The world goes Green

[Zoe Phin 0]

brent,

Climate nutters really hate science.

You can show them a 70-year running experiment:

https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=OLR&level=2000&lat1=-90&lat2=90&lon1=0&lon2=360&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=1&iarea=1&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries

And they will still think it gets warmer because OLR is reduced.

Normal science: hotter objects emit more. colder objects emit less.

Climate psyence: emitting less is proof something is getting warm.

Evidence: OLR increased.

Occam's razor: NOT GHGs caused warming and an increase in OLR.

Psyence enthusiasts: Facts don't matter. The conclusion is the same. Stop talking. We won. Yeay! We're ignorant and proud! The first thing we're taught is always true. Anyone who comes along and says otherwise is "obviously" wrong. The thousands of ways our stupid theories can be debunked proves they're making it up, or trying hard, and so must be wrong. They must be smeared. We're really nice conscientious people, btw. 

[murps2000 86]

34 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

I don't believe Velikovsky's origin theory. I believe that Venus didn't originate in the solar system at all. I don't know when it came here.

In Velikovsky's time, Venus was thought to be ~20C. He was the closest to the real deal.

You would've guessed wrong too, because the guess was based on size and mass (and solar proximity).

You believe Venus didn’t originate in the solar system? By what mechanism did it arrive in its present position?

[brenthutch 383]

25 minutes ago, olofscience said:

busted! You were making stuff up.

 

I wasn’t making up the fact that CO2 has caused a greening of the planet.  Or would you like to argue otherwise?

[Zoe Phin 0]

2 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

By what mechanism did it arrive in its present position?

Good question. Could be a stray picked up on our journey around the galaxy.

We can also turn Earth into a Venus like planet by just removing the top 70km of our crust.

Perhaps Venus did originate here and lost its cap. I doubt it, but that's just my opinion.

Science is easy when you're not wedded to a stupid theory with zero experimental evidence.

We know there's no runaway greenhouse gas effect because that can't explain Venus' geothermal gradient.

[olofscience 420]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I wasn’t making up the fact that CO2 has caused a greening of the planet.  Or would you like to argue otherwise?

I meant, you were making up stuff that you said I said. Nice goalpost move but it's not going to work.

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I meant, you were making up stuff that you said I said. Nice goalpost move but it's not going to work.

Goalposts move?  Did you read the title of my original post?  Or did you just have trouble understanding it?

[olofscience 420]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Goalposts move?  Did you read the title of my original post?  Or did you just have trouble understanding it?

I was replying to:

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Isn’t that what you said about the record cold gripping the Northern Hemisphere?

I didn't say anything about the cold in the Northern Hemisphere, you failed to produce a quote, and now you're inviting me to another dull brenthutch discussion. Couldn't you just re-read our debate last year?

[brenthutch 383]

Just now, olofscience said:

I was replying to:

I didn't say anything about the cold in the Northern Hemisphere, you failed to produce a quote, and now you're inviting me to another dull brenthutch discussion. Couldn't you just re-read our debate last year?

Let me help you out.

“Looking at remote sensing data from NASA’s satellites, we’ve discovered that over the last two decades, the Earth has increased its green leaf area by a total of 5 percent, which is roughly five and a half million square kilometers—an increase equivalent to the size of the entire Amazon rain forest.”

Are you going to persist with the red herrings or are you ready to admit the obvious.

 

[murps2000 86]

48 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Good question. Could be a stray picked up on our journey around the galaxy.

We can also turn Earth into a Venus like planet by just removing the top 70km of our crust.

Perhaps Venus did originate here and lost its cap. I doubt it, but that's just my opinion.

Science is easy when you're not wedded to a stupid theory with zero experimental evidence.

We know there's no runaway greenhouse gas effect because that can't explain Venus' geothermal gradient.

So much for Occam’s razor I guess

[tonyhays 86]

"Zoe" could be the poster child for the dunning-kruger effect.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, Zoe Phin said:

Science is easy when you're not wedded to a stupid theory with zero experimental evidence.

