By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
I have just had the honor of listening to Professor Murry Salby giving a lecture on climate. He had addressed the Numptorium in Holyrood earlier in the day, to the bafflement of the fourteenth-raters who populate Edinburgh’s daft wee parliament. In the evening, among friends, he gave one of the most outstanding talks I have heard.
Professor Salby has also addressed the Parliament of Eunuchs in Westminster. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk.
The Faceless Ones whose trembling, liver-spotted hands guide the European hulk of state unerringly towards the bottom were among the first and most naively enthusiastic true-believers in the New Superstition that is global warming. They could have benefited from a scientific education from the Professor.
His lecture, a simplified version of his earlier talk in Hamburg that was the real reason why spiteful profiteers of doom at Macquarie “University” maliciously canceled his non-refundable ticket home so that he could not attend the kangaroo court that dismissed him, was a first-class exercise in logical deduction.
He had written every word of it, elegantly. He delivered it at a measured pace so that everyone could follow. He unfolded his central case step by step, verifying each step by showing how his theoretical conclusions matched the real-world evidence.
In a normal world with mainstream news media devoted to looking at all subjects from every direction (as Confucius used to put it), Murry Salby’s explosive conclusion that temperature change drives CO2 concentration change and not the other way about would have made headlines. As it is, scarce a word has been published anywhere.
You may well ask what I might have asked: given that the RSS satellite data now show a zero global warming trend for 17 full years, and yet CO2 concentration has been rising almost in a straight line throughout, is it any more justifiable to say that temperature change causes CO2 change than it is to say that CO2 change causes temperature change?
The Professor headed that one off at the pass. During his talk he said it was not global temperature simpliciter but the time-integral of global temperature that determined CO2 concentration change, and did so to a correlation coefficient of around 0.9.
I had first heard of Murry Salby’s work from Dick Lindzen over a drink at a regional government conference we were addressing in Colombia three years ago. I readily agreed with Dick’s conclusion that if we were causing neither temperature change nor even CO2 concentration change the global warming scare was finished.
I began then to wonder whether the world could now throw off the absurdities of climate extremism and develop a sensible theory of climate.
In pursuit of this possibility, I told Professor Salby I was going to ask two questions. He said I could ask just one. So I asked one question in two parts.
First, I asked whether the rapid, exponential decay in carbon-14 over the six decades following the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests had any bearing on his research. He said that the decay curve for carbon-14 indicated a mean CO2 atmospheric residence time far below the several hundred years assumed in certain quarters. It supports Dick Lindzen’s estimate of a 40-year residence time, not the IPCC’s imagined 50-200 years.
Secondly, I asked whether Professor Salby had studied what drove global temperature change. He said he had not gotten to that part of the story yet.
In the past year, I said, four separate groups haf contacted me to say they were able to reproduce global temperature change to a high correlation coefficient by considering it as a function of – and, accordingly, dependent upon – the time-integral of total solar irradiance.
If these four groups are correct, and if Professor Salby is also correct, one can begin to sketch out a respectable theory of climate.
The time-integral of total solar irradiance determines changes in global mean surface temperature. Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic-ray amplification, which now has considerable support in the literature, may help to explain the mechanism.
In turn, the time integral of absolute global mean temperature determines the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here, the mechanism will owe much to Henry’s Law, which mandates that a warmer ocean can carry less CO2 than a colder ocean. I have never seen an attempt at a quantitative analysis of that relationship in this debate, and should be grateful if any of Anthony’s readers can point me to one.
The increased CO2 concentration as the world warms may well act as a feedback amplifying the warming, and perhaps our own CO2 emissions make a small contribution. But we are not the main cause of warmer weather, and certainly not the sole cause.
For the climate, all the world’s a stage. But, if the theory of climate that is emerging in samizdat lectures such as that of Professor Salby is correct, we are mere bit-part players, who strut and fret our hour upon the stage and then are heard no more.
The shrieking hype with which the mainstream news media bigged up Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, ruthlessly exploiting lost lives in their increasingly desperate search for evidence – any evidence – as ex-post-facto justification for their decades of fawning, head-banging acquiescence in the greatest fraud in history shows that they have begun to realize that their attempt at politicizing science itself is failing.
Whether they like it or not, typhoons are acts of God, not of Man.
I asked Professor Salby whether there was enough information in the temperature record to allow him to predict the future evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration. He said he could not do that.
However, one of the groups working on the dependence of global temperature change on the time-integral of total solar irradiance makes a startling prediction: that we are in for a drop of half a Celsius degree in the next five years.
When I made a glancing reference to that research in an earlier posting, the propagandist John Abraham sneeringly offered me a $1000 bet that the fall in global temperature would not happen.
I did not respond to this characteristically jejune offer. A theory of climate is a hypothesis yet to be verified by observation, experiment and measurement. It is not yet a theorem definitively demonstrated. Explaining the difference to climate communists is likely to prove impossible. To them the Party Line, whatever it is, must be right even if it be wrong.
The group that dares to say it expects an imminent fall in global mean surface temperature does so with great courage, and in the Einsteinian spirit of describing at the outset a test by which its hypothesis may be verified.
Whether that group proves right or wrong, its approach is as consistent with the scientific method as the offering of childish bets is inconsistent with it. In science, all bets are off. As al-Haytham used to say, check and check and check again. He was not talking about checks in settlement of silly wagers.
In due course Professor Salby will publish in the reviewed literature his research on the time-integral of temperature as the driver of CO2 concentration change. So, too, I hope, will the groups working on the time-integral of total solar irradiance as the driver of temperature change.
In the meantime, I hope that those who predict a sharp, near-term fall in global temperature are wrong. Cold is a far bigger killer than warmth. Not that the climate communists of the mainstream media will ever tell you that.
Nick Stokes says:
“The biosphere can’t save us.”
Save us from what, exactly? From a slightly warmer, more pleasant climate? Most of us don’t want to be ‘saved’ from that.
And:
“As for logarithmic, I’m not sure you know what it means. It has little effect in going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.”
I know exactly what it means. It means is that your alarmism is built on a foundation of sand.
You, dikranmarsupial and joelshore are the quinessential Chicken Littles, running around the Numptorium and shouting, “The sky is falling!!”
But CO2 is only an acorn. There is nothing to be alarmed about. If you don’t believe me, just look out at the real world. You will see that there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening.
It was only an acorn after all.
dikranmarsupial says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:59 am
“No, I clearly explained that Mrs Marsupial represents the natural system.”
Again, you are trying to contrive the example to achieve the result you want. But, the bank is really the only outside element.
“Explain in this case how the rise in the bank balance is being caused by the bank, given that the bank is taking more money out of the account than it is putting in?”
This is like that card trick kids do at summer camp. You ask the other kid to pick a suit. If the card you have slightly poking out of the deck, so you can find it and pull it out, is in those suits, you go with it. Otherwise, you tell him we’ll go with the other two. The same process repeats, suit, range of numbers or face, and so on. You progressively talk him into picking the card you have at the ready then, as kids aren’t typically all that swift on the uptake, you pull it out to his amazement.
You are contriving an example which fits your paradigm. And, if I agree to the conclusions which result from your constraints, then you can declare victory.
But, the real world bears no resemblance to your contrivance. The real world has active elements which respond to forcing in a feedback loop. You are doing a static analysis on a dynamic system. Then, you throw a fit because I refuse to play a game which amounts to a meaningless exercise in confirmation bias.
Look, it is very simple:
The net anthropogenic input is the emissions minus the portion of the natural sinks which respond to that forcing.
Na = Ea – Una
The net natural input is the total natural input minus the natural sinks plus that portion of the sinks which responded to human inputs.
Nn = En – Un + Una
Total is
C = Nn + Na
En – Un can be negative, yet still we can have Nn positive. And, that is why the “mass balance” argument is trivial and meaningless.
I think the thing you are not getting is that Un is not a static quantity. It is composed of two components, Un = Unn + Una, where Unn is the natural response of the sinks to natural inputs. Una does not take out a portion of Un, it adds to it. It grows in order to handle the anthropogenic input, and it shrinks away when the anthropogenic input is taken away.
“It grows in order to handle the anthropogenic input, and it shrinks away when the anthropogenic input is taken away.”
