@metal-brain saidThe Witten paper was intended as an example of how academic reports should be laid out, not as any kind of rebuttal. What I was getting at in my above post, based on the way his result is presented and the absence of justification for his calculation, is there is no reason to have any confidence in his conclusion.
I think you posted the wrong link. I don't think we were talking about "JT Gravity and the Ensembles of Random Matrix Theory".
If there is something incorrect in the article point it out. All I am really getting from you is that you don't want to believe it so you are nitpicking at things like you not knowing what their qualifications are. It isn't my fault you don't k ...[text shortened]... 38%3AAMOTPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6
@deepthought saidThat won't bother Metal in the slightest, he's right and that's that. Conspiracy is his religion so nothing will change.
The Witten paper was intended as an example of how academic reports should be laid out, not as any kind of rebuttal. What I was getting at in my above post, based on the way his result is presented and the absence of justification for his calculation, is there is no reason to have any confidence in his conclusion.
@sonhouse saidI had a look at your Citizen's Challenge blog post. One of the contributors made the following observation:
That won't bother Metal in the slightest, he's right and that's that. Conspiracy is his religion so nothing will change.
1) Nahle used the equations, graphs, and tables for a pure H2O gas, but compared that to a mixture that replaces H20 molecules with CO2 molecules in order to keep the total pressure the same as it was before the addition of CO2. That's not at all the situation in the atmosphere, where the mere act of adding CO2 does not simultaneously remove H2O. Of course the IR absorption consequence of swapping out H2O for CO2 (what Nahle calculated) is not the same as the consequence of adding CO2 (what real atmospheric physicists calculate).So it is unsurprising that he omitted the units as that would have made it obvious that his calculation was seriously flawed.
2) Nahle mistook the absorption of 1 meter of atmosphere to be the absorption of the entire atmospheric column, thereby grossly underestimating the absorption.
Tom Dayton on
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/10/nasif-s-nahle-google-scholar-and.html
2 edits
@metal-brain saidJust typing "Al Gore" is not an argument.
Global warming is a political issue. Every democrat that got into the debates says global warming is a problem, some even said it was the biggest problem. There was not one exception that I noticed.
You cannot honestly say climate scientists are not biased because of political leanings. Every person debating me on this issue is a leftist including yourself. That is not a ...[text shortened]... faith and nothing else. No matter how wrong alarmist get it they are still right in their own minds.
Expropriation of wealth? Switching to recycled nuclear power would be cheaper, the fuel is free. The impediment is not monetary. Instead, it is fear-mongering articles about the 'deaths' of 1 million people that never happened.
Since we are back-and-forth here about widely-accepted facts related to physics and chemistry of atmospheric gases, then what about all the the other reasons to switch from coal? We can keep our mountains. No one needs to die of black lung anymore. There will be cleaner air. A lower utility bill. Recycling our nuclear waste.
Expropriation of wealth? My taxes fund our current land use policy that consists of giving $867 billion in subsidies to wealthy farmers, many of whom already turn profits. For those who don't, I hear them complain that they wouldn't make money without subsidies? Well...... maybe time to grow another crop or find a new profession instead of expropriating my wealth? We can't think of a better use for $867 billion? They're buying votes in Iowa.
Re prioritizing our climate ahead of our current system that provides subsidies for failing, polluting, carbon-emitting industries is not going to cost Joe Taxpayer anything.
@deepthought saidSo it is unsurprising that he omitted the units as that would have made it obvious that his calculation was seriously flawed....and he KNEW it was seriously flawed when he presented it.
@deepthought saidIf there is something incorrect in the article point it out. You have not done that, so your ramblings are irrelevant.
The Witten paper was intended as an example of how academic reports should be laid out, not as any kind of rebuttal. What I was getting at in my above post, based on the way his result is presented and the absence of justification for his calculation, is there is no reason to have any confidence in his conclusion.
@deepthought saidhttps://www.nature.com/articles/nature08769
I had a look at your Citizen's Challenge blog post. One of the contributors made the following observation:[quote]1) Nahle used the equations, graphs, and tables for a pure H2O gas, but compared that to a mixture that replaces H20 molecules with CO2 molecules in order to keep the total pressure the same as it was before the addition of CO2. That's not at all the situatio ...[text shortened]... t he omitted the units as that would have made it obvious that his calculation was seriously flawed.
