Remember me
▼ Content

Hilarious scientifically illiterate posts by 'greenhouse' effect deniers


Hilarious scientifically illiterate posts by 'greenhouse' effect deniers06-01-2016 15:58
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
My signature of scientifically illiterate posts by 'greenhouse' effect deniers was getting too long, so I'll just put these quotes here:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nothing says "I am as dumb as a post" quite like demanding a source for science.


IBdaMann wrote: Evidence has no role in science


Into the Night wrote: Supporting data has no place in science


Tai Hai Chen wrote: the ocean ... is one of the main sources of heat on Earth. Even if there is no Sun, Earth would be considerably warmer than the Moon.


Tai Hai Chen wrote: Earth's surface temperature would be a staggering 260 C under sunlight had there been no atmosphere.


IBdaMann wrote: Tai Hai chen, you are completely correct.


IBdaMann wrote: If you were to replace all the atmospheric CO2 and water vapor with an equivalent mass of some other gas, e.g. more nitrogen, the atmosphere would behave exactly the same temperature-wise.


IBdaMann wrote: Atmospheric composition has no role in atmospheric temperature.




Edited on 06-01-2016 16:07
RE: IbdaMann's Massive Fail06-01-2016 16:00
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-would-co2-cause-sea-level-to-rise-and-ocean-to-acidify-d6-e1005.php#post_6896

IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: So, after much Googling you're still unable to find any textbooks that support your assertions. Obviously that doesn't surprise me, given that you're talking total crap.

Please ask me that.

I know you think actual science is total crap, so you will probably think likewise of this particular reference:



Chapters 17-20 cover thermodynamics very well.
Chapter 39 covers Planck's Radiation Law very well.
Unfortunately this text does not review "cause/effect", considering it a prerequisite.

i.e. if you understand "cause/effect" then this text contains everything you need to understand to know that "greenhouse effect" is complete bunk.


.




Edited on 06-01-2016 16:57
06-01-2016 16:01
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
MASSIVE FAIL!

IBdaMann finally, after more than 1000 posts of gibberish, actually cites a physics textbook to support his assertions. Then hilariously hoists himself with his own petard.


Clearly he has never read the Young and Freedman textbook he cites, for low and behold what do we find toward the end of chapter 17- the very chapter he cites?

University Physics with Modern Physics -Hugh D. Young and Roger A. Freedman

Thermodynamics and Heat - Chapter 17

17.7 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer


Applications of Radiation pgs 576-577

Radiation, Climate, and Climate Change

"Our planet constantly absorbs radiation coming from the sun. In thermal equilibrium, the rate at which our planet absorbs solar radiation must equal the rate at which it emits radiation into space. The presence of an atmosphere on our planet has a significant effect on this equilibrium.

Most of the radiation emitted by the sun (which has a surface temperature of 5800 K) is in the visible part of the spectrum, to which our atmosphere is transparent.

But the average surface temperature of the earth is only 287 K (14°C).
Hence most of the radiation that our planet emits into space is infrared radiation, just like the radiation from the person shown in Fig. 17.28.

However, our atmosphere is not completely transparent to infrared radiation. This is because our atmosphere contains carbon dioxide , which is its fourth most abundant constituent (after nitrogen, oxygen, and argon). Molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere have the property that they absorb some of the infrared radiation coming upward from the surface. They then re-radiate the absorbed energy, but some of the re-radiated energy is directed back down toward the surface instead of escaping into space. In order to maintain thermal equilibrium, the earth's surface must compensate for this by increasing its temperature T and hence its total rate of radiating energy (which is proportional to T ^ 4.)

This phenomenon, called the greenhouse effect, makes our planet's surface temperature about 33°C higher than it would be if there were no atmospheric CO2. If were absent, the earth's average surface temperature would be below the freezing point of water, and life as we know it would be impossible.

While atmospheric CO2 has a beneficial effect, too much of it can have extremely negative consequences. Measurements of air trapped in ancient Antarctic ice show that over the past 650,000 years CO2 has constituted less than 300 parts per million of our atmosphere. Since the beginning of the industrial age, however, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum has elevated the atmospheric concentration to unprecedented levels (Fig. 17.29a).

As a consequence, since the 1950s the global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6C and the earth has experienced the hottest years ever recorded (Fig. 17.29b).

If we continue to consume fossil fuels at the same rate, by 2050 the atmospheric concentration will reach 600 parts per million, well off the
scale of Fig. 17.29a. The resulting temperature increase will have dramatic effects on climate around the world. In the polar regions massive quantities of ice will melt and run from solid land to the sea, thus raising ocean levels worldwide and threatening the homes and lives of hundreds of millions of people who live near the coast. Coping with these threats is one of the greatest challenges facing 21st century civilization."


Watch to see how he tries to squirm his way out the huge hole he dug for himself.

Edited on 06-01-2016 16:54
06-01-2016 16:03
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Like all things Global Warming, this is a complete fabrication. Chapter 17 is all about mechanisms of heat transfer (i.e. conduction, convection and thermal radiation) and makes no references to any religious theology whatsoever.


Ceist wrote:
Amazing. Just deny it even exists. Wait a moment and I'll do a screenshot.


Ceist wrote:
Here's a screenshot of the page. It's on pages 576-577 just before the Summary of Chapter 17 under Applications of Radiation

Edited on 06-01-2016 16:20
17-01-2016 04:35
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Just read this thread

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-the-greenhouse-effect-does-not-violate-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics-d6-e1016.php

The scientifically illiterate posts by IBdaMann and Into the Night are hilarious.

They are not only violating the laws of Thermodynamics and laws of Radiation, they are torturing them, over and over again.

There should be an association for the protection and prevention of cruelty of the laws of physics.




Edited on 17-01-2016 04:35
17-01-2016 04:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen joins IBDaMann and Into the Night as the newest member of the their scientifically illiterate Sky Dragon Slayer cult. He appears to be on a mission to surf the net to find the most ridiculous crackpot youtube videos he can find to flood the forum.

Is he really a science denier or just pretending to be one? Perhaps he is playing a game of posting so much pseudoscience dreck to make science deniers look even more stupid than they already are?



Edited on 17-01-2016 04:55
01-02-2016 05:33
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)


IBdaMann wrote:
The planet is almost certainly cooling right now (solar minimum and all).



01-02-2016 05:35
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Here's some examples of Into the Night's hilariously incorrect statements about Planck's Law and blackbody radiation (he eventually took the hint and started spelling Planck correctly, but still doesn't know how to spell Kirchhoff
)

Into the Night:

It makes no sense to attempt to limit Plank's law to certain chosen exceptions. It applies everywhere...always...all the time
...

This is why Plank's law works. It take more energy to shake the electron faster. If you have no electric field to do it, the temperature of the substance is what does it, regardless of the substance.

...

Your use of radiation in this way violates Plank's law. It also violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as the first.

...

Planck's law applies to all bodies, not just black bodies. It cannot work with a totally black body since there is no light emitted. The only such theoretical body is one at absolute zero.

...

Grey body or black body, it is the same. Nothing changes about the application of Planck's law...ever.

...

Spectra has nothing to do with black body radiation.

...

Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.

...

Planck's law operates at all times...on all substances...in all cases. Nothing has changed

...

An ideal black body has zero temperature. It is at absolute zero. If it is emitting anything, it is not an ideal black body.

Considering that you can't get this simple concept through your head, you seem to be hopelessly lost.

...

Go back and read Kirchoff's definition again. You will find the only possible ideal black body is one at absolute zero. This was Planck's effective conclusion on Kirchoff's ideal black body.
...

Kirchoff wasn't even talking about radiation or absorption (...)

...

In my opinion, Planck's law is the most solid evidence to date that achieving absolute zero will never be possible. An ideal black (i.e. something that is absolute zero), causes Planck's law to break down, since there is no such thing as a light of zero frequency (direct light, like direct current).

...

Nope. It simply distributes any energy absorbed to surrounding molecules. It is the same temperature as everything else. It therefore emits the same as everything else. This is Planck's law.

...

This is where you screw up. The atmosphere has a temperature. At the surface it is the same as the temperature of the surface. The radiation from the atmosphere at the surface is the same as the surface temperature. The color shifts further red due to loss of temperature as you rise in altitude (up to the tropopause). No 'greenhouse' gas changes that at all. The color of emission is the same for all components of the atmosphere since it is not dependent on the composition of any one component. You are making 'greenhouse' gases a magick substance this way.