I.e., this is a dynamic system.
I asked “Explain in this case how the rise in the bank balance is being caused by the bank, given that the bank is taking more money out of the account than it is putting in?”
Bart responded “This is like that card trick kids do at summer camp. You ask the other kid to pick a suit. If the card you have slightly poking out of the deck, so you can find it and pull it out, is in those suits, you go with it. Otherwise, you tell him we’ll go with the other two. The same process repeats, suit, range of numbers or face, and so on. You progressively talk him into picking the card you have at the ready then, as kids aren’t typically all that swift on the uptake, you pull it out to his amazement.”
Which is just mode evasion and a tacit admission that he knows he can’t answer the question directly without demonstrating that he is incorrect.
I challenged Richard to come up with an example of an everyday situation in which X consistently takes more Y out of Z than it puts in and yet X can be reasonably said to be the cause of the increase of Y in Z. I suspect that Bart can’t provide one either because to cause an increase very strongly implies adding to something, rather than subtracting from it.
Joel Shore said:
“An object emits radiative energy due to its temperature; you can’t just decide that you get to deduct some amount of energy from what it emits because that happens to suit your own prejudices.”
You have to define ‘an object’.
From space the top of the planet’s atmosphere is the object and not the surface. Since a portion of the energy leaving the surface gets tied up in the adiabatic exchange it never leaves from the top of the atmosphere.
The surface radiative energy can indeed be apportioned between the adiabatic exchange between surface and atmosphere and the radiative exchange between top of atmosphere and space. Only the portion not engaged in holding the weight of the atmosphere off the surface can escape from the object as properly defined.
The portion that fails to get out to space remains whizzing about within the atmosphere but is a consequence of the apportionment of energy and not a cause of anything.
This may sound made up to radiative enthusiasts but would have been no surprise to anyone 50 years ago.
HenryP says:
November 13, 2013 at 10:03 am
Cooling gives less uptake by the extratropical biosphere, where most of the recent increase is noticed. The tropics are rather in equilibrium, except with a sudden increase in temperature (the 1998 El Niño) and the subsequent drying out. But that is a temporarely influence.
Cooling gives more uptake by the oceans. On the long term the oceans win the battle, on short term (seasons, year by year variability) vegetation is dominant.
But in general, more CO2 gives more plant growth, be it limited (the circumstances in nature are not as ideal as in a grower’s greenhouse), and humans still (estimated) destroy more forests than they replant trees, crops and lawns…
rgb thinks that a rising parcel of energy retains its heat.
It doesn’t. It retains its energy but as it rises higher an increasingly large part of the total energy becomes potential energy (not heat) and an increasingly smaller part remains as kinetic energy (heat).
rgb does not know the difference between heat and energy and until he does some work he will never get my points.
Indeed the role of the adiabatic energy exchange within an atmosphere is an unknown mystery to anyone brought up on the radiative theory of gases.
There is a lot of re-education required.
dikranmarsupial:
I take severe umbrage at your post at November 13, 2013 at 6:00 am which says in total
I note that you keep repeating the same nonsense which has been repeatedly refuted by several people in this thread, and you refuse to consider my arguments and my explanations of why your assertions are nonsense.
I and others have repeatedly demonstrated that you are wrong in several ways; e.g. my explanation at November 11, 2013 at 6:51 am and this link jumps to it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1472028
In my post at November 13, 2013 at 5:07 am I rejected your analogy and clearly explained WHY that analogy is NOT appropriate. Of course I did not provide another analogy of that ridiculous “form”: there is no reason for me to emulate your irrational behaviour and I refuse to do it. I DID “provide an analogy” which demonstrates what I am trying to get you to understand but – as you have with all evidence and all argument – you refused to consider it.
I have NOT “descended into abuse”. I have described your behaviour in plain language.
There is no “apparent contradiction in saying that nature is a net sink and yet it is causing CO2 levels to rise”. The “apparent contradiction” only exists in your mind, and it is because – as you have repeatedly demonstrated – you are incapable of considering anything which does not agree with your irrational belief. Several people have explained why there is no contradiction; e.g. this scenario from Stephen Wilde
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1472326
In this thread I have repeatedly made clear explanations of my “case”, for example, this one
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/10/towards-a-theory-of-climate/#comment-1472551
Oh well, you can lead a bigot to knowledge but you can’t get him to consider it.
