Remember me
▼ Content

Members


Members21-01-2019 20:00
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
I am sorry that you have to put up with my endless arguments with Nightmare. I simply cannot believe that he is willing to claim endlessly that the science of spectography that has been studied for hundreds of years simply doesn't exist.

That the science of weather and the study of the climate can't be accomplished because your fingertips are a different temperature than Antarctica.

The lunatic idea that he knows not more than I about my home town in which I've lived for 70 years and that since east Oakland isn't actually east but south that east Oakland doesn't exist.

He is a science denier. And that is a hell of a lot more serious that the fake claims of being AGW deniers.

There are serious scientists and not just fakes, who believe in global warming. The reason they can do this is because of a very narrow view of science. If you are willing to believe the temperature charts from NASA that have so obviously been doctored you can say things that are wrong but which you honestly believe to be right.

So don't be fooled by completely honest attempts to convince you by people who do not know enough.

And most assuredly do NOT listen to people who have no credentials in science and want to tell you ANYTHING yea or nay. And Nightmare surely leads the last of those.
21-01-2019 20:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
I am sorry that you have to put up with my endless arguments with Nightmare.

Stop making stupid arguments, and I won't call you on them anymore. You might try actually accepting things like the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Instead you want to start a new thread to insult me.
Wake wrote:
I simply cannot believe that he is willing to claim endlessly that the science of spectography that has been studied for hundreds of years simply doesn't exist.

It does exist. You just don't know it or where it can be applied. It is not a substitute for the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny. You keep trying to make it such.
Wake wrote:
That the science of weather

That's called 'meteorology', Wake.
Wake wrote:
and the study of the climate

There is no study of climate in science. Science has no theories about what is not definable All theories must be internally consistent. You can't make a theory about something you can't define or quantify. How do you quantify 'climate'?
Wake wrote:
can't be accomplished because your fingertips are a different temperature than Antarctica.

The temperature of your fingertips tell you nothing about the temperature in any part of Antarctica, Wake. Neither does the temperature of Oakland.
Wake wrote:
The lunatic idea that he knows not more than I about my home town in which I've lived for 70 years and that since east Oakland isn't actually east but south that east Oakland doesn't exist.

No, it's actually south-east. Go look at a map. You keep making stupid statements even about your home town. BTW, have you bothered to look at a power line yet? No insulation, is there? I've also noticed that PG&E lost their lawsuit for damages they caused that contributed to the wildfires.
Wake wrote:
He is a science denier.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science, Wake. Specifically you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You also deny probability and statistical mathematics.
Wake wrote:And that is a hell of a lot more serious that the fake claims of being AGW deniers.

Denying the Church of Global warming isn't fake, Wake.
Wake wrote:
There are serious scientists and not just fakes, who believe in global warming.

True, just as there are serious scientists that are Christian, Buddhist, atheist, or any other of a number of religions.
Wake wrote:
The reason they can do this is because of a very narrow view of science.

Science isn't a view, Wake. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing says any scientist cannot believe in any religion. Science itself is agnostic. It simply doesn't go there.
Wake wrote:
If you are willing to believe the temperature charts from NASA that have so obviously been doctored you can say things that are wrong but which you honestly believe to be right.

The temperature charts from NASA are copied from IPCC charts. They are completely fake. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
So don't be fooled by completely honest attempts to convince you by people who do not know enough.

Like you? YOU are the one that insist on things like power line insulation, that your own airport is not south of town, that satellites can somehow measure temperature even though Earth's emissivity is unknown, that you can measure emissivity without knowing the temperature of the surface, that think a spectrum is a focus or focal point, that figures that CO2 or any other gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using emitted light from Earth's surface, that thinks you can reduce the radiance of Earth and warm the Earth at the same time, that thinks that radiance needs a thin atmosphere to even occur, that figures that a colder atmosphere warms the surface.

YOU are the one denying science, Wake. YOU are the one denying statistical mathematics, Wake. YOU are the one that keeps making stupid statements such as the ones I've just listed. YOU are the one that started this thread just to vent your spleen at me. It is YOU that has the anger problem.

Wake wrote:
And most assuredly do NOT listen to people who have no credentials in science

Science isn't credentials, Wake. It is a set of falsifiable theories. You don't need any credentials at all to be a scientist. Some famous scientists had no credentials at all in science. Some didn't even have any university degree at all. You are using the results of some of these scientists right now.
Wake wrote:
and want to tell you ANYTHING yea or nay.

Getting a little vague now, aren't you Wake? Void argument fallacy.
Wake wrote:
And Nightmare surely leads the last of those.

Insult fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-01-2019 20:32
22-01-2019 19:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
I am sorry that you have to put up with my endless arguments with Nightmare.

Stop making stupid arguments, and I won't call you on them anymore. You might try actually accepting things like the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Instead you want to start a new thread to insult me.
Wake wrote:
I simply cannot believe that he is willing to claim endlessly that the science of spectography that has been studied for hundreds of years simply doesn't exist.

