this thread. Both those statements are false. A climate skeptic physicist from Berkeley famously went through the data a few years ago and changed his mind because he got pretty much the same results. People who are still skeptics have to dismiss all the data because otherwise they don't have any basis for their skepticism. So you get conspiracy theories where basically all climate scientists are part of a cabal to raise taxes in the US by faking all the climate data. Which makes about as much sense as George Bush blew up the twin towers and the CIA killed Kennedy with an extra sniper. The short term predictions have frequently panned out. The one exception was the plateau from a few years ago that turned out to be due to deep water warming that wasn't accounted for in the models. Depending upon what you mean by short - I mean 10 -15 years. Climate predictions aren't expected to be accurate less than 10 years because we're talking climate not weather. Skeptics tend to highlight models that don't work but carefully ignore the ones that do. Or else they give misleading graphs like the infamous one by Roy Spencer. (Read the answers at the link) The below shows the model predictions, their average, and measurements. Now again, as I mentioned, most models have overestimated slightly warming in recent years. The general consensus is that this was deep water warming not accounted for by the models. There is some evidence that trend has ended though. But we'll have to wait a few years to see how the different models trying to adjust for that effect pan out. I'll probably not chime in again unless someone has verified data without conspiracy theories. My personal view is that the majority of climate change skepticism arose due to the contested election of 2000 and Al Gore going to make his infamous film. That was a period of rapid polarization and the rise of tribalism along with anti-climate backlash on talk radio. Because Democrats wanted expensive regulation and Republicans were skeptical of this, that policy skepticism morphed into skepticism of the phenomena. That's unfortunate both because I think we could easily have reached a bipartisan compromise (increased nuclear power plant construction, carbon taxes offset by large cuts in corporate taxes). But neither side wanted that. Both sides demonized the issue and it became a marker for tribal identity. Before the Al Gore circus most Republicans accepted climate change. Since then even those who believe typically have to keep quiet. There certainly are many conservatives (like myself) who accept the phenomena but don't favor the solution from the left of heavy taxes and regulation. (I'd also raise the point that if the left thought the issue as important as they say, they'd have quickly pushed for nuclear power around 2000 which could have significantly dropped greenhouse gases) Edited February 8, 2018 by clarkgoble 2
The Nehor Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Against my better judgement I'm going to post to this thread. Both those statements are false. A climate skeptic physicist from Berkeley famously went through the data a few years ago and changed his mind because he got pretty much the same results. People who are still skeptics have to dismiss all the data because otherwise they don't have any basis for their skepticism. So you get conspiracy theories where basically all climate scientists are part of a cabal to raise taxes in the US by faking all the climate data. Which makes about as much sense as George Bush blew up the twin towers and the CIA killed Kennedy with an extra sniper. The short term predictions have frequently panned out. The one exception was the plateau from a few years ago that turned out to be due to deep water warming that wasn't accounted for in the models. Depending upon what you mean by short - I mean 10 -15 years. Climate predictions aren't expected to be accurate less than 10 years because we're talking climate not weather. Skeptics tend to highlight models that don't work but carefully ignore the ones that do. Or else they give misleading graphs like the infamous one by Roy Spencer. (Read the answers at the link) The below shows the model predictions, their average, and measurements. Now again, as I mentioned, most models have overestimated slightly warming in recent years. The general consensus is that this was deep water warming not accounted for by the models. There is some evidence that trend has ended though. But we'll have to wait a few years to see how the different models trying to adjust for that effect pan out. I'll probably not chime in again unless someone has verified data without conspiracy theories. I was not suggesting they did not pan out. I was saying none of them were perfect which is true. Skeptics take the fact that they are not completely on the nose in every particular as evidence that the whole thing can be discounted which is ridiculous.
SamuelTheLamanite Posted February 8, 2018 Author Posted February 8, 2018 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: As to your refusal to believe it can possibly be a danger unless a prophet has spoken perhaps the words of Elder Oaks from early last year will satisfy this need: wow you did it the Nehor, I am now convinced. Thanks to an apostle of the Lord I now know climate change is real. Thank You. Call me a soldier for the Earth now. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: What does population control have to do with this? Nothing, but kiwis65 was arguing that we shouldn't call scientific ideas false doctrine. I quoted the words of our prophet President Nelson to show kiwis65 that we can. 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: God will not allow a pandemic? Are we reading the same book of Revelation? If so how can you say plagues are out of the question? The plagues in Revelation shouldn't be taken literally. You told me you don't take the entire Bible literally. The Book of Revelation is a book of metaphors. According to "experts" overpopulation increases the risk of monster pandemics, but our prophet made it clear overpopulation is not dangerous "“Arguments swirl around that the earth is dangerously overpopulated and that couples should restrict the number of their children. … I adjure you to believe the Lord, who said that ‘the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare’ [D&C 104:17].”" 7 hours ago, Teancum said: If you are interested I have a few books for you to read. What books?
SamuelTheLamanite Posted February 8, 2018 Author Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Now again, as I mentioned, most models have overestimated slightly warming in recent years. The general consensus is that this was deep water warming not accounted for by the models. Clark, as a new convert doing my first research I found an interesting article "A recent paper in Nature by Iselin Medhaug and colleagues suggests that the remainder of the divergence can be accounted for by a combination of short-term natural variability (mainly in the Pacific Ocean), small volcanoes and lower-than-expected solar output that was not included in models in their post-2005 projections." https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming You do sound like a very smart guy Clark. I hope you can teach me. Edited February 8, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite
USU78 Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 Wait a minute ... you're saying that during an interglacial warming period it's actually getting warmer?
Recommended Posts