Richard
ferdinand says
and humans still (estimated) destroy more forests than they replant trees, crops and lawns…
henry says
quote from my source:
About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines.
richardscourtney I note that you still have not provided an analogy of the form “X consistently takes more Y out of Z than it puts in but X is the cause of the rise of Y in Z”. Any analogy that is not of this form misses the point that I was trying to make. If you can do this, then it will help me to understand your position, if you can’t do it, perhaps it will help you to understand mine.
You write “There is no “apparent contradiction in saying that nature is a net sink and yet it is causing CO2 levels to rise”. The “apparent contradiction” only exists in your mind.” I disagree. It seems to me to be common sense to suggest that you cause something to increase by putting more in than you take out, not by taking more out than you put in. This is true of bank balances, cookies in cookie jars, water in baths, so why is atmospheric CO2 different in this respect. As I said if you could come up with an example of the format given above, that would be very helpful in making your usage clear.
Phil. says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:42 am
Well Phil you lost on the other thread because I took on board the points you made that were correct and then pointed out to you that if the Gas Laws could not include a term for the thermal effect of radiative gases then the only effect they could have without breaching the gas laws would be to increase atmospheric volume and height.
What I did there was try to see whether the Gas Laws could accommodate radiative characteristics and you successfully showed me that they could not which actually suited me just fine.
You tried to deny that with a silly comment that made someone other than me doubt your sincerity.
joeldshore:
Thankyou for the laugh you gave me with your post at November 13, 2013 at 8:52 am.
You made no attempt to address my arguments. This is no surprise because your history of posts on WUWT demonstrates you lack the intellectual capacity to engage in a rational discussion.
Instead, you posed your laughable ‘fountain analogy’ which displays such a complete failure to understand the subject that – when they stopped gasping at your misunderstanding of reality – others refuted so I dfid not need to.
And your post I am replying only consists of present bluster and abuse which you hope will hide your ignorance and stupidity. They don’t.
Richard
dikranmarsupial:
re your post at November 13, 2013 at 10:50 am.
I and others have told you how and why your daft ‘bank analogy’ is not appropriate. And I have told you that I will not engage in a lunatic discussion of an inappropriate analogy. Live with it.
And your ‘cookie jar analogy’ is similarly daft.
You say you like analogies. OK. Address my ‘heart beat’ analogy which so far you have studiously avoided even to mention.
Richard
Stephen Wilde 10:30am: “The portion that fails to get out to space remains whizzing about within the atmosphere but is a consequence of the apportionment of energy and not a cause of anything. This may sound made up to radiative enthusiasts but would have been no surprise to anyone 50 years ago.”
I see from Stephen’s post that he still has not read and comprehended Callendar 1938 which explains “the portion” getting out to space slightly decreases at surface with increase of IR active gas ppm. Since this theory was written 75 years ago and appears in modern atm. radiation text books, G.S. Callendar et. al. would certainly have been surprised 50 years ago at Stephen’s non-radiative climate hypothesis.
Stephen 8:06pm, 8:20pm: “It is going to take some time and some effort for those who are radiatively focused to disentangle themselves from the resultant confusion…..Essentially the radiative theory is illogical.”
No. To move towards a complete theory of climate, Stephen really needs to expend the funds and do the work necessary to study up and learn why radiative transfer in basic text book climate theory is certainly logical thru experiment and 1st principle theory. It is going to take some time for Stephen who is radiative transfer challenged to eliminate his resultant confusion.
Stephen – you get many hints in this thread and others; it is simply too easy for you to reject all posts on this point. In my POV, you are a hobby observationalist who can’t see the sky glow in IR at night with your own eyes so write that glow off as unobserved and having no effect on surface global Tmean. Hence Stephen remains confused about that glow’s changing effects on global surface Tmean.
That’s a neat trick, but IR from the atmosphere doesn’t make heat flow backwards, nor do radiative transfer texts say such a thing. There’s no experimental evidence for such a thing either, particularly when real greenhouses don’t even do it.
richard, please can you identify the net sink in your heat beat analogy. We both agree that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, the point where our positions diverge is after that, so any analogy that will help us to reach agreement must have a net sink that is causing something to increase as that is ithe issue where we appear to disagree.
