Haha, somewhat. I approve.
Indeed.
Which is why I will continue to choose the shade of a tree. I didn’t even have to think about it really.
You know, the question isn’t really “where we get off” but “why we get on”.
I respect that I am talking to a rather accomplished professional programmer. (If programmer is beneath your accomplishments… kindly insert what is befitting). Edited for unintended meaning.
What I do know, is that I am highly unlikely to accumulate the knowledge necessary to be as sure as you are about the climate. I enjoy the journey. Very much so in fact.
I do wonder, are you so sure of arriving at facts when the entire scientific enterprise of whom there are those equally professionally proficient, if not more so, than yourself, are saying otherwise?
Would it be absurd for me to question you on some point of programming? Maybe. Sometimes a rank amateur can spot a flaw. However, it’s the aspect of having new eyes, (also know as wonder) which allows that; not the amateur status.
If someone where to lecture me, as sometimes happens, about a costing I have done, I have indeed learnt over the years that although 999 out of 1000 times they are wrong, I will do the exercise of checking.
Which is what science is, after all the politics and economics is stripped away; checking repeatable findings.
So until (never) I have a degree in climatology, a fully stocked lab, with lasers of course, and preferably a few rather dashing assistants, just because, I really can only stand in the shade and otherwise wonder; is Claudiu going to become a climatologists?
I think you would be very good. If not somewhat poor and left field. 
Edit; I don’t mean that last statement as a slight, but rather a recognition that anyone who stays from the “mean” inevitably has to pay their own way. Whether it’s worth it, well, that’s a personal judgement. I am all for walking away from the crowd. However, I am careful now , in considering it for reals, exactly what that means.
This is indeed a fact. The chances however a usually slim that science doesn’t otherwise correct itself.
I have come to discover that every good thing came to me through cooperation. Competition, is usually a very wasteful and marginal activity.
Too much cooperation, when it descends into conformity for the sake of the imagined peace; not great results at all. Usually bad.
I wonder though, is it really the science that is in question, or the political/ economic aspects which are in question?
Not to say that fundamental errors are not made through the politics and economics coming first.
My 10 year old self was enraged at the Catholic church for just such reasons. The cover ups, the blatant power hungry sexual predatation… (Spelling…agg! The more I learn Russian, the less I care about english spelling. Such a mess…,)
Parenthetical point in case, convention can indeed come before factual practically.
To the point of whether the one in a thousand times a rank amateur is correct;
Is there any properly qualified voices that you could recommend me reading?
So that instead of a back and forth, I could get a better grip of the topic?
Unrelated, but in spirit applicable;.
My favourite world of tanks dude;
Ok how about this one?
Take a hot plate:
Say it turns on to full power and the surface gets to 40°C.
Now stick a glass dome on top of it. Will the air inside get to > 40°C? Will this make the surface heat to more than 40°C? What if you pump it full of CO2 or water vapor or CH4 or whatnot?
Because that is what the anthropogenic global warming model says happens to the Earth! That the presence of the air increases the surface temperature.
If it were true then you should be able to make the hot plate get to hotter than 40°C because of the ‘back-radiation’ from the air to the hot plate… try it, fill it with the best most wonderful heat maintaining gases you can imagine 
Indeed this intuitive recognition means you instinctually recognize that a climate scientist, who makes their living with climate science, will be in seriously dire straits if they start going against the grain!
So say you did get that impressive degree in climatology and now you have some equally impressive 6-figure debt to go along with it. Now you are choosing your research topic. Will you spend it trying to disprove the basis of global warming, which you know will lead to you being out of a job? Or would you pick something that would support it if the research pans out?
You can’t strip the economics away, that’s part of the problem…
1 Like
@Andrew Congratulations, you’ve been called upon to back up this statement that Richard is presenting an “opinion” as opposed to stating facts:
RICHARD: Addendum: According to Andrew on the “Global Warming-Climate Change” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum – who myopically commended ‘JonnyPitt’ recently regarding how he “took one for the team” in starting his flawed-from-the-get-go [1] “Cause of Bias” thread – the contents of this March 13, 2023, article (with its ten paragraphs summarised and numbered one-to-twelve, above, for convenience in comprehension) is but “an opinion” Richard and Vineeto have.
(Incidentally, and just in case it has escaped any casual reader’s notice, the entire “Cause of Bias” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum is rendered null and void by the marked absence of examples of bias from those in whom identity in toto is extinct).
Accordingly, Richard and Vineeto invite Andrew to publicly point out which of those summarised items numbered one-to-twelve, for convenience in comprehension, are not factual and/or are not actual such as to represent “an opinion that Richard and Vineeto have”.
This is from an update to Richard’s article, at the bottom of the page: Global Warming .
If I were you I would read it all again carefully before answering!
