Re: Global Warming at Odds With Science

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:40:01 +0200, abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>

looking up ippc

Hypocrite. You openly criticize the UN as a commie organization, but
you cuddle up to one of its most blatant internal organizations.

no use thrashing around.

Is that your euphemism for being a hypocrite.

it may be you're just bluffing again....that's not exactly 'hypocrisy'

Lack of substance noted.

post some substance to back your claims

The most substantial statement is "You won't accept the reality that
AGW is a hoax".

empty blather

Lack of substance noted.

Define what is meant by "global temperature". After all, if the globe
is warming, then the temperature of the globe, aka "global
temperature", is rising. How does one measure this "global

by assessing a large number of statistical points from various sources

That is not how the thermodynamic temperature is defined. It's a
definition of a temperature average, but it is not the thermodynamic
temperature used in science.

HINT: Temperature is a thermodynamic quantity which required an
equilibriun system for its validity. If the system is not in
equilibrium, then there is no temperature for the system.


Lack of substance noted.

If I mix water and ice, then clearly that system is not in
equilibrium. If I attempt to measure the temperature of that system I
will not get a valid reading because the reading I get depends on
where in the system I make the measurement. Is this water/ice system
warming up or is it cooling down?

that's because no single measurement would be of use in such a system

You clearly do not understand thermodynamics, yet you pontificate
about it all the time as though you were an expert.

The thermodynamic temperature is a single number that is related to
the quantiites of thermodynamics, such as the heat content, the total
energy, the entropy, etc. There can be only one such temperature.

What you are doing is invent a new kind of measurement which consists
of the average of many different temperature measurements and then you
proclaim it to be the same as the thermodynamic temperature. That is
JUNK science.

You cannot have different temperatures in an equilibrium system - all
measurements must be the same. A thermodynamic system in equilibrium
has one and only one temperature - THE temperature of the system. That
is not the case for a system that is not in equilibrium.

how you love your vastly simplified laboratory experiments

Lack of substance noted.

how you love your nice safe little world with its pseudo-certainties..

Lack of substance noted.

but that is an expression of your own insecurities and your clinging
to what you wish to be certainties....

Lack of substance noted.

in my judgement from watching you for years,you want *everything*
to be neat and can't tolerate any slight
if you once admit to even the slightest uncertainty i believe
your whole secure little world would fall apart....
i think that is what is really at the heart of your irrational
denialism....not 'science' but personal insecurity.

Lack of substance noted.

the equilibrium isn't for one part of a system...

I never said it was.

a temperature of a large complex system is not a single measurement
at one part of that system....

JUNK science.

the system is the planet and its atmosphere....
you can't put it in a beaker and wait for your single temperature...

That is true. The implication is that you cannot use the principles of
thermodynamics on it.

even in your beaker, however long you wait there will not be one
single temperature....there is no such thing as your desired
equilibrium system...even in your beaker....

Precisely because the global system is not in equilibrium, we cannot
use thermodynamic principles to make predictions.

as you would fully know from your quantum *models*.....

QM has nothing to do with it.

increasingly i don't think you even understand basic physics
despite your constant claims

You are not qualified to make such an absurd statement.

i think you are living on bluff and blather

Lack of substance noted.

There you go, Abbie - plenty of solid scientific substance for you.
Don't insult yourself by sidestepping it with the usual frivolous
pontifications and smart ass cracks. Address the substance directly.

it took long enuf to squeeze even that much substance from you

I said that 6 months ago. You didn't pay attention.

HINT: There is no such thing as "global temperature" and therefore
there is no way to measure whether the entire globe taken as a
thermodynamic system is warming.


Lack of substance noted.

next you'll try telling me you can't measure the difference between
a house on the prairie and a burning house on the prairie....

JUNK science.

but of course exactly that is done daily in fire laboratories to the
extent of measuring the heat of fires in rooms by the placing
of hundreds of sensors and regular measurements...

The temperatures measured are not thermodynamic.

i'm no physicist

Then what gives you the prerogative to make false judgements about
real science?

but i do have quite sufficient knowledge to recognise
bullshit and bluff when i see it....

Lack of substance noted.

What do you see when you look in a mirror?


"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin