Climate change

[TheBox]

Hi, Box. I would be very interested in hearing the advanced information and particularly if any of it coincides with Loverboy’s argument. I am not a scientist nor am I up-to-date with the workings of science. However, just because a scientist or anyone puts forth a theory, that doesn’t mean the theory is true. In fact, history has shown that it takes a long time before the community of scientists are all convinced … if you read the biographies of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and other geniuses of history.

Anyway, things should not be told, but shown and examined. The only time it is okay to just blindly believe is when it comes to religion, and this is a science forum, not a church.

Having issues posting keeps saying spam or something .

Hi Cheryl ,
Firstly I will have to explain a few things to build the picture so it may take several posts as you may need somethings clarifying .
Let us begun with the first principal of climate change and this principal is what is heat ?
I have heard rumours and suggestions of a thermal particle and other ideas but none of these are the real answer .
The actual answer is that heat/temperature is the product of light propagation via atmospheric resistance . By resistance we are not talking about electrical resistance but rather instead something that opposes . .
This is the first principal information any climate scientists needs to understand .

 

[Hartmann352]

A study from a Norwegian government agency has declared that mankind’s emissions of CO2 are not strong enough to cause the widespread global warming that climate hysterics claim. Statistisk sentralbyrå, Norway’s statistics bureau, has published a paper this month that appears to contradict the climate cult’s conclusion that mankind’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other trace atmospheric gasses are leading to out-of-control global warming.

Researchers John K. Dagsvik and Sigmund H. Moen published the paper this month, and their abstract makes clear that, in their opinion, the supposedly vast amount of CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere during the industrial age is insignificant when it comes to affecting the world’s temperature.

“Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations,” the study’s abstract begins. “Subsequently, we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.”

The authors point out what many have been saying for years. Any observed warming may simply be natural, a rebound from a period known as the Little Ice Age. The researchers acknowledge that long-term temperature readings consistently show an upward trend, but they question whether that trend directly corresponds to mankind’s CO2 emissions.

Warming periods of the past — the Medieval Warm Period, for example — are often ignored by those who have a vested interest in anthropogenic climate change being true. But the study’s authors argue that such history is completely germane to the global-warming debate.

Citing recent historic temperature reconstructions from Greenland, the authors report that “a new method that utilizes argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles … indicate that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010).”

The study also points out that the recent warming trend appears to predate man’s ability to be responsible for it.

“Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes,” the official Norwegian government report states.

And even if the current upward trend in temperatures is different from historical trends, it’s not necessarily the fault of mankind’s emissions.

“Even if the temperatures in recent years should turn out to deviate systematically from the variations in earlier times, it is still a complicated challenge to quantify how much of this the change due to emissions of CO2,” the study says.

The paper acknowledges the so-called consensus among the scientific community on climate change.
“At present, there is apparently a high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made). This is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.”

But it also points out that climate scientists are not always forthcoming with their data. In truth, they appear to actively hide data at times.

“For non-experts, it is very difficult to obtain a comprehensive picture of the research in this field, and it is almost impossible to obtain an overview and understanding of the scientific basis for such a consensus,” the study states.

Ultimately, Dagsvik and Moen conclude that a natural cause of global warming — as opposed to a man-made cause — is likely, and that CO2 emissions are statistically insignificant when it comes to causing serious warming.

“We find … that the hypothesis that the temperature process varies randomly around a constant level (stationarity) is not rejected. This may indicate that the effect of CO2 emissions in the last 200 years is not strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations.”

One can hear the objections from the climate cult already. “Dagsvik and Moen are not climate scientists,” they’ll say. “Therefore their research cannot be taken seriously.”

No, these researchers are not climate scientists, but they are statisticians. Many climate scientists, on the other hand, are perfectly comfortable with non-statistical half-truths.

