Global warming/climate change

The Watercooler
245

Hmmm I can certainly “always try to do it”, but to what end?

I am satisfied with what I’ve found in my almost-two-month intensive search.

It is clear from my experiences that engaging the “experts” (presumably climate scientists/climatologists) that you want me to engage in will not be fruitful, for the reasons I already outlined, none of which you addressed.

Further it is clear that in doing so it won’t change your opinion of the value of the ideas, nor that of anybody else who shares your way of thinking about this – as evidenced by the fact that your finding out that I have indeed gone to “more expert forums/media than this one” changed your opinion of the ideas presented from being essentially valueless because of a lack of a genuine thirst for knowledge, to being essentially valueless because I am “deeply [or ‘may be not “deeply”’] involved emotionally with this topic”. That is, it didn’t change your opinion at all.

As such, I don’t really see the purpose of taking your advice here. It seems to amount to basically advising me that I can indeed go and bang my head repeatedly on a wall, with no benefit to be had for anyone and not even the wall.

I can’t help but think that you’re attempting to somehow put me down for having emotions about this topic – as if becoming “involved emotionally” with something is a sinful act to be frowned upon!

You do realize the point of actualism is to feel your feelings fully and sincerely, and to become involved in it with all your ‘being’? As ‘being’ is intrinsically emotional, it means precisely this, to get “involved emotionally” to the fullest, to seek and to actually find!

Actualism is not something to be engaged in with detachment and non-chalance!

What I presume you mean to say is that you “see/judge/think/believe” that I have become emotionally defensive of what Richard wrote, or fervently wish what he wrote to be true (i.e. that I believe[1] in it), which emotional involvement is distorting my capacity for rational and sensible thinking about the topic.

Yet such an observation/judgement/thought/belief that you had suffers the same problem that @JonnyPitt’s did in the Cause of Bias? thread – namely, you haven’t provided any examples of me having been irrational/not sensible/factually incorrect/etc. on the topic.

Further as I am basically agreeing with what Richard wrote, you would also be saying that Richard himself suffered from some lack of rationality or sensibility when he wrote his article. (Presumably if you agreed with what he wrote you would not have qualms with me re-presenting what he wrote here.) Yet, again, you haven’t provided any examples or evidence for this.

As you have basically indicated that you have no intention of providing any examples [2], then it doesn’t appear anything fruitful can come from continuing down this line of conversation, does it?

Lastly as I spent a good part of these almost-two-months trying to prove Richard wrong about the relevance of point 11 in his article (as I wrote in my journal recently), then a key part of your premise - that I am basically deeply (or “may be not “deeply””) emotionally involved in defending something Richard wrote for the sole fact that he is Richard and I believe whatever he says (rather than, say, because he wrote something factual and I critically evaluated it with everything I got) - is shown to be invalid.

May I ask – what is prompting you to write what you wrote here in these last messages to me, since as you indicated[2:1], it isn’t due to a critical evaluation of what I’ve written? What is your goal in doing so, what are you looking to get out of it?

It’s a sincere question!

Cheers,
Claudiu

  1. “Peter: To believe means ‘fervently wish to be true’.” (source) ↩︎

  2. As you wrote that I “should expose your ideas to those who have the time, the knowledge and the will to analyze them properly” , and you are one of the people on the forum that I have exposed my ideas to, you are essentially saying that you yourself do not have “the time, knowledge, and the will to analyze them properly” . ↩︎ ↩︎

246

@claudiu

I really appreciate the the time and energy you have displayed in digging into and exploring this topic.

It’s had a massive impact on my day to day thinking.

I see more how I don’t enact certain actions because it will put me “at odds” with my feelings about who I am.

To stay on topic though, your recent posts about point number 11, have made me consider this aspect of the AGW argument.

I read an article which claims to debunk the thermodynamic objection.

That is, the sun puts out light which hits the earth without much “long wave” IR.

The defence of the greenhouse effect put forth is that the sun’s light hits the atmosphere with minimal “long wave” IR, which means the heat interacts minimally with the gases of the atmosphere. The earth, upon being heated by the total light spectrum, radiates “long wave” IR which does interact with the atmospheric gases.

What struck me about this defence of AGW, was the “greenhouse theory” predates the knowledge of “short” and “long” IR.

It also relies on knowledge which at the very earliest is a a few decades old (there were no satellites measuring IR outside the atmosphere), and is not presented in the main justifications of AGW.

This to me is a smoking gun.

On the surface, it seems like a reasonable defence. One type of IR can get through the atmosphere unmolested by gases, but can’t get out, as it’s now a different wavelength of IR.

The flaw in the defence is that the entire atmosphere is trapping the second type of IR. Meaning, the importance of CO2 has no special place in the function beyond being better that 02 or N2 at absorbing and radiating this IR.

