Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, April 23, 2018

The CO2 Blanket?

-
A greenhouse traps its IR/ LWR with its glass enclosure. The UV comes in, warms the interior which starts radiating and that radiation is trapped by the enclosure. Simple, basic stuff.

According to at least some AGW alarmists CO2 acts like a blanket. Clouds can act like a blanket depending on the type and abundance. But that blanket just keeps the norm. It doesn't make it any warmer.

CO2 is heavier than air. The miniscule traces of CO2 are nothing like cloud cover and nothing like a blanket.They re-emit their absorbed energy in any direction, not just back towards the source, for example the earth. If all of the CO2 aligned such that their collective re-emittance was towards space then there is zero greenhouse effect. It wouldn't matter if the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 1% if that was the case. And at 400 parts per million, even if you could get them all aligned to re-emit towards the earth, it's a very inefficient process that includes cooling when the energy is released.

And guess what? All of that energy escapes anyway.

The fact is neither scenario is likely. That is because the CO2 is constantly being moved around and with that the angle of re-emittance is always changing. And the area the re-emitted energy can affect is very small. Unless the CO2 is very close to the earth there is no way its re-emitted energy will reach the earth. It's most likely going to get moved right along by winds and convection currents. That is how the majority of the heat the atmosphere is moved- winds and convection currents. The re-emitting from CO2 is very, very minor in comparison and is overwhelmed by it.

CO2 only absorbs 8% of the total black body radiation produced by the earth. 8%- that's it. 92% leaves unimpeded by CO2. That is a number you will never hear AGW alarmists say.

How long does the CO2 hold onto the energy? Not long at all. It gets energized and gives it away- badda-bing, badda-boom- gone. Some of it's energy is transferred via contact with other atmospheric gasses. Only some of it's absorbed energy is re-emitted as IR/ LWR. You are not going to get warmer if the energy the CO2 releases is less than the surrounding air.

How far does that re-emitted energy travel? It isn't powered by much so it cannot be very far before it dissipates without leaving any noticeable effect.

Then there is the following:

Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands.

Conclusions
This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature.
On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue 1, 2, 3.
Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.  
 What? How can that be? HINT- CO2 is being used as a commercial refrigerant- it is a high quality natural refrigerant. Go figure.

Without an atmosphere the surface would be roasting. The Moon doesn't have an atmosphere and guess what the sunny side's temperature is? 253 degrees F!!!!! NASA

It is our magnetic shield, atmosphere and oceans which greatly attenuate and regulate that signal. The greenhouse gasses, mainly water vapor just slow the return of the energy back into space. Deserts are cold at night due to the lack of humidity and total lack of cloud cover. CO2 doesn't have any effect there.

Urban heat islands exist as do Urban CO2 domes. Looks like the gasses don't mix as much as we are led to believe which would make CO2 a local and not global issue. IF it was an issue to begin with, which apparently it is not.

CO2 does not act like a blanket. It does not trap any heat. All the alleged greenhouses gasses do is slow the ascent of the radiated heat from the surface of the earth to space.


Monday, April 16, 2018

Set- Mathematics

-
While talking about sets with respect to mathematics on cannot help see the irony between the definition of a set and alleged infinite sets. The problem is even more exacerbated when thinking about the set of all real numbers.
In mathematics, a set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. For example, the numbers 2, 4, and 6 are distinct objects when considered separately, but when they are considered collectively they form a single set of size three, written {2,4,6}. The concept of a set is one of the most fundamental in mathematics.
and
A set is a well-defined collection of distinct objects. 
No one can collect an infinite number of things. And with real numbers, if you are starting with the positive Reals, then you don't even know where it starts. There isn't a well-defined first positive Real number and there will never be a well-defined collection of them.

So perhaps that is why there are issues when it comes to infinity and sets. They were never supposed to go together.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

keiths is an Ignorant and Desperate Ass

-
keiths- you do NOT get to tell me who my system works. And you prove that you are clueless:

Joe G insists that the leading zeros help him…

Of course those help me, keiths. YOU don’t get to tell me how my system works. You are a desperate loser.

…and then describes a procedure in which the leading zeros don’t help him in the slightest:

Anyone can see that the “3” in one set matches with the “3” in the “3.1” in the other. The “4” in one set matches with the “4” in the “4.1” in the other- and so on.
WRONG. What I described proves that the zero to the left of the decimal point helps. What is 3.1-3?

So besides the leading zeros problem, the elements don’t actually have to match, according to Joe. They merely have to Joematch, meaning that something in one matches something in the other.
No, dumbass. The FIRST number is what matters.

But even the revised Joematching “procedure” fails, by leading to a contradiction. Consider the following four sets:
A = {1,2,3,4,5…}
B = {2,4,6,8,10…}
C = {3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5…}
D = {3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 3.10…}
Wait- look closely at set D. The 5th element is actually 3.1. But if the purpose was to add .2 then it would be 4.0.

Try again, keiths

Set subtraction is only used in cases where it can be. It is an easy way to tell if the cardinalities are different. I never said that is the only method.

 

Cantor was Wrong

-
Two trains, A and B, on an infinite journey.

They are on parallel tracks, starting @ the same time and traveling the same speed-> 1 mile / min. Their energy is supplied by "the force" and is unlimited.

Every mile there is a brass ring.

Train A hooks a brass ring every mile. Train A's collection is depicted by the set {1,2,3,4,5,...}

Train B hooks a brass ring every 2 miles. Train B's collection is depicted by the set {2,4,6,8,10,...}

Each train has an accountant and each track also has an accountant.

After a 10 hours each set is counted. If my detractors are correct I would expect to see all four accountants reach the same count.

Train A's set has 600 members in its collection (set)

Train B's has 300

The first ten miles of track A's rings are gone. Nothing in its set

Track B has 300 rings still hanging- 300 members in its set


And this pattern is reproduced throughout the infinite journey.


You are talking about the equivalent of two finite sets:
Infinity is a journey which consists of finite steps. My sets will remain unequal for eternity. After the first minute there will never be a point in time in which the cardinality of the two sets is the same.

keiths has choked up a "response":
There will never be a point in time in which the two sets are infinite, either.
Gibberish. The point is at every point along the journey one set will always have more brass rings. Always. Forever

Your choo-choo math is therefore irrelevant to the problem, which asks about the cardinality of two infinite sets.
 Cardinality refers to a number whereas infinity is not a number. So understanding that infinity is a journey and relativity applies we can determine the relative cardinality between two sets.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

keiths is just ignorant

-
keiths still doesn't understand infinite sets. It is too stupid to understand that the only thing gained by a one-to-one correspondence is the function that exposes the relative cardinalities- well and that function shows the two sets are countable and infinite.

But Einstein still holds. The set {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,...} will always have more members than the set {2,4,6,8,10...}. I can match up every member from the second set to a member of the first set and the first set will have unmatched members. Mere set subtraction proves the first set has more members of the second.

Cantor didn't know about relativity so he can be forgiven. keiths and the rest are just willfully ignorant assholes.

keiths is still struggling with set subtraction. No surprise there

Oh my- keiths is a desperate ass- No, dumbass you have to match the numbers- MATCH. You don't get to arbitrarily place one number from one set with one from the other. SET SUBTRACTION you ignorant twit.

keiths- ignorant of English, math, physics and nested hierarchies. You are a buffoon you old chump

And MOAR desperate ignorance from keiths- you only apply set subtraction when you can- ie when the sets contain matching numbers.

In my system A = {1,2,3,4,5…}
B = {1, 2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1…}  would have the same cardinality.

But I understand that you have to be a dick in order to try to score imaginary interweb points

OK keiths has admitted that he is just being a dick in order to try to score imaginary interweb points.

Yes set subtraction would still work on your two sets. As long as left of the decimal point is 0 you are good to go. Duh

You lose, keiths

keiths proves it is an ignorant ass who couldn't think if its life depended on it.

keiths blows a gasket:


There is no zero “left of the decimal point”, unless you’re talking about the implicit leading zeros, and those won’t help you.
Of course those help me, keiths. YOU don't get to tell me how my system works.  You are a desperate loser.

Anyone can see that the "3" in one set matches with the "3" in the "3.1" in the other. The "4" in one set matches with the "4" in the "4.1" in the other- and so on.

And this dork says that I don't understand math.

Saturday, April 07, 2018

The Genetic Code- Expected Before it was Found- So What?

-
Glen Davidson is one clueless imp. He has a new post up on TSZ titled The Genetic Code: Expected Before It Was Found- to which I say- so what? That doesn't mean natural selection and drift didit. You still don't have a mechanism capable of producing the genetic code.

IDists say the genetic code is evidence for ID for the simple reason only intelligent agencies can produce codes and nature cannot. If you and yours had any evidence that nature could produce codes you could have a chance to win up to 5.1 MILLION dollars:

Technology Prize for Origin of Information

So stop with your blah, blah. blah and get to work


At this stage, the only thing about (blind watchmaker) evolutionary advocates that interests me is their psychology. They are a demented lot who don't seem to give a damn about reality or science. Yes, looking at your Richard Saunders, aka Kantian Naturalist/ loser

Wednesday, April 04, 2018

Futuyma Refutes keiths

-
In Futuyma's college textbook "Evolution" 3rd edition, he discusses classification schemes. He starts out talking about the nested hierarchies of Linnaean Taxonomy. When he discusses phylogenies he says they are a hierarchal scheme, not a nested hierarchy.


Whoopsie- that also means I am owed $10,000 by Andreas S- loser

Monday, April 02, 2018

keiths- ignorant and incompetent

-

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:  

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. 

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:   

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings 

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.



But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:     

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy. 

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.  

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses. 

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper: 

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. 

Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:    

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

and   

*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).



It was based on a common design scheme. keiths is clearly an ignorant ass