Edited on 01-02-2016 05:38
01-02-2016 05:37
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
From this thread

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/what-would-the-world-be-like-if-every-molecule-in-the-atmosphere-is-a-co2-d6-e1050.php

Here are some examples of IBdaMned's incorrect statements based on his poor understanding, despite him claiming to "understand Planck's Law very well"


IBdaMann wrote:

I understand Planck's Law very well
...

First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.
Second, this is another point of disagreement between us. I think all matter, even a single molecule, radiates per Planck's Law.
...

If so, do you think Global Warming will falsify Planck's law and require it to be discarded? (that's the one that says the planet's radiation is based solely on temperature and not on any substance's ability to prevent/restrict/modify/block/trap/hinder/reduce thermal radiation)
...

No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.
...

Temperature drives thermal radiation, not the other way around.
...

Nope. Planck's Law is more general. A body's radiation is dependent upon it's temperature. You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable and the "radiation" being the dependent variable
...

Yes, because according to Planck's Law, temperature is the independent variable controlling radiation, so naturally the earth is radiating more energy into space now than when it was cooler, and it is now radiating less energy into space than it did when it was warmer.

You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable, and atmospheric composition (e.g. amount of CO2, amount of water vapor, amount of methane, et. al.) is not even a factor.
...

In our discussions I believe I indicated that earth's thermal radiation adheres to Planck's Law which renders it independent of atmospheric composition (assuming the atmosphere remains equivalently transparent to visible light).
...

No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. Insulation, clothing, etc.. all work in conduction/convection. Planck's Law applies here. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation; particular substance or atmospheric composition plays no role and has no effect.

Yes, Planck's Law applies right here. It blows a gaping hole in most "greenhouse effect" versions.
Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation, both strength and frequency. As you heat metal, the frequency of the thermal radiation will increase until it rises above the infrared and rises into red, thus glowing red.
...

Every substance has its own unique EM absorption signature, along with its own unique EM reflection signature.
All EM energy that is absorbed, regardless of frequency, is converted to thermal energy.
All EM energy that is reflected, regardless of frequency, ceases to be a factor.
...

it does not matter the frequency of the electromagnetic energy that is absorbed.
...

I forgot to mention that you need to review thermal convection and thermal radiation. You are conflating the two. The blanket imagery applies to convection and conduction but thermal radiation is governed by temperature according to Planck's Law. No substance has any magical superpower to regulate thermal radiation outside of Planck's Law. Nothing can act like a thermal radiation "blanket."
...

...but no, the warmer lower atmosphere vs. the cooler upper atmosphere is simply a result of Ideal Gas Law, with the weight of the upper atmosphere weighing down the lower atmopshere and thus compressing it to a higher atmopsheric pressure, thus rendering more atmospheric mass per volume, and thus more thermal energy per volume in the lower atmosphere than in the upper atmosphere.

Gases at the very top of the atmopshere, although potentially as hot as the daytime surface of the moon, would nonetheless "feel" cold because there is "so little of it" (being under virtually zero atmospheric pressure), thus having so very little thermal energy per unit volume.
...

False. I don't know what you consider to be "greenhouse gas" but if you were to swap out the earth's atmosphere for one of equivalent mass that is strictly 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, the earth's surface would not be like the moon's. In fact, nothing would change temperature-wise if all the "greenhouse gas" were removed.
...

Earth, as a body, radiates per its temperature. Earth's atmosphere radiates per its temperature. Check Planck's Radiation Law. All things radiate per their temperature per Planck's Radiation Law.

So when someone like you implies that earth's atmosphere somehow radiates differently because of a change in material composition, you are implying that earth's atmospheric radiation is determined by something other than just temperature, which implies that earth's atmosphere does not radiate per Planck's Law.
...

earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law
...

As I explained to you, what CO2, or any substance for that matter, absorbs is a function of its absorption signature, and what is emitted is a function of its temperature, specifically Planck's Law.



01-02-2016 06:07
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Bizarre series of posts showing that IBdaMann couldn't even recognise blackbody radiation curves on a graph and told Surface Detail they were
"graph indicators" and that he should "remove them" as they were confusing.


He also showed he didn't have a clue what the equation he copied and pasted meant.


IBdaMann wrote:
Earth, as a body, radiates per its temperature. Earth's atmosphere radiates per its temperature. Check Planck's Radiation Law. All things radiate per their temperature per Planck's Radiation Law.