The supposed defence of CO2, infact elevates the entire atmosphere to the level of a “one way” insulation.

247

Have you noticed though that all the supposed debunkings of the thermodynamic objection are just this - articles, explanations, calculations, models, etc. - and never experiments?

Show me one experiment where a cold thing makes a hot thing hotter and then there may be something to discuss.

For me what cinched it is this. I was driving along a highway on a fine sunny partly-cloudy day. All of a sudden I saw what the warmists were saying: that everything as I was seeing it now, all the temperatures of what I was observing — if we were to instantaneously double or triple or whatever the amount of trace gas magic substance CO2 in the atmosphere — then with the same solar input (ie the thing that is heating everything in the first place) — everything would get hotter! The ground would warm up and the skies would too. And as heat is energy it means we would be getting more energy for the same amount of input - ie free energy!

The physical world just doesn’t work this way … whatever the mathematical models (quantum mechanical or otherwise) say.

I am open to being wrong … by seeing an experiment that demonstrates the supposed phenomenon. As when the warmists aren’t touting fraudulent experiments that purport to show the GHE but don’t[1], they are saying that it can’t be experimentally demonstrated[2] — then that seems to rather settle the debate.

Cheers,
Claudiu

  1. “A number of lecture demonstrations with carbon dioxide purport to show how infrared-absorbing atmospheric gases “trap” energy. The demonstration described here shows that the temperature change observed in these demonstrations is a consequence of the density of carbon dioxide relative to air, not its infrared-absorbing property. Since the pedagogical value instructors report for the usual demonstration is based on an incorrect interpretation of the temperature change and can lead to a misconception about global warming, suggestions are made for possible replacement demonstrations.” [“Benchtop Global-Warming Demonstrations Do Not Exemplify the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, but Alternatives Are Available”], Jerry A. Bell] ↩︎

  2. “I don’t know of any way to demonstrate the planetary greenhouse effect on a laboratory scale.” [John Doty]
    “This is a pity, because even the simplest explanations of the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism are still relatively abstract mathematical models of the physics at play. For classrooms, a more concrete model would be useful. Although a demonstration involving IR radiation does not seem feasible […]” [“Benchtop Global-Warming Demonstrations Do Not Exemplify the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, but Alternatives Are Available”], Jerry A. Bell] ↩︎

248

Absolutely, the article just goes on and on and didn’t even bring up that particular defence (short range vs long range IR, that was way down in the comments.).

Which goes back to my very naive expectation to find someone at the very least with a blow torch and some dirt validating the thermal starting point of the greenhouse theory.

Nothing.

Not a single experiment.

At this point, I think that the chances of AGW in the way currently popular being correct are like winning a 40 million to 1 lottery; not impossible, but so very very unlikely.

Which is a very interesting point; there is this emotional hope that they are right.

I don’t want to be lied to so completely. I don’t want to see, yet again, the mass delusions writ so large and blatant.

I want, with no small amount of hope, that they are right.

I am so very tired of everyone being so wrong about everything important.

I should write a song about it. :joy:

249

No actualist daddy issues then? Good to know :grin:

I wonder if GHE hoaxers and climate alarmists are 2 sides of the same coin? Both seem intent on collapsing complexity and uncertainty in favour of simple reassuring (or terrifying) master narratives. And in a complex area like this how is one to tell apart the clarity of one who has seen the facts from the smugness of moral certitude?

No time to get my calculus and thermodynamics up to snuff to a degree that would satisfy me that Claudiu’s arguments have any merit. So I’m going to go with the earth scientists who do this for this for a living for now. They’re a diverse bunch with unity in their POV’s being more apparent than real. But even the vast majority of climate sceptic physicists have no beef with GHE. Their questions are about other aspects of AGW - tipping points (which Andrew mentioned), background natural variability, feedbacks, climate models …. etc. Anyway those strike me as more fruitful targets for scepticism than GHE - although not nearly as sexy and dramatic. That’s my highly inexpert opinion.

Call me crazy and elitist, but I wouldn’t want to have say a kidney stone removed by someone who has ‘dug into’ nephrology for 2 months. Same for millions of other subjects I have no time to research myself (short of living another life) from computational neuroscience to plate techtonics. The medical/scientific establishment with its peer review process might be shambolic and seriously flawed but it’s not beyond redemption. I don’t think self-publishing technical subjects in our actualism forums without any serious oversight presents a credible alternative! All the same I think its good to not just sit there and reverently accept what scientists are saying - about global warming or anything else. So good on Claudiu, Son of Bob, Andrew and others for actually taking the time to do some research and trying to make up their own minds about this.

Also I don’t see why experimental models of natural phenomenon have to be the holy grail given their inherent and serious limitations.

1 Like
250

I’m really intrigued that you do see it this way. But would you take the same approach with the scientists who study the universe for a living and think it’s likely they are therefore correct about the Big Bang or this universe not being infinite/having some nothingness on the outside that space and time is expanding into?