What scientific achievements have you contributed to?

[billvon 2,380]

3 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

Good question. Could be a stray picked up on our journey around the galaxy.

OK so to try to win this argument you are now claiming that Venus likely came from an extrasolar source.  What's next?  Secret Jewish space lasers causing warming?

There's a general guideline in such discussions.  When you are this far in the hole - STOP DIGGING.

Quote

Science is easy  . . .

Science is indeed easy when you just make shit up.  No need for any experimentation, verification or math!

[billvon 2,380]

4 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

What principle are you trying to demonstrate with your laser cooler?

It refutes your silly claim that energy can only move from hot things to cold things.

[gowlerk 1,903]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

It refutes your silly claim that energy can only move from hot things to cold things.

Not nearly as silly as good Ol' Sol picking up a stray inner planet and adopting it as his own while on a magical tour of the galaxy. Now that is taking creativity to a whole new level. Science is truly easy when answers can just be made up.

[murps2000 86]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Not nearly as silly as good Ol' Sol picking up a stray inner planet and adopting it as his own while on a magical tour of the galaxy. Now that is taking creativity to a whole new level. Science is truly easy when answers can just be made up.

Not just picking up a stray planet and adopting it, but settling it into a nice orbit, nearly right in plane with all of the others already here. And circularizing that orbit somehow, so that it has the least eccentricity of any other planet.

[gowlerk 1,903]

4 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

Not just picking up a stray planet and adopting it, but settling it into a nice orbit, nearly right in plane with all of the others already here. And circularizing that orbit somehow, so that it has the least eccentricity of any other planet.

The Lord could do it. Classical physics could not,. But hey, smartypants is a believer.

[Zoe Phin 0]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

It refutes your silly claim that energy can only move from hot things to cold things.

I've looked ahead, it doesn't. That's why you won't elaborate. Laws of Thermodynamics deniers are a funny bunch.

2 hours ago, murps2000 said:

Not just picking up a stray planet and adopting it, but settling it into a nice orbit, nearly right in plane with all of the others already here. And circularizing that orbit somehow, so that it has the least eccentricity of any other planet.

Sounds so neat and perfect, right?

Just like the theory of spontaneous gravitational collapse forming stars and planets? Why didn't it happen 1 minute earlier? or 10 years earlier? 

Our scientists can send a probe near Saturn and then it will orbit on its own from then on. But I guess a planet can't pass by a star and do the same. There's only a trillion? planets in our galaxy, so I guess it can't happen. But you believe in evolution though, RIGHT?

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Science is truly easy when answers can just be made up.

Scientific process starts with hypotheses.

Greenhouse Venus hypothesis is already debunked.

[kallend 1,621]

15 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

What is wrong with you people?

 

They're arguing with an ignorant troll?

[olofscience 420]

 

4 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

Our scientists can send a probe near Saturn and then it will orbit on its own from then on. But I guess a planet can't pass by a star and do the same.

The  scientists you keep saying you know better than? You have no idea how they did it do you

Hint: the Cassini probe had thrusters, which the probe used when it arrived. Does Venus have thrusters?

If Venus doesn't have thrusters, it needs to transfer its excess angular momentum to something else - otherwise it would violate conservation of energy (one of the Laws of Thermodynamics that you keep ignoring). When real gravitational capture happens an equal mass usually needs to be tossed out. For example with Neptune's moon Triton, a possible actual capture, another similar moon was probably ejected when it happened.

 

Why don't you use your computer programming skills to calculate a possible orbital solution to your Venus hypothesis? Oh right, it's because you have no idea what you're doing, you just use it to impress non-coders.

[murps2000 86]

7 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

I've looked ahead, it doesn't. That's why you won't elaborate. Laws of Thermodynamics deniers are a funny bunch.

Sounds so neat and perfect, right?

Just like the theory of spontaneous gravitational collapse forming stars and planets? Why didn't it happen 1 minute earlier? or 10 years earlier? 

