Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 blocks the Sun's incoming short wave and blocks Earth's outgoing long wave, so increasing it


CO2 blocks the Sun's incoming short wave and blocks Earth's outgoing long wave, so increasing it06-01-2016 02:38
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
should not cause any significant change in Earth's overall temperature. At least that's what I think.


Edited on 06-01-2016 02:55
06-01-2016 04:02
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
.....I think.....


Stop.
06-01-2016 07:34
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
still learning wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
.....I think.....


Stop.


...and take his Lithium.


06-01-2016 13:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
How does one properly pray to "greenhouse effect" anyway? Can it be done directly or does one have to go through "climate"?
06-01-2016 14:14
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
How does one manage to completely ignore such a consilience of evidence from many different lines of scientific experimentation and observational data for the 'greenhouse' effect (and none falsifying it)- as explained in tens of thousands of research papers (and any atmospheric sciences textbook)?

1. Simple. Just assert that "evidence has no role in science"?

How does one avoid never having to cite any sources to support their pseudoscience gibberish despite numerous requests?

2. Simple. Just say "Nothing says "I am as dumb as a post" quite like demanding a source for science" and throw around a few more insults.

How does one manage to avoid the physics of the 'greenhouse' effect?

3. Simple. Just assert that the greenhouse violates the laws of physics but never provide any explanation (other than more pseudoscience gibberish) or cite anything from published research or any atmospheric sciences textbook. (See 1 and 2).



Edited on 06-01-2016 14:18
06-01-2016 14:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote:
How does one manage to completely ignore such a consilience of evidence from many different lines of scientific experimentation and observational data for the 'greenhouse' effect (and none falsifying it)- as explained in tens of thousands of research papers (and any atmospheric sciences textbook)?

Incorrect wording on your part. You meant to write "How does one manage to completely ignore vast amounts of fabrications that are claimed by the scientifically illiterate to be 'evidence' of violations of the laws of physics?"

The proper answers are as follows:

1. Just remember that "supporting evidence" has no role in science.
2. Just remember that said fabrications are intended for those who are as dumb as a post and thus are so amazingly gullible that they'll believe, without question, whatever they are told to believe by their chosen clergy.
3. Just remember that nothing can create energy in violation of the 1st LoT and nothing can affect temperature (in reality the cause) by controlling the thermal radiation (in reality the effect), in violation of Planck's Radiation Law.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 06-01-2016 14:58
06-01-2016 18:10
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Just remember the MASSIVE FAIL by IbdaMann

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/university-physics-textbook-re-the-greenhouse-effect-d10-e1013.php#post_6913
Edited on 06-01-2016 18:16
08-01-2016 08:55
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
If the greenhouse effect is heating up the Earth, how come none of the so called Climate scientists can come forward and prove it?

http://climateguy.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/10k-climate-challenge.html

http://whyclimatechanges.com/press-releases/geophysicist-issues-10000-challenge/
08-01-2016 14:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
arthur18 wrote: If the greenhouse effect is heating up the Earth, how come none of the so called Climate scientists can come forward and prove it?


For the same reason that none of those Christians who claim that "God exists and has a plan for all of us" can come forward and prove it. It's the problem inherent in all religions: unfalsifiability. No one can prove it true and no one can prove it false.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 08-01-2016 14:15
08-01-2016 14:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
arthur18 wrote:
If the greenhouse effect is heating up the Earth, how come none of the so called Climate scientists can come forward and prove it?

http://climateguy.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/10k-climate-challenge.html

http://whyclimatechanges.com/press-releases/geophysicist-issues-10000-challenge/

Perhaps because proof is not part of science.

Scientists create hypotheses, which may then be developed into theories if they can be shown to have predictive power. Theories may then become part of the scientific consensus if they remain unfalsified and evidence accumulates to support them. However, scientific theories cannot ever be proven; every theory, no matter how firmly entrenched, remains open to revision or rejection if reliable evidence is found that disagrees with it.
08-01-2016 14:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: Scientists create hypotheses, which may then be developed into theories

It's the other way around. Falsifiable models/theories are developed and then hypotheses are derived from those models. Then experiments are designed to test the hypotheses.

Surface Detail wrote: Theories may then become part of the scientific consensus if they remain unfalsified

There is no such thing as "scientific consensus." That's a complete contradiction in terms. Subjective opinion plays no role in science. The reason we do experiments to test hypotheses is because science doesn't care what anyone's opinion is or might be. No one owns science and no one's stamp of approval is ever required. All that matters is that the falsifiable model not be shown to be false.

Surface Detail wrote: and evidence accumulates to support them.

"Supporting evidence" plays no role in science. Evidence says that something might be true. The scientific method cares nothing for any evidence that something might be true. The scientific method is concerned only with providing a battery of tests to show that a falsifiable model is false. If the model survives the battery of tests, it is accepted as true only insofar as it hasn't been shown to be false. For any falsifiable model within the body of science, tomorrow might be the day someone shows it to be false, at which point the model will either need to be modified, discarded, or replaced.


Surface Detail wrote: However, scientific theories cannot ever be proven; every theory, no matter how firmly entrenched, remains open to revision or rejection if reliable evidence is found that disagrees with it.

Here you are correct in specifying falsifying evidence. The scientific method cares nothing for supporting evidence, only in cherry-picking those data/measurements/observations/evidence that are most likely to show the model false.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-01-2016 14:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Of course there is such a thing as scientific consensus.

There is, for example, a scientific consensus that Einstein's theory of general relativity is a good description of gravity as a property of space and time. There is a scientific consensus that plate tectonics provides a good explanation for the geological properties of the Earth's crust. Scientific consensus simply expresses general agreement of the scientific community engaged in a particular field. Theories that have achieved scientific consensus represent the best explanations we currently have for particular phenomena.
08-01-2016 15:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: Of course there is such a thing as scientific consensus.

No, there is no such thing as that particular contradiction in terms.

Consensus is the stuff of religion and politics, and I will grant that there is complete "consensus" on the religious dogma among the Global Warming congregation.

Surface Detail wrote: There is, for example, a scientific consensus that Einstein's theory of general relativity is a good description of gravity as a property of space and time.

"Consensus" is not the right word, unless your intent is to hijack the word "consensus" to mean "that which is correct", i.e. "There is extensive consensus that 2+3=5"

"Consensus" is a word that has a meaning involving majority opinion. You want to hijack the word and its meaning so that you can dishonestly continue to use it to give the appearance that your dogma is correct. Science is simply not concerned with opinion, ergo, scientists are not concerned with opinion. Science cares nothing for any "consensus."

If tomorrow a different religion were to successfully get the majority of the planet to believe that Einstein was the devil and that he was the Prince of Lies, his falsifiable model would still remain unfalsified. It would not matter who "agrees."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate CO2 blocks the Sun's incoming short wave and blocks Earth's outgoing long wave, so increasing it:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 and Some transparency3510-12-2018 01:46
Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?16105-12-2018 03:22
CO2 is causing ozone depletion, cause of climate change?1126-11-2018 22:53
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 09:12
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?4006-09-2018 20:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact