you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I'm a scientist. A good one. A published one. Pretty special, but can't say more without outing myself.

Good scientists are still following the scientific method. Papers get published that destroy things like AGW, there's research out in Nature atm that proves that covid is a brain disease, not a lung one. Whatever political orthodoxy you look at, there are published papers out there, spelling out the truth, as we currently see it.

We just get totally ignored. What is truly frightening is the power of the public to take the political position and then amplify it and impose it on others. The propaganda machine has billions of active promoters, burying that hard won truth under mountains of darkness.

The way I see it, the push is to eliminate the predominantly white, scientific, meritocratic past, because they think that the structures of civilization that we have built will sustain the ignorant low-IQ masses they intend to replace us with.

But, if we all stopped supporting them, and withdrew into small enclaves, dispersed, just let go of the reigns of control and discovery, it would all collapse into shit in short order. We just need to hunker down for a couple of generations, investing our knowledge, principals, morals and aesthetics into our children.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I'm a scientist. A good one. A published one. Pretty special, but can't say more without outing myself.

As opposed to all those scientists that haven't been published, right?

There's a reason AGW deniers are a small minority among scientists, and it's because in denying AGW, you're denying a whole lot of basic physics and well-supported science.

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

knew you'd pipe up.

AGW proponets: Lots of math heavy papers looking at blackbody radiation in the atmosphere

Physicists: Gasses cannot exhibit black body, or even greybody radiation.

for example. There's a thousand examples of the BS.

But, this is one you can test yourself. Get the global climate dataset (its online). Construct a search that grabs temperatures (everywhere) at sunset and for the next 2 hours. Drop data that has clouds, or that has wind speed above a few knots. Drop the outside 5% of data from each site.

Waterfall plot %CO2 vs day of the year vs cooling rate

learn that increasing CO2 increases the cooling rate after sunset.

/end AGW theory.

Its quite simple. Many of us have done it, but getting that published is another story, its a bit too blatantly heretical. The result is also expected if you understand wave physics, and don't rely on (photon) particle models that are not applicable in near equilibrium resonant systems. (As Lorentz himself, who invented the math that the AGW crowd abuse, proved)

or suck on Greta's ponytails. More your style

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

AGW proponets: Lots of math heavy papers looking at blackbody radiation in the atmosphere

Physicists: Gasses cannot exhibit black body, or even greybody radiation.

You see, I said it was supported by the fundamentals, and you respond in a way that indicates you don't quite understand the fundamentals. By the way, gasses is a verb, and gases is the plural form of the noun that you should have used there. The greenhouse effect doesn't assume that gases behave like a black body. Actually, the fact that they don't is pretty basic physics (Kirchhoff's Law), and I'm scratching my head wondering why you think greenhouse theory would be based on a premise that is so obviously wrong. Actually, wait, I know why you would.

In fact, it's because of the narrow bands that gases do absorb that creates the climate forcing effect we need to be concerned about in the first place. A greenhouse gas is one that absorbs in the frequencies where the bulk of the emission from the earth is, the infrared. The energy is absorbed, then re-emitted in a random direction, meaning about half of it gets sent back to earth. This process leads to higher surface temperatures than what would be possible otherwise, and when at stable natural levels is what sustains life on earth.

Increase GHG concentrations, and you get a stronger greenhouse effect. Interestingly, the CO2 itself only accounts for about 1/3rd of the total increase in temps we get from an increase in CO2 concentrations; most of the rest is a cascade effect from the increased water vapor in the atmosphere as a result of that temperature increase.

With regards to the second part of your comment, where you seem to believe you have debunked climate change, even as a student I can think of so many problems with that plot that I understand exactly why you can't get it published. It's not because it's "heretical", it's because it's exactly the kind of retarded crank "science" clogging up the inbox of real physicists everywhere. Maybe it seems "simple" to you, because you never understood the science in the first place.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

lol. you pretend to be able to school me on physics by being a grammar nazi

deep burn, bro.

The greenhouse effect doesn't assume that gases behave like a black body.

I guess you've never read any of the math papers that looks at doppler widening of CO2 re-emission bands

The energy is absorbed, then re-emitted in a random direction, meaning about half of it gets sent back to earth.

That's assuming, of course, that it is re-emitted in a random direction. When I was talking about using a particle model of energy, that's one of the issues. There's many more.

But, even ignoring that little detail, the rate of collision of gasses at 1atm is far greater than the relax/re-emit time of CO2, so most of that absorbed IR energy ends up in other gasses, which have fast relaxation/re-emit times, with the net effect of energy shifting the upwelling IR into lower frequencies. You can see that in the from-space emission spectra, that show excess energy (over the blackbody curve of earth at whatever temp it is at) at all frequencies down-frequency from CO2's main vibration states. Of course, most AGW proponents and even many of the scientists i've talked to seem to think that the emission spectra has an upper bound of the earth blackbody curve, instead of having the CO2 absorption balanced back into near equilibrium by extra emission by other atmospheric components. lel. There is an effet, for sure. But given the earth is a globe, not flat, even with 100% random re-emisison, the net effect of the energy bouncing around is about 80-100ms of delay in the energy exiting.

