Remember me
▼ Content

It's MATHS - Stewart Lee - Climate Change


It's MATHS - Stewart Lee - Climate Change28-11-2017 03:58
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxN8PhKzZgY
Edited on 28-11-2017 03:59
30-11-2017 18:31
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
monckton wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxN8PhKzZgY


Did you originally call yourself "spot" because that's what you did to your underwear all the time?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html
30-11-2017 20:00
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxN8PhKzZgY[/url]
Did you originally call yourself "spot" because that's what you did to your underwear all the time.
Since "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" successfully got rid of "spot" with many threats, monckton may now get (has already?) the "threat" treatment from "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up".
30-11-2017 21:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxN8PhKzZgY


Did you originally call yourself "spot" because that's what you did to your underwear all the time?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html


Oh boy! Holy Link wars!


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2017 21:54
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Yawn, notice how every thread turns into a discussion about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
30-11-2017 22:15
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
monckton wrote:
Yawn, notice how every thread turns into a discussion about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?


Do you notice how how nightmare curses any site that disagrees with total lack of knowledge?
30-11-2017 22:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
monckton wrote:
Yawn, notice how every thread turns into a discussion about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?


Maybe because it's one of the theories of science most routinely denied by the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2017 22:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
Yawn, notice how every thread turns into a discussion about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?


Do you notice how how nightmare curses any site that disagrees with total lack of knowledge?


This is Mantra 4 and 2 from the Church of Global Warming. Normally deleted.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2017 22:36
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Well its not like its settled science.
30-11-2017 22:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
monckton wrote:
Well its not like its settled science.


There is no such thing as 'settled' science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Theories remain theories until they are destroyed by conflicting evidence (which often inspires a new theory).


The Parrot Killer
01-12-2017 00:33
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
monckton wrote:
Well its not like its settled science.


There is no such thing as 'settled' science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Theories remain theories until they are destroyed by conflicting evidence (which often inspires a new theory).


Well, apparently you just falsified the Stefan-Boltzmann equation since you think it only works on the Sun and not the Earth.

And what do you think a calorimeter is again? I seem to keep missing your answer.
01-12-2017 00:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
monckton wrote:
Well its not like its settled science.


There is no such thing as 'settled' science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Theories remain theories until they are destroyed by conflicting evidence (which often inspires a new theory).


Well, apparently you just falsified the Stefan-Boltzmann equation since you think it only works on the Sun and not the Earth.
...deleted answered question...

I never said that, liar.

The Stefan Boltzmann law works on all bodies. I have always said as much.


The Parrot Killer
01-12-2017 01:09
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
monckton wrote:
Well its not like its settled science.


There is no such thing as 'settled' science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Theories remain theories until they are destroyed by conflicting evidence (which often inspires a new theory).


Well, apparently you just falsified the Stefan-Boltzmann equation since you think it only works on the Sun and not the Earth.
...deleted answered question...

I never said that, liar.

The Stefan Boltzmann law works on all bodies. I have always said as much.


Actually what you said is that the Earth doesn't "produce energy - it only reflects it." That could not be more wrong.
01-12-2017 01:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
monckton wrote:
Well its not like its settled science.


There is no such thing as 'settled' science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Theories remain theories until they are destroyed by conflicting evidence (which often inspires a new theory).


Well, apparently you just falsified the Stefan-Boltzmann equation since you think it only works on the Sun and not the Earth.
...deleted answered question...

I never said that, liar.

The Stefan Boltzmann law works on all bodies. I have always said as much.


Actually what you said is that the Earth doesn't "produce energy - it only reflects it." That could not be more wrong.


Not what I said, liar.

I said the Earth is a reflective body. It produces no energy significant energy of its own. Everything it emits comes from the Sun. Some of that is directly reflected. Some of that is absorbed and radiated again (which is what keeps us a comfortable temperature on the surface).

You don't know how much is reflected (or refracted) light vs how much is radiated due to Planck emissions. It is not possible to determine the emissivity of Earth.


The Parrot Killer
01-12-2017 02:02
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
monckton wrote:
Well its not like its settled science.


There is no such thing as 'settled' science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Theories remain theories until they are destroyed by conflicting evidence (which often inspires a new theory).