So when someone like you implies that earth's atmosphere somehow radiates differently because of a change in material composition, you are implying that earth's atmospheric radiation is determined by something other than just temperature, which implies that earth's atmosphere does not radiate per Planck's Law.


Surface Detail wrote: As I've explained on multiple occasions, the Earth's atmosphere does indeed not radiate per Planck's Law. The Earth's IR emission spectrum as measured from outside the atmosphere looks like this:



Edit: Source - http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

See the big chunks missing from the Planck distribution? That's where greenhouse gases have absorbed the outgoing radiation.


Surface Detail wrote:
The dashed lines in the graph show the theoretical blackbody radiation intensity as a function of wavenumber for 7 different temperatures. They are graphs of the equation representing Planck's Law in terms of wavenumber:



where T is set to the temperature in each case. They are, of course, the smooth curves you would expect from a mathematical function.

The solid line represents experimental measurements taken by the Nimbus 4 satellite of the IR radiation emitted from the Earth's atmosphere. As you can see, the line doesn't correspond to a blackbody emission curves for any temperature. Hence the radiation emitted from the Earth's atmosphere doesn't follow Planck's Law.

See the source of the graph (the American Chemical Society) for more information:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html



IBdaMann wrote:

False. The dashed lines are simply graph indicators.


Surface Detail wrote:

No, the dashed lines are not "graph indicators" (whatever that is supposed to mean); they are ideal blackbody emission spectra for different temperatures.


IBdaMann wrote: For your graph to illustrate that earth does not adhere to Planck's Radiation Law, i.e.


...you only need to show that for V and T, B(V,T) for earth differs from that of the equation.


Surface Detail wrote:
That's exactly what the graph does show!

Take, for example, a blackbody at a temperature of 280 K. For the wavenumber 700 cm-1, plugging the numbers into the Planck formula gives a radiance of 115 mW.m-2.sr-1.(cm-1)-1. You can see this from the graph: look at the dashed curve labelled 280 K and you'll see that it indicates about 115 mW.m-2.sr-1.(cm-1)-1 for a wavenumber of 700 cm-1.

Look at the solid line, though, and you'll see that the radiance of the Earth's atmosphere at 700 cm-1 is only about 50 mW.m-2.sr-1.(cm-1)-1 (corresponding to a blackbody temperature of about 220 K).

The fact that the solid line doesn't follow a curve corresponding to a blackbody radiator of any particular temperature indicates that the atmosphere doesn't radiate in accordance with Planck's Law.


IBdaMann wrote:
The short answer is that you are right to be confused by the indicators, i.e. the "dashed lines." Remove them. The solid line of the curve shows a particular measure of strength (rate of emission) across differing wavelengths. That's all that matters.

The total energy adds up, yes? Wait, there's no way to verify that from the chart because the charts don't sum the energy. I'll assume they add up.


IBdaMann wrote:
The graph doesn't show a single one.

You have successfully shown that the earth is not an ideal black body. That was already assumed. Planck's Radiation Law is a relationship that applies to all matter. It is not the case that the generalization of that relationship for a particular theoretical "ideal" black body makes it apply only to theoretical bodies that don't exist. All matter radiates and the radiation will be determined by temperature, with Planck's Law being that relationship.

Help me out here. Temperature is not one of the axes. I see that the graph has temperature indicators, i.e. "dashed lines," but as previously noted, they only serve to confuse. The graph shows a measure of radiance over wavelengths.


Ceist wrote:
Oh FFS, IBdaMann doesn't even recognise what a Planck blackbody curve looks like on a graph yet he claims to 'understand Planck's law well'.


Then he completely dismisses out of hand the source you provided from the American Chemical Society website explaining comprehensively how Planck's law applies to the atmosphere.

Maybe he thinks the ACS and it's more than 158,000 professional members working in chemical science fields are all Marxists pushing an evil agenda to take over the world!



http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-the-greenhouse-effect-does-not-violate-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics-d6-e1016.php



Edited on 01-02-2016 06:46
02-02-2016 13:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:If there were no atmosphere at all, the mean temperature should not change.


Carbon dioxide, with it's more symmetrical shape would have less opportunity for different vibration modes. Methane even less so, since this molecule is symmetric in three dimensions.