The sticking point (from my perspective) is whether something can be the cause of an increase by taking more out than it puts in. That seems to me to be counter intuitive, and an example or two would be very helpful.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 13, 2013 at 10:36 am
“rgb does not know the difference between heat and energy and until he does some work he will never get my points.”
Much as I respect your opinions, Stephen, you really must not let your emotions get the better of you. RGB is a professor of physics at a major university. I am quite sure he knows all about heat / energy. Your dispute is due to miscommunication, I think, rather than fundamental lack of knowledge of either party.
dikranmarsupial says:
November 13, 2013 at 10:50 am
“It seems to me to be common sense to suggest that you cause something to increase by putting more in than you take out, not by taking more out than you put in.”
Not if what you put in is very quickly drained out again. You increase it, sure, but by a negligible level. That is why attribution all comes down to the power of the sinks.
dikranmarsupial says:
November 13, 2013 at 11:06 am
“The sticking point (from my perspective) is whether something can be the cause of an increase by taking more out than it puts in.”
But, nature is NOT taking out Una! Una is an expansion of sink capacity induced by Ea. If Ea goes away, so does Una.
We are interested in En – (Un – Una). That is the portion for which nature is responsible. Not En – Un.
This is so simple. Why can you not see it?
Bart says:
November 12, 2013 at 4:20 pm
It always holds, Ferdinand. It’s a mathematical law, not open to negotiation. If you think it doesn’t hold, you do not understand it.
Bart, I had to look up what the Bode diagram shows, as that was 50 years ago, but I dind’t see any reason that a 90 deg lag of process means that you must integrate.
Any step change of temperature gives a fixed change in CO2 level, according to Henry’s law. That is as good the case for a static as for a dynamic system where upwelling and downwelling were in equilibrium before the step change.
Any sinusoid in temperature will introduce a sinusoid in CO2 levels, with a 90 deg lag.
Taking the derivative from T and CO2 gives dT/dt and dCO2/dt still with a 90 deg lag but both shifted back 90 deg compared to T and CO2. That makes that T and dCO2/dt are synchronized.
The 90 deg lag between dCO2/dt and dT/dt is pure the result of a physical process where CO2 follows T.
I don’t see why one should integrate dT/dt to obtain dCO2/dt, only because an integration would synchronize both. I don’t see any physical process reason to do that.
And you haven’t explained the fact that the integration of T with 100% influence of T and zero from humans reduces the amplitude of the sine function of T to zero in the derivative…
“I don’t see why one should integrate dT/dt to obtain dCO2/dt, only because an integration would synchronize both. I don’t see any physical process reason to do that.”
Because that’s the basic definition of total change in heat content being the driver for release or uptake of CO2. It’s a basic logical postulate. And then it is confirmed by observations, which makes it a theory. But then the consequence is that it negates the postulate that changes in CO2 is responsible for the change in heat content, given the temporal directionality of the former postulate. The change in temperature comes from somewhere else.
dikranmarsupial:
I am replying to your post addressed to me at November 13, 2013 at 11:06 am which says in total
dikranmarsupial, please do at least try to not be an idiot. The point of my ‘heart beat analogy’ (n.b. heart and not heat) was that in complex systems it is not possible to make simple assessments of inputs and outputs because all the inputs and outputs vary in response to anything which alters the system equilibrium. So, THERE IS NO QUANTIFIABLE NET SINK. Any change to the equilibrium alters both the net sink and the net emission in mostly unknown ways. Those alterations are why the ‘mass balance argument’ is twaddle; as I told you, it is not possible to determine a known from two unknowns.
And your “sticking point” is an assertion of your ignorance and your superstitious belief that the anthropogenic CO2 emission has to be the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Any change to the equilibrium of the carbon cycle is likely to alter the atmospheric CO2 concentration within limits established by the possible range of the equilibrium conditions (this is like fear or running or the possibility of needing to run each being able to increase heart rate but only within the range of possible heart rates). So, the important issue is what has altered the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle. The anthropogenic emission may have altered the equilibrium but there are several other possible causes of this change which are much more likely.