-
JonnyPitt’s “Cause of Bias” thread is flawed from the get-go inasmuch his basic premiss regarding bias not being a product of ‘self’ is a premiss based upon calumny thence traducement (i.e., upon a strawman and a red-herring thence flat-out lies about “bad arguments” and “cognitive limitations” similar to “tone deafness” or “dyslexia” plus further lies, built upon those flat-out lies, about Richard and Vineeto being “stubbornly irrational”, and (allegedly) on the record with some “verifiably bat-shit crazy” opinions). ↩︎
Haha, nice. I certainly wish I could fly over and have another chat. It was indeed fun.
Firstly, and this is to Richard, It seem that the burden of finding out where those 12 points come from, is left to the reader.
Whilst I am partial to a good read, and I did ask for some sources that I could read, it’s not up to me to counter assertions without references.
As it took “7 weeks” to find the information presented, the challenge, whilst welcome is outside my current available free time.
It’s a reversal of the burden of proof.
To repeat, I am enjoying what I am finding, and I will at my leisure probably search a few of the assertions.
It may take a while, as my investment so far has been the enjoying of the conversation rather than anything coming close to an extensive investigation into something I have many times in this thread regarded as a diversion (carbon politics) from what I was otherwise always invested in; trees!
@Andrew I won’t let you get away with it that easily 
It appears you didn’t follow my advice to “read it all again carefully before answering”, or perhaps even more alarmingly you did and posted this anyway, because this is one of the points that you say the “burden” is “left to the reader” to find out where it comes from:
- The physical earth is not flat.
If you consider it a burden to find out why the earth is not flat… perhaps you shouldn’t be participating in this discussion.
Here’s another of the points:
- The physical earth is not black.
If you’re unsure how to determine that the earth is not black, public discourse is probably contraindicated in your case.
etc. etc.
If you consider it an “assertion” that the Earth is constantly rotating (“3. The physical earth is not static (it is constantly rotating).”), and need references to determine it is so… then indeed this discussion is not for you.
What you are saying, in effect, is that your assertion that Richard was stating an “opinion” was baseless, as you haven’t actually looked into it to determine what exactly Richard is saying and why he is saying it.
Interesting!
And doubly interesting as this entire thread on this forum has been discussing exactly those topics and points which Richard wrote about, with references to boot!
For example:
As you were actively participating on this thread the entire time I presumed you were actually reading what was being written… perhaps that was a mistaken presumption?
So not only was it baseless in the first place but in effect you also aren’t gonna look into it now to back it up… understood.
Perhaps the biggest ‘climate change’ in the past decades has been the climate surrounding discussion and debate, such that one bows out at the slightest challenge… with such a climate of scrutiny perhaps it is no wonder the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory survives even though it is based upon a mathematical model of a flat, black disk constantly and evenly irradiated 24/7 by a model Sun that’s actually 1/4th the strength of the actual Sun.
Cheers,
Claudiu
P.S. If you do ever follow the book reference, also relevant are Chapters 2, 3 and 7.
I have read Richard’s Global Warming post a couple of times now.
Including the summarised 12 points and tl:dr conclusion, and I am still lost.
I actually thought it would be way harder to answer, but not really. I don’t have an answer.
I can respond “of course” to points 1-6 as “of course”
Point 7, is “of course, but…” Water vapour is observability far better at it than dry air. Considering that 76% of the effect unfortunately called “greenhouse effect” is attributed to water vapour, I fail to see the point here, beyond being correct technically, but practically all gases are not equal.
Point 8 is similar to point 7. Technically correct, but practically some gases are capable of absorbing far more energy to do said radiating.
Points 9&10 are restating what the greenhouse effect is; insulation. Exactly as I stated the insulation I used to install, and is used everywhere only works because “air” is a really bad storage/transmission medium for heat.
Point 11. Of course.
Point 12. That’s another entire field of investigation which relies on the core samples from glaciers, Antarctica et al, and I have no way of answering whether it’s indeed a fact that “greenhouse gases” where higher/lower in the past.
So far, I am still trying to grasp what the actual objection is.
I found, through searching the origin of Point 2, the Stefan-Blotzmann law, and the -18 degrees. However, the tl:dr assertion "there is no “greenhouse effect” in actuality (not “greenhouse gases either)” Seems to not follow from the point made. Especially, because points 7 & 8 are actually restating the poorly named “greenhouse effect”.
Point 1. It’s actually interesting to consider that the earth would have indeed been a big black rock if it were not for the factors which gave us an atmosphere.
As a volcanic mass, forming around the sun, it’s primary surface material would be the result of volcanic activity.
Any quick search will show the colour of such a world.
There would be no other type of surface until such time that the surface had been pulverised like the moon has, and presumably it would be not unlike what we see the moon to be after a suitable period of time.
Much better 
I will leave Richard to answer your response to his public invitation, but maybe I can help you make sense of the article a bit more…
The point is that the AGW hypothesis relies upon those points that Richard enumerated.