Our scientists can send a probe near Saturn and then it will orbit on its own from then on. But I guess a planet can't pass by a star and do the same. There's only a trillion? planets in our galaxy, so I guess it can't happen. But you believe in evolution though, RIGHT?

Scientific process starts with hypotheses.

Greenhouse Venus hypothesis is already debunked.

Science doesn't ask why, only how. I don't believe anything. I judge explanations, as best I can, on their merit. With regard to Venus capture, I asked you, by what mechanism did it arrive in it's current position? You have only a hypothesis, and just based on the very limited knowledge I have about orbital mechanics, I can already tell it's a long shot. It might actually be easier to prove Earth capture.

I do feel some thanks are in order. This has been by far the most entertaining thread I have seen since I started blabbing in SC. So thank you for that.

 

[Erroll 49]

21 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

This has been by far the most entertaining thread

Try this one.... Nanothermite and the WTC  

 

[Phil1111 908]

25 minutes ago, Erroll said:

Try this one.... Nanothermite and the WTC  

 

The lure of the rabbit hole has been around for a while. It plays upon the psychology of distraction. If necessary the mods may have to send Elon Musk's boring machine to get to the bottom of this hole.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

19 hours ago, olofscience said:

I actually looked this up (yes, I'm bored) and boy it is crazy

His theory is:

• around the 15th century BCE, Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object
• Venus must be rich in petroleum and hydrocarbon gases (it's not)
• "Velikovsky arrived at these proposals using a methodology which would today be called comparative mythology – he looked for concordances in the myths and written histories of unconnected cultures across the world" - i.e he used fiction, no hard evidence

You do know that before 15th century BCE, Venus was already known by ancient people in its current position right? Ancient Egypt was around way before that.

Oh boy. 

I actually have a copy of this book. It was my dad's and I ended up with a lot of his books after he died.
It's abso-fucking-lutely hilarious.

No facts, no evidence, no nothing.

Just 'comparative mythology', which is a fancy term for 'taking folk tales from all over and pretending that they match up'. 

Anything and everything he tried to present as 'fact' has been proven wrong.
It was published in 1950, and there was a lot that was unknown about Venus at that time. Since then, we (scientists) have made a lot of discoveries about the size, composition, environment, ect of Venus. 

NONE OF IT  matches. 

Interestingly, tucked inside my dad's copy of the book was a little newspaper article (maybe 2 or 3 column inches) that was about an announcement by the publisher that they were no longer going to publish the book. MacMillan published a lot of textbooks and the ludicrous claims in this one mad them look silly.

Why am I not surprised that the so-called 'climate expert' spouting all sorts of ludicrous claims about global warming would be a 'true believer', agreeing with ANY of the crap Velikovsky spouted. 

Nor am I surprised that she has no clue about the mechanism that produces atmospheric pressure.

[Zoe Phin 0]

10 hours ago, olofscience said:

If Venus doesn't have thrusters, it needs to transfer its excess angular momentum to something else

What angular momentum? The one it has now?

LOL, what an idiot.

10 hours ago, olofscience said:

Hint: the Cassini probe had thrusters, which the probe used when it arrived. Does Venus have thrusters?

Yes, it did have thrusters. The thrusters were used to slow it down. Great observation, but ...

You see, genius, we like to send probes fast  then slow it down. We could've also sent it the slow way for the whole trip.

Bottom line: You don't know what Venus was doing before capture, and you have ZERO basis for disqualifying this hypothesis.

Now go desperately seek another "gotcha" to embarass yourself and never grow any wiser.

:-) -Zoe

 

Warning: Abusive behavior. You may not call other posters an idiot.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

You don't know what Venus was doing before capture, and you have ZERO basis for disqualifying this hypothesis.

Yes of course. There is always the possibility that it was a lonesome planet wandering aimlessly through the galaxy looking for a home. Perhaps it was delivered and placed into orbit by an unknown cosmic Amazon delivery truck. I mean, you can't prove it wasn't.