Edited on 02-02-2016 13:38
05-02-2016 17:04
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Elsewhere, IBDoomed wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I don't believe in any denomination of Global Warming so all the warmazombies and all the climate lemmings are sort of required to fear me and anyone else who aims to discuss science.

IBdaMann wrote:Evidence and consensus are the stuff of religions and have no role in science.

IBdaMann wrote:There is no such thing as "mainstream" science. Science is science. The word "mainstream" applies to religions.

IBdaMann wrote:I don't know what "greenhouse gases" are supposed to be. I don't know if they exist or not.

IBdaMann wrote:"Evidence" has no role in logic or science, only in conjecture, speculation and, of course, religion.

IBdaMann wrote:Your belief in "greenhouse gases" that cause a "greenhouse effect" is entirely based on faith.
07-02-2016 11:51
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Ceist wrote:'greenhouse' effect deniers are as thick as two short Plancks.
CAGW believers are even thicker.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
22-03-2016 11:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Earthling-1 flattered me by posting some of my quotes that are his favorites.

Earthling wrote:
Elsewhere, IBDoomed wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I don't believe in any denomination of Global Warming so all the warmazombies and all the climate lemmings are sort of required to fear me and anyone else who aims to discuss science.

IBdaMann wrote:Evidence and consensus are the stuff of religions and have no role in science.

IBdaMann wrote:There is no such thing as "mainstream" science. Science is science. The word "mainstream" applies to religions.

IBdaMann wrote:I don't know what "greenhouse gases" are supposed to be. I don't know if they exist or not.

IBdaMann wrote:"Evidence" has no role in logic or science, only in conjecture, speculation and, of course, religion.

IBdaMann wrote:Your belief in "greenhouse gases" that cause a "greenhouse effect" is entirely based on faith.


Does anyone disagree with any of this? Feel free to quote me as well.


.


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
29-06-2016 10:47
seosecrets4
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Proper nutrition is paramount to fueling the body, fighting disease, and attaining one's best health — this is especially true for athletes, peter sbaraglia. However, like many of us, athletes too can struggle with understanding what's the best nutrition and diet regimen for their own bodies.
30-06-2016 02:35
fcimeson
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
Ceist,

Those are some seriously funny quotes you got from the yahoos on this site. However I don't feel scepticism is about man made CO2 causing global warming is unfounded. Care to have a proper discussion? I would love to get more sources and insights.
22-07-2016 01:16
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Hello girls. I have a story about deniers, crazy people.

When temperature is calculated for the surface, in greenhouse theory its done like this:

Solar irradiation/4pi*r2, to get W/m^2

When dividing by four you get four equal parts. Now the funny as shit part:

That calculation for earth surface produce a model of 4 suns with fluxdensity of 240W/m^2.
They don´t even reach red hot temperature, so it´s an earth in cold darkness.
They radiate with 255K at the surface.


That is the model that GH is built on. They say that 33degerees comes from cold air, and point to the 255K that the earth should have according to their calculation. Compared to 288K


But when you realize that their model for 255K is a model with 4 cold suns in darkness as a model of reality when irradiated by the sun, and they use that to say that 33degrees must come from cold air, it really is hilarious.


The 33degrees is coming from building a model where you take away the sun and replace it with four cold rocks. That is pretty much like the scientist say "from my ass", when asked where he gets 33degress extra.

If we are lucky there is one guy somewhere that is making fun of the world. I f we are unlucky, then a very large amount of people is very, very dumb and easily fooled to believe anything.
20-08-2016 11:35
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
The planet is almost certainly cooling right now (solar minimum and all).


Sigh! We are not at solar minimum and wont be for at least another 2-4 years.

We are in the decay phase of SC24, yet we have had 15 straight months of record high temperatures, 2015 surpassed 2014 as the warmest year on record and 2016 is well on its way of taking the title away from 2015.

See: The heat goes on and on and on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cc-nGk2drc

If this is cooling, I would hate to see real warming!
06-09-2016 13:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
DRKTS wrote: Sigh! We are not at solar minimum and wont be for at least another 2-4 years.

We're getting there. As such, the sun's output is decreasing, or do you not understand how that works?

As the sun's output decreases, the earth's temperature decreases. It's that whole Stefan-Boltzmann thing.