That is, the basis of the model – the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law resulting in the -18°C for which a +33°C needs to be concocted to match reality – relies on the 1-6 “of course” points of a model of the Earth that is 1) flat, 2) black, 3) static, 4) bathed in 1/4-strength sunbeams that 5) constantly (24/7) and 6) evenly irradiate the flat/black Earth.
As you acknowledge that “of course” that is not the case… then the model has no basis in reality! i.e. there’s no +33°C that needs to be come up with… and even if there were (note: “if”), the “trace gases” wouldn’t explain it (which is what points 7-12 address).
Hope it helps!
Cheers,
Claudiu
P.S. I had a lot of trouble with this one, personally:
After I had an “aha!” moment about it, I considered this scenario that made it even clearer:
If you did literally place a flat black disk in orbit around the Sun, with no atmosphere, and it did really even out to a temperature of -18°C… what would actually happen if you then added upon this flat black disk, an atmosphere or other type of insulating layer? “Of course” the most that could happen is the atmosphere, too, would reach -18°C… since the surface would be heating the atmosphere, the surface is only -18°C, and so the atmosphere can’t heat its heat source to greater than its temperature…
But in “Quantumville”, what happens is the flat black disk’s temperature would rise… by +33°C to 15°C.
Um , no.
We aren’t talking about the surface temperature.
The “climate” is the bit we walk around in and breath and otherwise call the atmosphere.
I have never seen anyone claiming the surface is heated up, I only see the atmosphere being discussed.
To your example of the hotplate with the bowl covering it;
That is a traditional “green house” especially because you used glass. The air is trapped, and thus can’t expand. It’s why in a few articles I read, some scientists really dislike the term "greenhouse effect " because the effect is actually what Richard states in point 9&10 insulation.
Edited the points regarding insulation.
So if I am understanding the point of objection here, it’s not really about what can be easily verified with a few basic pieces of equipment (like the YouTuber I linked to) but the mechanic of how the “insulation” which Richard makes in point 9&10 actually works.
Edited the points regarding insulation.
Further to that easily experienced example, it’s nearly exactly how I cook chicken; I cover the frying pan with another smaller frying pan to trap the heat and I assume, reflect it back down onto the chicken. Really tasty, and about the peak of my culinary expertise.
Whoops, just realised I should be saying point 9&10 with regards to insulation.
I will amend my previous replies.
This simply is misrepresentation of how insulation works.
If I am cold, I pull a blanket up.
Perhaps, and just to open this up to an alternative to the accepted science; is the earth itself, being the mostly molten mass that it is, heating itself? Like me under a blanket?
Is that the counter theory here?
Because it’s one thing to say someone is wrong, it’s another to as you say “discover the facts”.
How is the earth staying livable?
I mean that really and truly.
If there is zero greenhouse effect (however poorly named) , then why is it habitable?
Oo boy I can sense the edifice is about to collapse for you. If it was anything like for me, you’re about to experience a wild ride .
Au contraire, it is the surface that is said would be -18°C without an atmosphere, and the surface that is said to heat up to +15°C as a result of the atmosphere:
Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F), rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).
Wikipedia (emphasis added)
Most participants in climate debates can agree that the atmosphere’s capacity to interact with thermal radiation helps maintain the Earth’s surface temperature at a livable level. The Earth’s surface is about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than required to radiate back all the absorbed energy from the Sun. This is possible only because most of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere. […] If the atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, Oxygen and Nitrogen, the Earth would freeze over [i.e. be -18°C] completely.
Skeptical Science (emphasis added)
The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer [i.e. +33°C] than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its [surface] temperature.
Nasa - Earth Observatory (emphasis added)
Dig in!!!
Will a blanket ever heat you to higher than your body temperature (37°C)? Because that is what is said to be happening with the Earth.
You’re still presuming the earth “should be” -18°C, and therefore that some effect is needed to explain why it isn’t… but the only reason to think the earth “should be” -18°C is the not-based-in-reality mathematical model.
Ok, so now we are getting to the crux of it.
The so named effect, which Richard asserts doesn’t exist, is because the earth as it is actually, requires only the insulation provided by the atmosphere to remain liveable?
Am I understanding it?
For whatever it’s worth, I had no idea that an assumption of -18C was being used.
I don’t know though why, considering my previous post that the earth would be a black ball had it not had what it takes to have an atmosphere, if this really is a bad assumption to make.
Short of building my own climate model, it seems still an unnecessary thing to say they are wrong.
Indeed, I would like Richard to expound on what is keeping the world liveable. Something that could be presented and tested to those of “quantumville” would indeed be world changing.
As a favour, I would ask that lots more trees be included. If indeed “they” are getting away with shonky theories for personal gain, I want to put my order in now!*
*Let someone else prove in 100 years that more trees wasn’t needed; for now, I would very much like them.