1 edit
@wildgrass said"Switching to recycled nuclear power would be cheaper, the fuel is free."
Just typing "Al Gore" is not an argument.
Expropriation of wealth? Switching to recycled nuclear power would be cheaper, the fuel is free. The impediment is not monetary. Instead, it is fear-mongering articles about the 'deaths' of 1 million people that never happened.
Since we are back-and-forth here about widely-accepted facts related to physics and chemistry of atm ...[text shortened]... idies for failing, polluting, carbon-emitting industries is not going to cost Joe Taxpayer anything.
That is a false statement. Uranium is not free and it would prove nothing if it was, solar and wind are free.
It is all about expropriation of wealth. Why else would they lie about hurricanes getting worse because of GW? Why else would they lie about forest fires being because of GW?
Why do you still have faith in liars? Normally lies discredit people, but you give liars a free pass. Alarmists are allowed to make mistakes, not skeptics. It is a double standard based on faith and nothing else. No matter how wrong alarmist get it they are still right in their own minds.
@sonhouse saidhttps://www.nature.com/articles/nature08769
Yeah, I have a grocery list and I KNOW it is going to cost 6.833 UNITS.
@metal-brain saidAre you blind? Deep DID point out one glaring issue, using the term 'units' which you may think is fine but even I, just a mere technician, knows full well you have to say what units are being talked about. When somebody says WOW, it took SIX UNITS to charge this battery, that is a totally useless quantity.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08769
It should say not 'units' but Kilometers, gauss, volts, amps, pressure, velocity, density, whatever. Just saying it came out at 0.043 UNITS is DESIGNED to confuse and hide the underlying computations. He knew full well what he was doing.
@sonhouse saidhttps://www.nature.com/articles/nature08769
Are you blind? Deep DID point out one glaring issue, using the term 'units' which you may think is fine but even I, just a mere technician, knows full well you have to say what units are being talked about. When somebody says WOW, it took SIX UNITS to charge this battery, that is a totally useless quantity.
It should say not 'units' but Kilometers, gauss, volts, amps, pres ...[text shortened]... TS is DESIGNED to confuse and hide the underlying computations. He knew full well what he was doing.
@metal-brain saidEr, Deep did an analysis on the WHOLE PIECE not a frigging abstract and it wants me to pay ten bucks to just READ the whole thing. You have a weird idea of just what science is all about. Just to say in an abstract, I found .72 PPM bla bla bla. That has nothing to do with reality. Is THAT your big deal evidence? A fukking ABSTRACT?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08769
@sonhouse saidThe source of information is not good enough for you? You could find the same article from another source not requiring a subscription. Since the journal nature is often considered the gold standard of science literature I thought you would respect the source.
Er, Deep did an analysis on the WHOLE PIECE not a frigging abstract and it wants me to pay ten bucks to just READ the whole thing. You have a weird idea of just what science is all about. Just to say in an abstract, I found .72 PPM bla bla bla. That has nothing to do with reality. Is THAT your big deal evidence? A fukking ABSTRACT?
It seems your "attack the source" tactic has spilled into well respected sources of information. That is a clear indication of political bias that trumps science. How do you rationalize that double think?
@metal-brain saidThis post is not comprehensible. Nuclear waste can be utilized for many decades to generate power if the facilities exist to do so. We have them for recycling bombs, why not nuclear power waste?
"Switching to recycled nuclear power would be cheaper, the fuel is free."
That is a false statement. Uranium is not free and it would prove nothing if it was, solar and wind are free.
It is all about expropriation of wealth. Why else would they lie about hurricanes getting worse because of GW? Why else would they lie about forest fires being because of GW?
Why do ...[text shortened]... faith and nothing else. No matter how wrong alarmist get it they are still right in their own minds.
Wealth is currently expropriated for maintaining a carbon-emitting economy. If we can support our entire nations energy grid using existing nuclear waste, why would that equate to wealth expropriation?
Forest fires aren't caused by global warming. At least we agree on that. The expropriation piece could use some further depth. Why do you think that?