See: https://thenewamerican.com/world-ne...trong-to-cause-systematic-changes-in-weather/

 

[TheBox]

A study from a Norwegian government agency has declared that mankind’s emissions of CO2 are not strong enough to cause the widespread global warming that climate hysterics claim. Statistisk sentralbyrå, Norway’s statistics bureau, has published a paper this month that appears to contradict the climate cult’s conclusion that mankind’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other trace atmospheric gasses are leading to out-of-control global warming.

Researchers John K. Dagsvik and Sigmund H. Moen published the paper this month, and their abstract makes clear that, in their opinion, the supposedly vast amount of CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere during the industrial age is insignificant when it comes to affecting the world’s temperature.

“Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations,” the study’s abstract begins. “Subsequently, we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.”

The authors point out what many have been saying for years. Any observed warming may simply be natural, a rebound from a period known as the Little Ice Age. The researchers acknowledge that long-term temperature readings consistently show an upward trend, but they question whether that trend directly corresponds to mankind’s CO2 emissions.

Warming periods of the past — the Medieval Warm Period, for example — are often ignored by those who have a vested interest in anthropogenic climate change being true. But the study’s authors argue that such history is completely germane to the global-warming debate.

Citing recent historic temperature reconstructions from Greenland, the authors report that “a new method that utilizes argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles … indicate that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010).”

The study also points out that the recent warming trend appears to predate man’s ability to be responsible for it.

“Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes,” the official Norwegian government report states.

And even if the current upward trend in temperatures is different from historical trends, it’s not necessarily the fault of mankind’s emissions.

“Even if the temperatures in recent years should turn out to deviate systematically from the variations in earlier times, it is still a complicated challenge to quantify how much of this the change due to emissions of CO2,” the study says.

The paper acknowledges the so-called consensus among the scientific community on climate change.
“At present, there is apparently a high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made). This is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.”

But it also points out that climate scientists are not always forthcoming with their data. In truth, they appear to actively hide data at times.

“For non-experts, it is very difficult to obtain a comprehensive picture of the research in this field, and it is almost impossible to obtain an overview and understanding of the scientific basis for such a consensus,” the study states.

Ultimately, Dagsvik and Moen conclude that a natural cause of global warming — as opposed to a man-made cause — is likely, and that CO2 emissions are statistically insignificant when it comes to causing serious warming.

“We find … that the hypothesis that the temperature process varies randomly around a constant level (stationarity) is not rejected. This may indicate that the effect of CO2 emissions in the last 200 years is not strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations.”

One can hear the objections from the climate cult already. “Dagsvik and Moen are not climate scientists,” they’ll say. “Therefore their research cannot be taken seriously.”

No, these researchers are not climate scientists, but they are statisticians. Many climate scientists, on the other hand, are perfectly comfortable with non-statistical half-truths.

See: https://thenewamerican.com/world-ne...trong-to-cause-systematic-changes-in-weather/

The less dense the medium the faster the light travels throughs the medium . The shorter the radius the less time light takes to travel the journey .
Both of these factors increase the density of light at the surface thermal ''band'' .

Atmosphere slows the light down in both a +ve and -ve manner .

When the ground gains enough light it produces a thermal current in the opposite direction of the incident ray . The atmospheres density slows down the lights escape , allowing the thermal ''band'' to increase in temperature to prevent freezing .

P.s Once the process of losing high energy gaseous particles into space starts , then the process begins to speed up because we are losing m/V density function and this allows for the thermal process to increase in rate , creating more high energy gaseous particles .

Please find attached very important information .

 

[TheBox]

— is likely, and that CO2 emissions are statistically insignificant when it comes to causing serious warming.

If a KG of oil can absorb x-amount of light , when transformed into a KG of something else , it will still only absorb the same amount of light .

The net gain difference by transformation must be zero .

 

[Debed]

If a KG of oil can absorb x-amount of light , when transformed into a KG of something else , it will still only absorb the same amount of light .

The net gain difference by transformation must be zero .

A kilogram of sand turned into glass, would still absorb the same amount of light?

 

[TheBox]

A kilogram of sand turned into glass, would still absorb the same amount of light?

If that glass was a drinking glass placed on a pile of sand in your living room , the sand and the glass would eventually both reach room temperature dependent on room temperature .

However , this may only be true for the thermal surface layer as deeper cores require higher energy to become heated because of density and surface ''packet'' loss of photons to space .

All matter has an exchange rate of gain and loss , this can be observed using the Caesium atoms frequency . Changing the temperature , changes the gain and loss frequency of the Caesium .

All matter has a 1:1 conservation max of light energy but all matter can gain more light energy temporally .

P.s Useful information - If you could move the Caesium atom at the same speed as the Earths rotation , you'd see no timing dilation .

 

[Debed]

If that glass was a drinking glass placed on a pile of sand in your living room , the sand and the glass would eventually both reach room temperature dependent on room temperature .

However , this may only be true for the thermal surface layer as deeper cores require higher energy to become heated because of density and surface ''packet'' loss of photons to space .

All matter has an exchange rate of gain and loss , this can be observed using the Caesium atoms frequency . Changing the temperature , changes the gain and loss frequency of the Caesium .

All matter has a 1:1 conservation max of light energy but all matter can gain more light energy temporally .

P.s Useful information - If you could move the Caesium atom at the same speed as the Earths rotation , you'd see no timing dilation .

But you said that a kilogram of something would still absorb the same amount of light.
Does that hold true for a kilogram of sand after it has been made into glass?

 

[TheBox]

But you said that a kilogram of something would still absorb the same amount of light.
Does that hold true for a kilogram of sand after it has been made into glass?

When considering measures it is best to consider single particles rather than a whole . A single particle of sand will absorb the same amount of light as a particle of glass equally the size .

Think about a beach on a hot day , the top layer (thermal band) gets hot to touch burning feet but the underlayers are cooler . It's not that the underlayers aren't absorbing light but because the light energy is being spread out by the m/V underneath in a x,y,z manner.

This is because of false ''negative'' transition Eigenvectors and this creates multi-directional gravity-B vectors for the light to travel .

 

[TheBox]

But you said that a kilogram of something would still absorb the same amount of light.
Does that hold true for a kilogram of sand after it has been made into glass?

 

[TheBox]

But you said that a kilogram of something would still absorb the same amount of light.
Does that hold true for a kilogram of sand after it has been made into glass?

 

[Debed]

When considering measures it is best to consider single particles rather than a whole . A single particle of sand will absorb the same amount of light as a particle of glass equally the size .

Think about a beach on a hot day , the top layer (thermal band) gets hot to touch burning feet but the underlayers are cooler . It's not that the underlayers aren't absorbing light but because the light energy is being spread out by the m/V underneath in a x,y,z manner.

This is because of false ''negative'' transition Eigenvectors and this creates multi-directional gravity-B vectors for the light to travel .

No. You were the one that said kilogram, so you do not get to change the rules of the game.
Does a kilogram of sand capture the same amount of light when it has been turned into glass?

 

[TheBox]

No. You were the one that said kilogram, so you do not get to change the rules of the game.
Does a kilogram of sand capture the same amount of light when it has been turned into glass?

I wrote - If a KG of oil can absorb x-amount of light , when transformed into a KG of something else , it will still only absorb the same amount of light .

You then changed the parameters of the question because my comments involved fluid dynamics and gaseous substances where as your question involves solids .

So I am trying to answer your question to the best of my knowledge .

The answer to your question requires the event of glass and the sand absorbing light , needs equality in the thought , you can't compare a window to a kg of sand spread out over the ground . The glass would have to be crushed down to the dimensions of grains of sand and then spread out over the ground like the sand to get an equal test .
Antoine Lavoisier discovered when we break down things , nothing is gained and nothing is lost , so on this information I would personally assume that if the glass was broke down , it would be equal to the sand in gain and loss .