Well, apparently you just falsified the Stefan-Boltzmann equation since you think it only works on the Sun and not the Earth.
...deleted answered question...

I never said that, liar.

The Stefan Boltzmann law works on all bodies. I have always said as much.


Actually what you said is that the Earth doesn't "produce energy - it only reflects it." That could not be more wrong.


Not what I said, liar.

I said the Earth is a reflective body. It produces no energy significant energy of its own. Everything it emits comes from the Sun. Some of that is directly reflected. Some of that is absorbed and radiated again (which is what keeps us a comfortable temperature on the surface).

You don't know how much is reflected (or refracted) light vs how much is radiated due to Planck emissions. It is not possible to determine the emissivity of Earth.


Why didn't you SAY that you could directly measure how much energy was placed upon the Earth by the Sun through direct measurements with calorimeters? But not the other way around?

I explained in another string that the Earth is essentially a black body emitter and how you can calculate it. I even calculated it. So what was this crap of yours about not knowing the emissivity of the Earth?

And here is a clue - absorption and re-radiation is NOT "reflected or refracted". And exactly WHAT do you think that refraction has to do with the atmosphere?

I've had your garbage up to my neck. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Take your "climate change can't be defined without circular arguments" BS and go tell it on the mountain. You aren't even aware of how to use the English language.

You and everything you say is solvitur ambulando. In other words all you say is proven false simply by the fact that the world is indeed what it is.

You would take my argument of most energy in the troposphere being moved about by conduction and copy it as if it were your own without knowing the slightest thing about how the actual actions of the gases work and interplay.

The average content of moisture in the atmosphere is 4% - that is more that TWICE the energy content of the entire rest of the atmosphere but you ain't smart enough to have even THOUGHT of that. Instead you continue to shpeel something that I said because it is only true as a general rule discounting the actual density of the atmosphere.
01-12-2017 05:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Why didn't you SAY that you could directly measure how much energy was placed upon the Earth by the Sun through direct measurements with calorimeters? But not the other way around?

I did.
Wake wrote:
I explained in another string that the Earth is essentially a black body emitter and how you can calculate it.

WRONG. Earth is a gray body. There is no such thing as a perfect black body.
Wake wrote:
I even calculated it.

Using an equation that was not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So what was this crap of yours about not knowing the emissivity of the Earth?

To measure emissivity of a surface, you first must accurately know its temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Emissivity across the surface of the Earth varies dramatically within fractions of an inch.
Wake wrote:
And here is a clue - absorption and re-radiation is NOT "reflected or refracted".

Never said it was, liar.
Wake wrote:
And exactly WHAT do you think that refraction has to do with the atmosphere?

Ever wonder why the sunset is red and the sky is blue? Did you know that starlight can actually refract through the atmosphere, distorting your view?
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...2...
Take your "climate change can't be defined without circular arguments" BS and go tell it on the mountain.

So, you would just rather use the buzzphrase and accept your religion at that, eh?

No theory can exist based on a void argument.
Wake wrote:
You aren't even aware of how to use the English language.

This is not an English language problem. It's a definitions problem. The phrase 'climate change' is just a buzzphrase. Your inability to define it without using circular definitions creates a void argument.
Wake wrote:
You and everything you say is solvitur ambulando. In other words all you say is proven false simply by the fact that the world is indeed what it is.

What a woeful display of your ignorance in logic.
Wake wrote:
You would take my argument of most energy in the troposphere being moved about by conduction and copy it as if it were your own without knowing the slightest thing about how the actual actions of the gases work and interplay.

Most is moved about by convection, not conduction. Turns out air of different humidity or temperatures doesn't mix well. That's why we have cold and warm fronts.
Wake wrote:
The average content of moisture in the atmosphere is 4%

It is not possible to determine the average humidity in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
- that is more that TWICE the energy content of the entire rest of the atmosphere but you ain't smart enough to have even THOUGHT of that.

I am already aware of the specific heat of water, liar. I already said so.
Wake wrote:
Instead you continue to shpeel something that I said because it is only true as a general rule discounting the actual density of the atmosphere.

You still haven't explained why rain falls if water is lighter than air, or why clouds tend to stay in the lower atmosphere, or why fog can form. You can't even explain why it can be raining even with a higher barometer reading.


The Parrot Killer
01-12-2017 16:47
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Why didn't you SAY that you could directly measure how much energy was placed upon the Earth by the Sun through direct measurements with calorimeters? But not the other way around?

I did.
Wake wrote:
I explained in another string that the Earth is essentially a black body emitter and how you can calculate it.

WRONG. Earth is a gray body. There is no such thing as a perfect black body.
Wake wrote:
I even calculated it.

Using an equation that was not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So what was this crap of yours about not knowing the emissivity of the Earth?

To measure emissivity of a surface, you first must accurately know its temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Emissivity across the surface of the Earth varies dramatically within fractions of an inch.
Wake wrote:
And here is a clue - absorption and re-radiation is NOT "reflected or refracted".

Never said it was, liar.
Wake wrote:
And exactly WHAT do you think that refraction has to do with the atmosphere?

Ever wonder why the sunset is red and the sky is blue? Did you know that starlight can actually refract through the atmosphere, distorting your view?
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...2...
Take your "climate change can't be defined without circular arguments" BS and go tell it on the mountain.

So, you would just rather use the buzzphrase and accept your religion at that, eh?

No theory can exist based on a void argument.
Wake wrote:
You aren't even aware of how to use the English language.

This is not an English language problem. It's a definitions problem. The phrase 'climate change' is just a buzzphrase. Your inability to define it without using circular definitions creates a void argument.
Wake wrote:
You and everything you say is solvitur ambulando. In other words all you say is proven false simply by the fact that the world is indeed what it is.

What a woeful display of your ignorance in logic.
Wake wrote:
You would take my argument of most energy in the troposphere being moved about by conduction and copy it as if it were your own without knowing the slightest thing about how the actual actions of the gases work and interplay.

Most is moved about by convection, not conduction. Turns out air of different humidity or temperatures doesn't mix well. That's why we have cold and warm fronts.
Wake wrote:
The average content of moisture in the atmosphere is 4%

It is not possible to determine the average humidity in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
- that is more that TWICE the energy content of the entire rest of the atmosphere but you ain't smart enough to have even THOUGHT of that.

I am already aware of the specific heat of water, liar. I already said so.
Wake wrote:
Instead you continue to shpeel something that I said because it is only true as a general rule discounting the actual density of the atmosphere.

You still haven't explained why rain falls if water is lighter than air, or why clouds tend to stay in the lower atmosphere, or why fog can form. You can't even explain why it can be raining even with a higher barometer reading.


If you actually knew the Stefan-Boltzman equation you'd know that close is more that close enough. The Sun is treated as a blackbody emitter though it too is a "greybody". Likewise the difference between power in and power out is only 0.002% on the Earth and hence it too can be treated as a blackbody the same way the Sun is. Time for your ignorant denial.

Tell us again what a calorimeter is - or better yet offer us a reference to where you say you explained it.

I especially like your claims that are nothing more than ignorance that the temperature in the tropopause is somehow variable by a significant amount. In fact, your claim simply shows that you do not understand the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

Tell us again that the Earth is only a reflector and not an absorbing body. I like that one.

And your claim that you cannot tell the "average humidity" in the atmosphere is really funny as well since every single city on the face of the Earth has local weather stations that can return both temperature and humidity. These returns show the exactly weather patterns and the conditions inside of those moving fronts.

Let's hear some more ignorance from you.
01-12-2017 20:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Why didn't you SAY that you could directly measure how much energy was placed upon the Earth by the Sun through direct measurements with calorimeters? But not the other way around?

I did.
Wake wrote:
I explained in another string that the Earth is essentially a black body emitter and how you can calculate it.

WRONG. Earth is a gray body. There is no such thing as a perfect black body.
Wake wrote:
I even calculated it.

Using an equation that was not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So what was this crap of yours about not knowing the emissivity of the Earth?

To measure emissivity of a surface, you first must accurately know its temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Emissivity across the surface of the Earth varies dramatically within fractions of an inch.
Wake wrote:
And here is a clue - absorption and re-radiation is NOT "reflected or refracted".

Never said it was, liar.
Wake wrote:
And exactly WHAT do you think that refraction has to do with the atmosphere?

Ever wonder why the sunset is red and the sky is blue? Did you know that starlight can actually refract through the atmosphere, distorting your view?
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...2...
Take your "climate change can't be defined without circular arguments" BS and go tell it on the mountain.

So, you would just rather use the buzzphrase and accept your religion at that, eh?

No theory can exist based on a void argument.
Wake wrote:
You aren't even aware of how to use the English language.

This is not an English language problem. It's a definitions problem. The phrase 'climate change' is just a buzzphrase. Your inability to define it without using circular definitions creates a void argument.
Wake wrote:
You and everything you say is solvitur ambulando. In other words all you say is proven false simply by the fact that the world is indeed what it is.

What a woeful display of your ignorance in logic.
Wake wrote:
You would take my argument of most energy in the troposphere being moved about by conduction and copy it as if it were your own without knowing the slightest thing about how the actual actions of the gases work and interplay.

Most is moved about by convection, not conduction. Turns out air of different humidity or temperatures doesn't mix well. That's why we have cold and warm fronts.
Wake wrote:
The average content of moisture in the atmosphere is 4%

It is not possible to determine the average humidity in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
- that is more that TWICE the energy content of the entire rest of the atmosphere but you ain't smart enough to have even THOUGHT of that.

I am already aware of the specific heat of water, liar. I already said so.
Wake wrote:
Instead you continue to shpeel something that I said because it is only true as a general rule discounting the actual density of the atmosphere.

You still haven't explained why rain falls if water is lighter than air, or why clouds tend to stay in the lower atmosphere, or why fog can form. You can't even explain why it can be raining even with a higher barometer reading.


If you actually knew the Stefan-Boltzman equation you'd know that close is more that close enough.

The Stefan Boltzmann law is not a probability equation. It's not about 'close'. It is completely accurate.
Wake wrote:
The Sun is treated as a blackbody emitter though it too is a "greybody".

The Sun is also a graybody. It also has an unknown emissivity value. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Sun either.
Wake wrote:
Likewise the difference between power in and power out is only 0.002% on the Earth and hence it too can be treated as a blackbody the same way the Sun is.

There is no difference between power in and power out. ANY difference results in a constant temperature change.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...answered question...4...2...
the temperature in the tropopause is somehow variable by a significant amount. <is wrong>
It does. There is even a forecast for it in local areas put out every 24 hours. Just over the United States today, for example, forecast temperatures for the tropopause range from -47 degF to -63 degF. These are general numbers. Source: NOAA upper air weather forecast data.
Wake wrote:
In fact, your claim simply shows that you do not understand the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

Non-sequitur.
Wake wrote:
Tell us again that the Earth is only a reflector and not an absorbing body. I like that one.
I didn't say that, liar.
Wake wrote:
And your claim that you cannot tell the "average humidity" in the atmosphere is really funny as well since every single city on the face of the Earth has local weather stations that can return both temperature and humidity.

Not good enough. You still don't understand statistical math. You are failing to select against randN independent of influencing factors, you are failing to normalize against a paired randR, and you are failing to calculate margin of error. Selection by opportunity is a math error.
Wake wrote:
These returns show the exactly weather patterns and the conditions inside of those moving fronts. ...deleted Mantra 2...
These returns only show the temperature and humidity at the station. Temperature and humidity vary quite bit. You are just showing your ignorance in statistical math.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2017 00:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Why didn't you SAY that you could directly measure how much energy was placed upon the Earth by the Sun through direct measurements with calorimeters? But not the other way around?

I did.
Wake wrote:
I explained in another string that the Earth is essentially a black body emitter and how you can calculate it.

WRONG. Earth is a gray body. There is no such thing as a perfect black body.
Wake wrote:
I even calculated it.

Using an equation that was not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So what was this crap of yours about not knowing the emissivity of the Earth?

To measure emissivity of a surface, you first must accurately know its temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Emissivity across the surface of the Earth varies dramatically within fractions of an inch.
Wake wrote:
And here is a clue - absorption and re-radiation is NOT "reflected or refracted".

Never said it was, liar.
Wake wrote:
And exactly WHAT do you think that refraction has to do with the atmosphere?

Ever wonder why the sunset is red and the sky is blue? Did you know that starlight can actually refract through the atmosphere, distorting your view?
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...2...
Take your "climate change can't be defined without circular arguments" BS and go tell it on the mountain.

So, you would just rather use the buzzphrase and accept your religion at that, eh?

No theory can exist based on a void argument.
Wake wrote:
You aren't even aware of how to use the English language.

This is not an English language problem. It's a definitions problem. The phrase 'climate change' is just a buzzphrase. Your inability to define it without using circular definitions creates a void argument.
Wake wrote:
You and everything you say is solvitur ambulando. In other words all you say is proven false simply by the fact that the world is indeed what it is.

What a woeful display of your ignorance in logic.
Wake wrote:
You would take my argument of most energy in the troposphere being moved about by conduction and copy it as if it were your own without knowing the slightest thing about how the actual actions of the gases work and interplay.

Most is moved about by convection, not conduction. Turns out air of different humidity or temperatures doesn't mix well. That's why we have cold and warm fronts.
Wake wrote:
The average content of moisture in the atmosphere is 4%

It is not possible to determine the average humidity in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
- that is more that TWICE the energy content of the entire rest of the atmosphere but you ain't smart enough to have even THOUGHT of that.

I am already aware of the specific heat of water, liar. I already said so.
Wake wrote:
Instead you continue to shpeel something that I said because it is only true as a general rule discounting the actual density of the atmosphere.

You still haven't explained why rain falls if water is lighter than air, or why clouds tend to stay in the lower atmosphere, or why fog can form. You can't even explain why it can be raining even with a higher barometer reading.


If you actually knew the Stefan-Boltzman equation you'd know that close is more that close enough.

The Stefan Boltzmann law is not a probability equation. It's not about 'close'. It is completely accurate.
Wake wrote:
The Sun is treated as a blackbody emitter though it too is a "greybody".

The Sun is also a graybody. It also has an unknown emissivity value. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Sun either.
Wake wrote:
Likewise the difference between power in and power out is only 0.002% on the Earth and hence it too can be treated as a blackbody the same way the Sun is.

There is no difference between power in and power out. ANY difference results in a constant temperature change.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...answered question...4...2...
the temperature in the tropopause is somehow variable by a significant amount. <is wrong>
It does. There is even a forecast for it in local areas put out every 24 hours. Just over the United States today, for example, forecast temperatures for the tropopause range from -47 degF to -63 degF. These are general numbers. Source: NOAA upper air weather forecast data.
Wake wrote:
In fact, your claim simply shows that you do not understand the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

Non-sequitur.
Wake wrote:
Tell us again that the Earth is only a reflector and not an absorbing body. I like that one.
I didn't say that, liar.
Wake wrote:
And your claim that you cannot tell the "average humidity" in the atmosphere is really funny as well since every single city on the face of the Earth has local weather stations that can return both temperature and humidity.

Not good enough. You still don't understand statistical math. You are failing to select against randN independent of influencing factors, you are failing to normalize against a paired randR, and you are failing to calculate margin of error. Selection by opportunity is a math error.
Wake wrote:
These returns show the exactly weather patterns and the conditions inside of those moving fronts. ...deleted Mantra 2...
These returns only show the temperature and humidity at the station. Temperature and humidity vary quite bit. You are just showing your ignorance in statistical math.


And again you show that you don't have any idea of what the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is. That must be because your math skills are so great. Most people familiar with physics would tell you that the omega of the Stefan's Constant is proportionality but you really don't have a tight hold on anything that I can see.

Oh boy - by ALL means tell us how to use the S-B equation to calculate FOG!!!

You are a total incompetent boob. You know nothing and use your "Big Book of words to sound smart" and your totally inadequate grasp of physics such as the S-B equation to do nothing more than insult people.

You are an incompetent ass. Again; tell us what a calorimeter is. We already know that you ignorant rant of "circular arguments" makes you the laughing stock of this group.
02-12-2017 00:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Why didn't you SAY that you could directly measure how much energy was placed upon the Earth by the Sun through direct measurements with calorimeters? But not the other way around?

I did.
Wake wrote:
I explained in another string that the Earth is essentially a black body emitter and how you can calculate it.

WRONG. Earth is a gray body. There is no such thing as a perfect black body.
Wake wrote:
I even calculated it.

Using an equation that was not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So what was this crap of yours about not knowing the emissivity of the Earth?

To measure emissivity of a surface, you first must accurately know its temperature. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Emissivity across the surface of the Earth varies dramatically within fractions of an inch.
Wake wrote:
And here is a clue - absorption and re-radiation is NOT "reflected or refracted".