As for your second bit of ad hominem. Do the work. open your eyes. The reason I posted it is it provides actual proof/disproof of CO2's effects without any other confounding factors. A very basic experiment _for which all the data is already available. I could show you my working, even show you the code required to filter the datasets (hardest part for me was making sure I had sunset times for each location / time of year), but as you've already said, you won't read any links I post because you think i'm stupid.

Enjoy your smug, IYI, ignorance. Remember, Truth is Racist!

EDIT. If anyone else reads this, happy to show papers referencing every statement here. We know that Earth's radiation, for example, is pretty random in direction from the surface. But with the atmosphere, there's a bunch of resonance / standing wave effects that modulate re-emission (and even particle movement) and phase, etc. At the scale of the distances between CO2 molecules, compared to the length of IR's wave, individual CO2 molecules even end up vibrating in phase. crazy stuff :D

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yeah, no. All you did was graph temperature trends over time; since CO2 has been rising steadily, your CO2 axis is just a proxy for time. You know what would make the rate of heat loss after sunset increase? Higher temperatures. You know what we've been getting as CO2 levels have been increasing? Higher temperatures. But that temperature increase is slow, as in ~0.2C/decade slow.

You know what 0.2C/decade translates into per day? ~1/18,300th of a degree. You know what that translates into over the two hour period you're using? ~1/210,000th of a degree, or about 5 micro Kelvin. You're not going to see a few micro kelvin in a fucking waterfall plot that's dominated by current weather conditions, and that would have been obvious to anyone who understood the fundamentals, hence why I said that even as a student it's obvious that you don't. At the end of the day, you are in fact just a delusional crank.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

since CO2 has been rising steadily,

not true. goes up and down as it rises.

You know what 0.2C/decade translates into per day? ~1/18,300th of a degree. You know what that translates into over the two hour period you're using? ~1/210,000th of a degree, or about 5 micro Kelvin. You're not going to see a few micro kelvin in a fucking waterfall plot

unless CO2 is a potent cooling agent. Run the data.

You missed the point. Rate of cooling is to the infinite void of space, so the few degrees variance over time of actual temperature results in very small changes to the earth/void gradient, so the signal, which is CO2s cooling effect, becomes quite clear when you control for clouds and wind.

run the data

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Steady cyclical effects are still steady. CO2 levels fluctuate over the course of the year, an effect which, apparently you need to have pointed out to you, was being cancelled out when you made an axis of your (brilliant, AGW debunking) chart the day of the year.

You missed the point. Rate of cooling is to the infinite void of space, so the few degrees variance over time of actual temperature results in very small changes to the earth/void gradient, so the signal, which is CO2s cooling effect, becomes quite clear when you control for clouds and wind.

And writing shit like this continues to show how you really don't even understand the basics. Radiation is proportional to temps to the 4th power. No, a few degrees change isn't noise. What a clown show.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

you always make me laugh. You manage to spout the official narrative, word perfect, as if you understand.

Radiation is proportional to temps to the 4th power.

right ho. You didn't run the data, did you. Because if you did, you'd know that all this 'out of your arse' debunking really doesn't get close to touching on the issue.

But let's play in your inane world. When I run the data, it is clear that the rate of cooling increases with CO2 concentration. You can attempt to explain it away, as you have, by claiming that the increased temperature gradient of a warming plant produces the increased cooling.

That's fine. Let's say you are right. Let's say that increased temperature increases cooling at the extent the data shows. Great. We now have a powerful negative feedback mechanism that prevents the temperature of the planet increasing above. oh. sorry. if it is temperature causing the observed sunset, no wind, no clouds, cooling, then we can't even warm by more than another degree and a half. If I plug in the numbers from the last ice age, we can't actually leave the ice age.

But you'd have to do the math and run the data to have any kind of place to stand and debate on.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're the one complaining about the "math heavy" climate change papers, and now you're saying that I need to "do the math". Weird, because I wouldn't say plotting temp changes over time in matlab, nor anything else you've posted, is anything approaching actual math.

We now have a powerful negative feedback mechanism that prevents the temperature of the planet increasing above. oh. sorry. if it is temperature causing the observed sunset, no wind, no clouds, cooling, then we can't even warm by more than another degree and a half.

No, we don't have any such thing. I'm just a student that only understands the basics well enough to spot the obvious problems with the claims you derive from your graph, and you're just a crank that can't do any real math that is coming up with ad hoc "models" on the spot when challenged.

Nothing about global warming would be proven, or disproven, by your silly chart. No expert that actually understands AGW would claim that it would. You only believed that it would because you lacked a grasp of the fundamentals. By all means, continue to tell random people on saidit how you've disproven global warming with your silly chart. I'll just pop in whenever I see it to explain why you haven't.