Escape from your superstitious belief that the anthropogenic CO2 is the only possible cause of the change and the scales will fall from your eyes.
Richard
Bart said:
“RGB is a professor of physics at a major university. I am quite sure he knows all about heat / energy”
RGB previously said:
“As it (a parcel of air) rises it expands further adiabatically cooling but retaining its heat.”
Heat is kinetic energy registering as temperature so how can it cool without losing heat?
What he means is that it retains its energy but as it rises an increasing proportion of that energy is held as potential energy (not heat) rather than kinetic energy (heat).
Weird isn’t it? That error is all pervasive in those who learned the radiative theory of gases.
Then the next key oversight is that the process is reversed when the parcel of air descends.
And the killer conclusion is that it is the reconversion of PE to KE during descent that returns heat to the surface and NOT DWIR.
Obvious really but so many haven’t a clue.
Richard, I will ignore your insults, as they do nothing to help progress in the discussion.
You write: “So, THERE IS NO QUANTIFIABLE NET SINK.”
however you previously wrote
======================================================
richardscourtney says:
November 13, 2013 at 3:57 am
…
And nobody disputes that “nature is a net sink for CO2”. For example, the simple fact that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is less than the anthropogenic CO2 emission can be said to suggest that “nature is a net sink for CO2”. But so what?”
=====================================================
Now there is nothing in my argument that requires the net sink to be quantified, just that the natural environment IS a net carbon sink. So, please can you clarify, is the natural environment a net carbon sink (as established by the observation that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is less than anthropogenic emissions) or is it not?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 13, 2013 at 11:31 am
“I had to look up what the Bode diagram shows…”
Not the Bode diagram. The Bode Phase-Gain Relationship. It is a very subtle bit of mathematical reasoning, and it says that the response of a minimum phase system must change in magnitude in proportion to the phase, at a level of approximately -20 dB/decade gain attenuation per 90 degrees of phase lag. It is important in control system design because it limits the rate of transition from passband to stop band. You cannot have the open loop gain at the 0 dB crossover frequency change too rapidly, or you will induce greater than 180 degree phase lag, which will cause instability.
When you have 90 degree phase lag everywhere, you have -20 dB/decade slope in gain everywhere, and that is the response of an integral.
“Any step change of temperature gives a fixed change in CO2 level…”
Only if the CO2 level in either reservoir is not changing from an external source. When richly CO2 laden waters surface, and cause a steady rise in surface concentration, then a temperature change modulates the rate at which that newly introduced CO2 outgasses to the atmosphere.
“The 90 deg lag between dCO2/dt and dT/dt is pure the result of a physical process where CO2 follows T.”
Yes. And, that physical process is an integral.
“And you haven’t explained the fact that the integration of T with 100% influence of T and zero from humans reduces the amplitude of the sine function of T to zero in the derivative…”
If you integrate a function, and then differentiate it, the result is the original function. Always.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 13, 2013 at 11:35 am
“What he means is that it retains its energy but as it rises an increasing proportion of that energy is held as potential energy (not heat) rather than kinetic energy (heat).”
Back to you, RGB. How can you increase your potential energy without losing kinetic energy?
dikranmarsupial says:
November 13, 2013 at 11:42 am
You really are hopeless. And very, very wrong. On an exceedling elementary level. I mean, not even close. You are off in a fantasy world.
I have tried every way I can think to get it through to you, but you appear not even to bother reading it, as your mind is made up.
dikranmarsupial:
re your post addressed to me at November 13, 2013 at 11:42 am.
I made no “insults” to you. None whatsoever.
You have taken two of my statements out of context then claimed they disagree. They don’t.
In answer to your demanding to know if I agree that “nature is a net sink for CO2″ I wrote
and in explanation of why complex systems do not behave in linear manners I wrote
Only someone who does not know the meaning of the word “quantifiable” could think there is a dichotomy between those two statements.
The second of those two statements is another of my clear explanations of why your “argument” is nonsense, so I fail to understand why you yet again ask me to refute your twaddle.
Throw off your superstitious belief because the truth will then set you free.
Richard