251

I don’t really know @Kub933 Haven’t thought about it in years. The Big Bang theory is so much more abstract and even more technically dense than the greenhouse effect that I don’t know what to make of it. I know Stephen Hawking didn’t believe in a beginning or end to the universe so don’t know how universally accepted it is.

I guess the difference is that unlike GHE, my occasional experience of the fabulous infinitude of the universe raises questions how something like the Big Bang could have arisen. It doesn’t have a lot of appeal. But that isn’t a rock solid refutation.

252

@Srinath The most salient thing I observe is that your words don’t have nearly the sting they would if they were backed by psychic currents which you no longer generate! @Miguel’s post was thus far more effective at using the same type of approach — ie not evaluating the arguments but making an appeal to groupthink authority — than yours.

I’m reminded of what Vineeto wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 (emphasis added):

VINEETO: However, should a newly free person abandon the pure intent to become fully free and thus become complacent and entrenched within the shadow identity of their social guardian they would be thinking and acting similar to their former self, but without the fierceness of the instinctual passions – like a toothless tiger. Then the very idea to have this newly established identity abdicate can produce some strong resistance. It’s a matter of one’s metal, I suppose.
V – Man from Sydney re towards Full Freedom

In any case as there’s no critique of the arguments there isn’t much to discuss. However, as to:

There’s no need to delve deeply into the math or physics of these matters. All you have to do is observe that a cold thing never heats a hotter thing that it is being heated by — if you stand next to a fireplace you don’t make the fire hotter, if you boil water on the stove the pot doesn’t make the stove hotter, if you stand next to a cold wall the wall doesn’t make you hotter.

Then you have to understand that the greenhouse effect is described to be that the cold atmosphere is heating its heat source - the Earth - by +33C.

Then you just put two and two together and see that they’re describing a physically impossible phenomenon!

What about your total experience of never having witnessed a cold thing heat a hot thing?

Cheers,
Claudiu

253

Sure, but what about this then…

And numerous other rebuttals and responses to those rebuttals, that can quickly become eye-wateringly technical? What is a guy who has been tasked with immediately finding a toddler friendly ball pit within a 5km radius of his house to do? :grin:

No doubt you’ll have your own response to the above and we’ll have to get into so puhleeeze lets not!

254

Yeah, I’m definitely capable of going into toothless tiger territory at times. Not sure if this is the best example of it. Although somewhat self-serving for you to assert it in this context don’t you think?

And I’ve noticed that you are not above appeals to authority yourself such as this - “What did you say about Pop??!!” remark you made to @Miguel :sweat_smile:

I’ve seen this sort of pressure crop up a lot on this forum. Despite what actualists may say about it being all about the PCE, for many members here Richard as a personality does loom very large and there appear to be all sorts of worries about disloyalty or discomfort about the more controversial aspects of ‘the canon’. Then there is pressure to police norms, get people to tow the party line and so on. In some ways we are better at producing Richardists than actualists or actually free people it seems! But hey, every community has its issues.

4 Likes
255

I suppose to offer a link with no desire to discuss it?

Ahh there we go :wink:

Hmm I just reported my experience. When Miguel posted his appeal to groupthink authority, it carried with it a strong psychic current weight that I felt as more of an impactful message. When you wrote the same, your meaning and intent was quite similar yet it didn’t have this same psychic current weight. Hence it seemed more like you were imitating an appeal to groupthink authority , or doing it out of habit (maybe Geoffrey might put it that you are making a social identity shortcut (or something like this, I forget his exact phrasing)) than really meaning it. Hence toothless tiger :smile:.

These things can be subjective though.

Hmmm I had observed that Miguel was posting about conclusions I (as Claudiu) had made, that I as Claudiu may be on to something, that I as Claudiu should expose myself (more) to the groupthink experts, etc. I thought it may be relevant to point out to him (again) that Richard is who I originally got the idea from, ie that it’s not my original idea — such as to make him aware that he is criticizing not only me but also Richard. The relevance was that his latest critique of the ideas was that my thinking was due to emotional involvement, hence it was apropos to point out that as Richard is the originator (for me) for the idea, the idea itself cannot be one borne out of emotional involvement - thus rendering the critique null and void.

If one wants to critique Richard that is up to them, but a critique absent any valid points combined with a stated intention to not actually attempt to produce any valid points, does not end up being much of a critique at all!

I tried to find valid points and failed lol. As such I have to conclude what he wrote is factual , especially as it makes sense and further coincides with common sense and everyday experience. I really am open to valid critiques of the argument, I just haven’t seen any that have held water (and I did read your link).

Cheers,
Claudiu

256

2 things…

1 - This might get me kicked out of this thread but what is GHE? :see_no_evil: I promise I even tried to google but couldn’t work it out :joy: My best guess - greenhouse heating emissions?

