• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

Science is gibberish to those ignorant of science.

Nobody posts any actual science on this thread. Do you think “how hot is the wildfire?“ or “you can roast marshmallows in California wildfires” is science? Be off with you.

Los Angeles to host the 2028 Olympics if we survive the climate apocalypse.
 
Science is gibberish to those ignorant of science.

Nobody posts any actual science on this thread.
would you like me to post citations to peer-reviewed published science journal articles on climate change? Would that help? Would you be willing to look and admit you could be wrong?

or will you just rolleyes another of my posts?

You don’t portray an understanding of science so I’m uncertain you’d recognize it if you were shown it anyway. What with quotes like “mathematical models aren’t science”.
 
would you like me to post citations to peer-reviewed published science journal articles on climate change?
lol, you tried and failed before. And the peer review process doesn’t have much credibility these days either.
Call me shocked that it has no credibility with you. I’m sure you have a lot of personal experience and exposure to it upon which to base that assertion.

lol indeed.
 
would you like me to post citations to peer-reviewed published science journal articles on climate change?
lol, you tried and failed before. And the peer review process doesn’t have much credibility these days either.
Call me shocked that it has no credibility with you. I’m sure you have a lot of personal experience and exposure to it upon which to base that assertion.

lol indeed.
Not what I said.
 
would you like me to post citations to peer-reviewed published science journal articles on climate change?
lol, you tried and failed before. And the peer review process doesn’t have much credibility these days either.
Call me shocked that it has no credibility with you. I’m sure you have a lot of personal experience and exposure to it upon which to base that assertion.

lol indeed.
Not what I said.
I apologize. You said “not much” not “no”. So some scientific peer review is credible with you. Which might that be?
 
Science is gibberish to those ignorant of science.

Nobody posts any actual science on this thread. Do you think “how hot is the wildfire?“ or “you can roast marshmallows in California wildfires” is science? Be off with you.

Los Angeles to host the 2028 Olympics if we survive the climate apocalypse.
You squirm and wiggle lie a frog held by a leg.

Off the top of my head Finite Elements. Applied to the atmosphere and oceans the voluntee is broken up into small volumes, the process is called meshing. Each finite volume is assigned parameters like mass, specific heat, and thermal conduction coefficients.

From the mesh a system of partial differential equations are developed. It is then a matter of solving PDEs with boundary conditions.

With me so far?

The method is commonly used to model electromagnetics and heat transfer.

As to modeling weather and climate, climate and weather are chaotic. This means that at any small volume in the environment deterministic laws apply, but initial conditions on a large scale can not be kinsmen exactly. As a result simulations diverge over time.

So as stime passes the models get more accurate as more data is available.

Note that the European and American hurricane models do not exactly agree,.

We can start with basics like heat, energy, thermal conduction, and thermal convection.....basics taught in any college level intro physics and thermodynamics class. Plenty of info online if you want to learn.

There is no point in posting science or Greek if you can not read science or Greek.
 
The atmosphere is holding more water here. That means elevated surface dewpoint and a higher threshold temperature needed to kick off diurnal convection. Short story; our summers are a lot hotter. Long story; because the airmass down here holds onto more moisture summer rains north of here have gotten a lot heavier on average. When wetter air gets advected up over the continent it finds itself in a place that favors condensation and it rains a lot heavier than it used to.
 
would you like me to post citations to peer-reviewed published science journal articles on climate change?
lol, you tried and failed before. And the peer review process doesn’t have much credibility these days either.
And of course I failed. Arguing climate science with you has been like arguing astronomy with a flat earther.
 
would you like me to post citations to peer-reviewed published science journal articles on climate change?
lol, you tried and failed before. And the peer review process doesn’t have much credibility these days either.
And of course I failed. Arguing climate science with you has been like arguing astronomy with a flat earther.

You are as irrational as any flat earther.

It really is a religion for you.
 
would you like me to post citations to peer-reviewed published science journal articles on climate change?
lol, you tried and failed before. And the peer review process doesn’t have much credibility these days either.
And of course I failed. Arguing climate science with you has been like arguing astronomy with a flat earther.

You are as irrational as any flat earther.

It really is a religion for you.
QED.
 
would you like me to post citations to peer-reviewed published science journal articles on climate change?
lol, you tried and failed before. And the peer review process doesn’t have much credibility these days either.
And of course I failed. Arguing climate science with you has been like arguing astronomy with a flat earther.

You are as irrational as any flat earther.

It really is a religion for you.
QED.
It’s not a religion to me. Show me the scientific articles whose conclusions you disagree with and explain what’s wrong with the science and I may convert to your point of view should your argument be compelling enough.

Which articles do you want to discuss?
 
It’s not a religion to me. Show me the scientific articles whose conclusions you disagree with and explain what’s wrong with the science and I may convert to your point of view should your argument be compelling enough.
Ffs, this thread was started years ago and I’ve disagreed with just about every piece of religious nonsense that has been presented as “science”. I disagreed with a piece of nonsense that was posted earlier today about California getting destroyed by rising sea levels.

It is a religion for you, climate catastrophe is a faith based religion and you are all in.
 
It’s not a religion to me. Show me the scientific articles whose conclusions you disagree with and explain what’s wrong with the science and I may convert to your point of view should your argument be compelling enough.
Ffs, this thread was started years ago and I’ve disagreed with just about every piece of religious nonsense that has been presented as “science”. I disagreed with a piece of nonsense that was posted earlier today about California getting destroyed by rising sea levels.

That wasn’t a science article, it was a news story. If you can’t point to any actual science you disagree with then stop saying you disagree with the science. If you want to talk science then do it. I already understand your issues with the non-scientists like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg. I have long ago conceded that science communication is poor and said that we should focus on the actual science instead.

It is a religion for you, climate catastrophe is a faith based religion and you are all in.
Sure, Jan.
 
That wasn’t a science article,

But the poster seems to think it is science and I called bullshit. It seems you agree so what is your point?
My point is that you seem to disagree with the actual science not just the journalism but haven’t put forth any substantive criticisms of it. And, no, the weather in Santa Monica doesn’t count as good evidence against global warming.

And to continue to hold that belief in the absence of evidence makes your position more like a religion than mine.
 
Last edited:
Fizzle

The basic principles of human caused climate change are very simple.

Heat is creed by fiction and nuclear decay iniside the Earth. Heat from the Sun is absorbed and re radiated back into space.

The only way for heat to leave the Earth is through radiation into space. Textbook science. In a sense the Earth is inside a giant Thermos vacuum insulated bottle.

Greenhouse gasses act like a blanket around the Earth. In the winter add insulation to your house and the inside temperature goes up. Same principle behind global warming.

This is basic science, care to refute any of this?

Global temperatures rise, ocean temperatures rise. As the temperature of the Gulf Of Mexico goes up evaporation of moisture to the air goes up,. Higher humidity. More water in the air means more rain in Gulf storms, as we have just seen in Florida.

Differences in air temperature in the Midwest fuel thunderstorms. A cold front meets a warm front.

High pressure and low air pressure. Hotter air temperature means lower air density and faster ind between the fronts. Same with hurricanes. Hotter water means higher winds.

You asked fr science, here it is,. Any comments?
 
Back
Top Bottom