Do you understand that whole Stefan-Boltzmann thing?




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
06-09-2016 16:17
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: Sigh! We are not at solar minimum and wont be for at least another 2-4 years.

We're getting there. As such, the sun's output is decreasing, or do you not understand how that works?

As the sun's output decreases, the earth's temperature decreases. It's that whole Stefan-Boltzmann thing.

Do you understand that whole Stefan-Boltzmann thing?



The Sun's activity increased from 2008 to 2014 when global temperatures were supposedly falling or not changing (actually increasing more slowly). Solar activity has been dropping since 2014 as the Earth has been setting new high temperature records month after month.



Let's see if you understand S-B:- a simple test. How much would the surface temperature of the Sun have to have changed to produce 0.1% change in total solar irradiance (the peak to peak variability of TSI over a solar cycle).

Assume the surface temperature of the Sun is 5700K and the mean distance to the Sun is 150M km.

Then explain how we would measure such a change in order to prove your point.

(I hear scrabbling for excuses as to why you wont answer this question with a single simple number)
06-09-2016 18:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
DRKTS wrote:The Sun's activity increased from 2008 to 2014 when global temperatures were supposedly falling or not changing (actually increasing more slowly).

False. No one knows anything about global temperatures to any useful accuracy.


DRKTS wrote: Solar activity has been dropping since 2014 as the Earth has been setting new high temperature records month after month.

False. No one knows anything about global temperatures to any useful accuracy.


DRKTS wrote:Let's see if you understand S-B: [...]

Your question is a test of basic math, not of understanding Stefan-Boltzmann.

I'll be happy to answer your questions when you start honestly answering my questions. I'm not buying your snake oil.




.


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
07-09-2016 02:45
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:The Sun's activity increased from 2008 to 2014 when global temperatures were supposedly falling or not changing (actually increasing more slowly).

False. No one knows anything about global temperatures to any useful accuracy.


Speak for yourself. There are many ways of measuring global temperatures or inferring that they are rising - all point the same way.


DRKTS wrote: Solar activity has been dropping since 2014 as the Earth has been setting new high temperature records month after month.

False. No one knows anything about global temperatures to any useful accuracy.


Odd how you believed the figures when you thought (incorrectly) that they showed a downturn! Hypocrite!

DRKTS wrote:Let's see if you understand S-B: [...]

Your question is a test of basic math, not of understanding Stefan-Boltzmann.

I'll be happy to answer your questions when you start honestly answering my questions. I'm not buying your snake oil.


As predicted, you could not answer. How can anyone take you seriously when you cant even do a simple scientific puzzle right. (The trick is it is not a simple S-B problem, you would have to understand the physics of the Sun and Earth's atmosphere to do the job properly - if you understood physics to any degree you would have realized that. You didn't, and so I conclude you don't).

You realize the reason why this site is crashing and burning is the attitude of people like you on this board. Look at the number of posts per day over the last few months - pathetic.

Insults, put downs, refusal to enter into any meaningful debate, denial of well established science, meaningless questioning of perfectly good data is killing any possible dialogue here. If you want this site to survive then you need to encourage meaningful exchanges, not puerile debating tactics.

Instead you pedal drivel, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories. In doing so you are convincing nobody but yourselves.
09-09-2016 18:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1115)
DRKTS wrote:The Sun's activity increased from 2008 to 2014 when global temperatures were supposedly falling or not changing (actually increasing more slowly). Solar activity has been dropping since 2014 as the Earth has been setting new high temperature records month after month.



Let's see if you understand S-B:- a simple test. How much would the surface temperature of the Sun have to have changed to produce 0.1% change in total solar irradiance (the peak to peak variability of TSI over a solar cycle).

Assume the surface temperature of the Sun is 5700K and the mean distance to the Sun is 150M km.

Then explain how we would measure such a change in order to prove your point.

(I hear scrabbling for excuses as to why you wont answer this question with a single simple number)


I'll have a try but I will first put in my excuse that it's a bit beyond me...

I would assume that for an increase of 0.1% of output the sun would have to heat up by 57 degrees K (or c).

I think it is more likely that the sun would expend a bit to generate that effect but I don't know.

It could be easily measured by astronomers who do this all the time. There are presumable lots of ways of doing it but measuring how long it takes for sunshine to heat up something with a known heat capacity would be the obvious one.