Never said it was, liar.
Wake wrote:
And exactly WHAT do you think that refraction has to do with the atmosphere?

Ever wonder why the sunset is red and the sky is blue? Did you know that starlight can actually refract through the atmosphere, distorting your view?
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...2...
Take your "climate change can't be defined without circular arguments" BS and go tell it on the mountain.

So, you would just rather use the buzzphrase and accept your religion at that, eh?

No theory can exist based on a void argument.
Wake wrote:
You aren't even aware of how to use the English language.

This is not an English language problem. It's a definitions problem. The phrase 'climate change' is just a buzzphrase. Your inability to define it without using circular definitions creates a void argument.
Wake wrote:
You and everything you say is solvitur ambulando. In other words all you say is proven false simply by the fact that the world is indeed what it is.

What a woeful display of your ignorance in logic.
Wake wrote:
You would take my argument of most energy in the troposphere being moved about by conduction and copy it as if it were your own without knowing the slightest thing about how the actual actions of the gases work and interplay.

Most is moved about by convection, not conduction. Turns out air of different humidity or temperatures doesn't mix well. That's why we have cold and warm fronts.
Wake wrote:
The average content of moisture in the atmosphere is 4%

It is not possible to determine the average humidity in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
- that is more that TWICE the energy content of the entire rest of the atmosphere but you ain't smart enough to have even THOUGHT of that.

I am already aware of the specific heat of water, liar. I already said so.
Wake wrote:
Instead you continue to shpeel something that I said because it is only true as a general rule discounting the actual density of the atmosphere.

You still haven't explained why rain falls if water is lighter than air, or why clouds tend to stay in the lower atmosphere, or why fog can form. You can't even explain why it can be raining even with a higher barometer reading.


If you actually knew the Stefan-Boltzman equation you'd know that close is more that close enough.

The Stefan Boltzmann law is not a probability equation. It's not about 'close'. It is completely accurate.
Wake wrote:
The Sun is treated as a blackbody emitter though it too is a "greybody".

The Sun is also a graybody. It also has an unknown emissivity value. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Sun either.
Wake wrote:
Likewise the difference between power in and power out is only 0.002% on the Earth and hence it too can be treated as a blackbody the same way the Sun is.

There is no difference between power in and power out. ANY difference results in a constant temperature change.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...answered question...4...2...
the temperature in the tropopause is somehow variable by a significant amount. <is wrong>
It does. There is even a forecast for it in local areas put out every 24 hours. Just over the United States today, for example, forecast temperatures for the tropopause range from -47 degF to -63 degF. These are general numbers. Source: NOAA upper air weather forecast data.
Wake wrote:
In fact, your claim simply shows that you do not understand the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

Non-sequitur.
Wake wrote:
Tell us again that the Earth is only a reflector and not an absorbing body. I like that one.
I didn't say that, liar.
Wake wrote:
And your claim that you cannot tell the "average humidity" in the atmosphere is really funny as well since every single city on the face of the Earth has local weather stations that can return both temperature and humidity.

Not good enough. You still don't understand statistical math. You are failing to select against randN independent of influencing factors, you are failing to normalize against a paired randR, and you are failing to calculate margin of error. Selection by opportunity is a math error.
Wake wrote:
These returns show the exactly weather patterns and the conditions inside of those moving fronts. ...deleted Mantra 2...
These returns only show the temperature and humidity at the station. Temperature and humidity vary quite bit. You are just showing your ignorance in statistical math.


And again you show that you don't have any idea of what the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is. That must be because your math skills are so great. Most people familiar with physics would tell you that the omega of the Stefan's Constant is proportionality but you really don't have a tight hold on anything that I can see.

Oh boy - by ALL means tell us how to use the S-B equation to calculate FOG!!!

You are a total incompetent boob. You know nothing and use your "Big Book of words to sound smart" and your totally inadequate grasp of physics such as the S-B equation to do nothing more than insult people.

You are an incompetent ass. Again; tell us what a calorimeter is. We already know that you ignorant rant of "circular arguments" makes you the laughing stock of this group.


You seem to be reduced to ranting random words and phrases now.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate It's MATHS - Stewart Lee - Climate Change:

Remember me

▲ 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