2 - Regarding infinitude… I remember the first time getting a glimpse of it years ago, it was maybe a split second but the enormity of infinitude sent shivers across my body. There was the immediate understanding that it is impossible for anything to be outside of it, for something so grand to have such a thing as a beginning. How could something so enormous merely conform to a theory such as a big bang. It’s still somewhat lodged in my memory, the sheer enormity of what infinitude is, if that experience is not a rock solid refutation I don’t know what could be.

257

It is actually quite fascinating reading your replies here @Srinath.

Like @claudiu I find myself unable to agree with a lot of what you write, which is somewhat beneficial actually because the authority I was projecting towards you is disappearing and I don’t mean this as some dig.

It could be that I am simply looking for the confirmation for my Richardian beliefs, looking for some ultimate certainty which Richard seems to wield and you do not. But the example of infinitude I provided above is rooted in my direct experience, it is not some desperate hope that Richard is right. I just don’t see how something like the Big Bang could be entertained at all after infinitude has been glimpsed.

I see what you mean now when you said Vineeto was perhaps somewhat disapproving of your tendency to leave things open :smile:

I have been wondering since reading some of your replies here, about the nature of what happens at self immolation, of what it is that I am aiming for. And it’s actually been very helpful, I can see now that it is only the ‘feeling being’, that ‘dark and musky’ aspect of human consciousness that disappears. It seems there is a whole lot of other stuff that remains after the ‘being’ is extinguished. So it all seems somewhat
more doable, I don’t need to solve every single belief that exists before I can self immolate, those things can be tackled after the fact.

I saw it on Friday night actually, it reminded me of what Richard writes about the ‘self’ being a parasite that exists inside the body. I saw ‘myself’ as this ‘parasite’ this ‘dark and musky’ energy, for a second ‘I’ was split away from everything else and left open to be seen clearly. But that is getting off topic now, anyways it’s been really useful having you post :blush:

1 Like
258

I think GHE is Greenhouse Effect…but I had to Google up AGW and found it to be Anthropogenic Global Warming

Am thinking we can start BS as an acronym for Belief Systems :joy:

259

Oh yeah that makes sense :joy:

260

That’s the funniest thing I have read in a while. If you got kicked out of anything on here we would be daily looking at a mostly blank screen with an occasional half-baked realisation posted by whoever can be bothered.

I am quite sure you could post a medium sized novel in whatever thread you fancy without “getting kicked out” :rofl:

261

Back on topic, (hehe), I asked my physicist friend about the obscure claim I found about short and long wave IR (Infrared @Kub933 :wink:) and she didn’t know what I was talking about.

That’s a PhD in physics who teaches climate change.

Now she may be a bit upset if she knew I mentioned her, so in her defence it’s important that it was a conversation in passing without any detailed explanation. She is also speaking to me in her second language, so I may well have not explained my question well. Neither did I push the topic.

There is an interesting dynamic which may explain why this feasible explanation isn’t coming up in the “normal” articles; most involved in any topic are far far from actual experts on the topic. That includes the political organisation called the ICSC. (despite it’s claimed independence etc).

If there is a difference in how the atmosphere interacts with short wave IR from the sun( assuming this is a fact) and long wave IR from the earth, then there is a case for the greenhouse effect.

I haven’t gone further into it yet though. Being somewhat short of the cash needed to launch my own independent satellite to measure the IR spectrum at the top of the atmosphere.:rofl:

262

Ah, @Srinath this was one of my early objections too.

However, there are two problems with it.

The first, and biggest problem;

There is no actual world consequences for climate scientists. If a surgeon operating on a patient screws up, that patient may well die. If not, they will be back for more risky surgery to fix the screw up.

This is what I started to realise about my bias towards the issue; I am used to actual consequences to being wrong in my job. Actual houses get built from my estimates. If I get it wrong, as in underestimate the cost, it appears on a profit and loss sheet. If I miscalculated the bricks on a purchase order, I am going to hear about it when the bricklayers are looking for bricks that aren’t there.

My profession, whilst vastly less technical than climate science, has consequences. If I screw up, if I am wrong; I will know about it in no uncertain terms.

Where is this level of accountability in climate science?

The second, and more technical problem with the surgeon who has studied kidney stone removal for “two months” is that is probably how much actual study goes into that aspect of surgery before cutting open their first patient! A medical degree is a vast body of knowledge which is then refined by specialist training.

I doubt anyone has ever studied kidney stone removal for 5 years before cutting someone open.

263

Which I should point out, in case my physicist friend ever reads this; her specialities are optics (lasers), particle physics and astrophysics. So it wasn’t particularly fair to ask about IR in climate models “out of the blue”.(pun intended).

264

@claudiu Is your conclusion that CO2 does not cause warming?