To get a decent number this would best be done outside earth's atmosphere, and indeed magnetosphere.
09-09-2016 20:53
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Tim the plumber wrote:
DRKTS wrote:The Sun's activity increased from 2008 to 2014 when global temperatures were supposedly falling or not changing (actually increasing more slowly). Solar activity has been dropping since 2014 as the Earth has been setting new high temperature records month after month.



Let's see if you understand S-B:- a simple test. How much would the surface temperature of the Sun have to have changed to produce 0.1% change in total solar irradiance (the peak to peak variability of TSI over a solar cycle).

Assume the surface temperature of the Sun is 5700K and the mean distance to the Sun is 150M km.

Then explain how we would measure such a change in order to prove your point.

(I hear scrabbling for excuses as to why you wont answer this question with a single simple number)


I'll have a try but I will first put in my excuse that it's a bit beyond me...

I would assume that for an increase of 0.1% of output the sun would have to heat up by 57 degrees K (or c).

I think it is more likely that the sun would expend a bit to generate that effect but I don't know.

It could be easily measured by astronomers who do this all the time. There are presumable lots of ways of doing it but measuring how long it takes for sunshine to heat up something with a known heat capacity would be the obvious one.

To get a decent number this would best be done outside earth's atmosphere, and indeed magnetosphere.


The trick here is that you would not measure the change in the Sun's output this way because the Sun's temperature is measured spectrally and a change of a few degrees would not make a measurable difference to the spectrum (at least with current techniques).

You measure a change in the Sun's output from the total solar irradiance which is indeed measured from above the atmosphere by several satellites (e.g., SORCE & TCTE).

They measure to parts in a million. We have measurements going back nearly 40 years and there is no detectable change in the Sun's output apart from the normal ups and downs of the solar cycle. (Being cyclic it does not create a trend so over the long term does not affect temperatrue).

So all this talk of S_B calculations is just so much nonsense.

However a 57K change in the sun's surface temperature would increase the Sun's energy output by 4%, not 0.1% using the S-B equations. That (0.1%)would require an increase of only 1.4K
12-09-2016 15:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
DRKTS wrote: Speak for yourself. There are many ways of measuring global temperatures or inferring that they are rising - all point the same way.

Notice how the slick snake oil salesman carefully omits all reference to margin of error.

Yes there are many ways to measure a global average temperature but there aren't any ways to measure one to any useful accuracy.

Slick move there!



DRKTS wrote: Odd how you believed the figures when you thought (incorrectly) that they showed a downturn! Hypocrite!

Speak for yourself. You are the one religiously and unquestioningly believing basement-generated graphics.

I explained why no conclusions could be drawn from the graphic. I emphasized that no one can compute earth's temperatures to any useful accuracy. You are an incorrigible liar.

DRKTS wrote: As predicted, you could not answer.

As predicted, you DODGE my questions. My offer stands, I'll be happy to answer your purely diversionary questions after you start honestly answering my honest, easy and straightforward questions.

DRKTS wrote: You realize the reason why this site is crashing and burning is the attitude of people like you on this board. Look at the number of posts per day over the last few months - pathetic.

Snake oil science deniers ruin it for all the people who want to have serious discussions about science. You don't understand any. You EVADE all science. You're a moron.

Please stop ruining it for everyone else.

DRKTS wrote: Instead you pedal drivel, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories. In doing so you are convincing nobody but yourselves.

When did I become a plural?

I'll give you a chance. How do you account for the additional heat required for "greenhouse effect" to increase a body's temperature? Show us that you understand at least a modicum of science.





.


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
12-09-2016 18:38
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
You became plural when you started to use double speak!
13-09-2016 11:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
DRKTS wrote:You became plural when you started to use double speak!

I think you've been drinking from your own snake oil trough.






.


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
20-09-2016 05:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Fellow spelling and grammar pedant! We have an annoying quality in common, it seems.




Join the debate Hilarious scientifically illiterate posts by 'greenhouse' effect deniers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Water Vapor is THE Dominant Greenhouse Gas1009-05-2018 22:58
Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics35509-01-2018 14:22
Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers do the same? (2013)921-11-2017 18:25
Michael Mann The Madhouse Effect: Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump016-11-2017 18:59
Greenhouse Gases8004-10-2017 22:29
▲ 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