But none of this really matters anyway because atmospheric resistance is what creates the majority of the heat . Light travelling to surfaces that don't have an atmosphere results in a very minimal heat production on the surface .

I'm trying to think of a way of explaining the problem of climate change but it is very difficult to explain .

Ok , lets give it ago .

Imagine it is a cold morning and the pressure is low , which means the atmosphere at ground level is more denser .

The light from the Sun reaches the earths atmosphere and is slowed down by the atmospheric resistance/obstruction.

When the light reaches the ground it begins to invert because of the obstruction of the denser ground .

This propagation then causes the light to be denser nearer the surface .

This then causes the incident light to become traffic jammed in the atmosphere , becoming denser , created heat .

The next stage is atmospheric expansion and the atmosphere becomes less dense once heated .

Then of course because the atmosphere is less dense , the incident ray speeds up passing through medium so the heat intensifies .

 

[Debed]

The net gain difference by transformation must be zero .

I am merely going by what you wrote.
And besides, you converted a liquid into a gas, but I can not convert a solid into a solid?
So after transforming the sand into glass, does it still absorb the same amount of light?

 

[TheBox]

I am merely going by what you wrote.
And besides, you converted a liquid into a gas, but I can not convert a solid into a solid?
So after transforming the sand into glass, does it still absorb the same amount of light?

When we furnace sand to make glass or recycle glass by furnace , the black body radiation is equal so yes glass or sand can absorb the same amount of light .

 

[Debed]

When we furnace sand to make glass or recycle glass by furnace , the black body radiation is equal so yes glass or sand can absorb the same amount of light .

You keep moving the goal post.
So now we are over on black body radiation?
No can do. We are going to stick to light.
So glass will let more of the different wavelengths of light through, than those of sand.
This is ofcourse due to the crystallized structure.
Vanablack does kinda the opposit, would you not agree?

So in conclusion, how something absorb light, can change depending on how it is transformed.

So your allegation that «The net gain difference by transformation must be zero» does not hold true.

 

[TheBox]

You keep moving the goal post.
So now we are over on black body radiation?
No can do. We are going to stick to light.
So glass will let more of the different wavelengths of light through, than those of sand.
This is ofcourse due to the crystallized structure.
Vanablack does kinda the opposit, would you not agree?

So in conclusion, how something absorb light, can change depending on how it is transformed.

So your allegation that «The net gain difference by transformation must be zero» does not hold true.

Heat , black body radiation , is light ! When you see thinks glowing ''orange '', that is conserved light .

 

[Debed]

Heat , black body radiation , is light ! When you see thinks glowing ''orange '', that is conserved light .

Cute, but get back on track.

So glass will let more of the different wavelengths of light through, than those of sand.
This is ofcourse due to the crystallized structure.
Vanablack does kinda the opposit, would you not agree?

So in conclusion, how something absorb light, can change depending on how it is transformed.

So your allegation that «The net gain difference by transformation must be zero» does not hold true.

 

[TheBox]

Cute, but get back on track.

So glass will let more of the different wavelengths of light through, than those of sand.
This is ofcourse due to the crystallized structure.
Vanablack does kinda the opposit, would you not agree?

So in conclusion, how something absorb light, can change depending on how it is transformed.

So your allegation that «The net gain difference by transformation must be zero» does not hold true.

''so glass will let more of the different wavelengths of light through, than those of sand.''

Yes but that is a different question than how much light energy glass or sand can absorb .

The net gain difference by transformation must be zero» does not hold true.

There is no limit of how much light can occupy a geometrical point , the only limit is a conservation limit of a 1:1 ratio .

The Kmax is possibly Kmax=V*c^3

I don't think you have understood correctly !

''If a kg of oil can absorb x-amount of light , when transformed into a kg of something else , it will still only absorb the same amount of light .''

In other words the oil or the gaseous conversions will only ever conserve light at a 1:1 ratio with a Kmax=V*c^3