It does exist. You just don't know it or where it can be applied. It is not a substitute for the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny. You keep trying to make it such.
Wake wrote:
That the science of weather

That's called 'meteorology', Wake.
Wake wrote:
and the study of the climate

There is no study of climate in science. Science has no theories about what is not definable All theories must be internally consistent. You can't make a theory about something you can't define or quantify. How do you quantify 'climate'?
Wake wrote:
can't be accomplished because your fingertips are a different temperature than Antarctica.

The temperature of your fingertips tell you nothing about the temperature in any part of Antarctica, Wake. Neither does the temperature of Oakland.
Wake wrote:
The lunatic idea that he knows not more than I about my home town in which I've lived for 70 years and that since east Oakland isn't actually east but south that east Oakland doesn't exist.

No, it's actually south-east. Go look at a map. You keep making stupid statements even about your home town. BTW, have you bothered to look at a power line yet? No insulation, is there? I've also noticed that PG&E lost their lawsuit for damages they caused that contributed to the wildfires.
Wake wrote:
He is a science denier.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science, Wake. Specifically you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You also deny probability and statistical mathematics.
Wake wrote:And that is a hell of a lot more serious that the fake claims of being AGW deniers.

Denying the Church of Global warming isn't fake, Wake.
Wake wrote:
There are serious scientists and not just fakes, who believe in global warming.

True, just as there are serious scientists that are Christian, Buddhist, atheist, or any other of a number of religions.
Wake wrote:
The reason they can do this is because of a very narrow view of science.

Science isn't a view, Wake. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing says any scientist cannot believe in any religion. Science itself is agnostic. It simply doesn't go there.
Wake wrote:
If you are willing to believe the temperature charts from NASA that have so obviously been doctored you can say things that are wrong but which you honestly believe to be right.

The temperature charts from NASA are copied from IPCC charts. They are completely fake. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
So don't be fooled by completely honest attempts to convince you by people who do not know enough.

Like you? YOU are the one that insist on things like power line insulation, that your own airport is not south of town, that satellites can somehow measure temperature even though Earth's emissivity is unknown, that you can measure emissivity without knowing the temperature of the surface, that think a spectrum is a focus or focal point, that figures that CO2 or any other gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using emitted light from Earth's surface, that thinks you can reduce the radiance of Earth and warm the Earth at the same time, that thinks that radiance needs a thin atmosphere to even occur, that figures that a colder atmosphere warms the surface.

YOU are the one denying science, Wake. YOU are the one denying statistical mathematics, Wake. YOU are the one that keeps making stupid statements such as the ones I've just listed. YOU are the one that started this thread just to vent your spleen at me. It is YOU that has the anger problem.

Wake wrote:
And most assuredly do NOT listen to people who have no credentials in science

Science isn't credentials, Wake. It is a set of falsifiable theories. You don't need any credentials at all to be a scientist. Some famous scientists had no credentials at all in science. Some didn't even have any university degree at all. You are using the results of some of these scientists right now.
Wake wrote:
and want to tell you ANYTHING yea or nay.

Getting a little vague now, aren't you Wake? Void argument fallacy.
Wake wrote:
And Nightmare surely leads the last of those.

Insult fallacy.


While you do not need credentials as such you do need expertise and you have none. You don't even know what the word "fallacy" means.
22-01-2019 20:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
While you do not need credentials as such you do need expertise and you have none. You don't even know what the word "fallacy" means.


A fallacy is an error in logic, just like a math error in arithmetic. I do have credentials, Wake. You just don't accept my claim (not that it makes any difference).


The Parrot Killer
23-01-2019 22:10
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1072)
I will chime in here...

I've been clear about my education, or lack thereof, so it's only logical that I could not say for certain who is right or wrong. What I do know from life experience is that the one who loses his cool is the one that is losing the argument.

ITN, thank you for taking the time to answer all the posts in the way you do with the heart of a teacher. I have learned a great deal from you.

Wake, I have actually enjoyed your arguments with ITN. They make me think things through. However, when your strongest punch is an insult, you have convinced no one. I am not offended by insults and neither is ITN, but it takes away from any argument you may have. If I pay to see a fight, I want to see a good fight. If there is no knockout and the fight seems to be a draw, the man talking trash is the clear loser. If you are right about something and fully understand it, you'll able to peal that subject like an onion and argue every detail of every layer. So far I haven't seen that from you. If ITN is wrong, then show me and everyone here. Science is falsifiable and so is ITN.


Just a bystanders opinion.

Edited on 23-01-2019 22:13
24-01-2019 09:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I will chime in here...

I've been clear about my education, or lack thereof, so it's only logical that I could not say for certain who is right or wrong. What I do know from life experience is that the one who loses his cool is the one that is losing the argument.

ITN, thank you for taking the time to answer all the posts in the way you do with the heart of a teacher. I have learned a great deal from you.

Wake, I have actually enjoyed your arguments with ITN. They make me think things through. However, when your strongest punch is an insult, you have convinced no one. I am not offended by insults and neither is ITN, but it takes away from any argument you may have. If I pay to see a fight, I want to see a good fight. If there is no knockout and the fight seems to be a draw, the man talking trash is the clear loser. If you are right about something and fully understand it, you'll able to peal that subject like an onion and argue every detail of every layer. So far I haven't seen that from you. If ITN is wrong, then show me and everyone here. Science is falsifiable and so is ITN.


Just a bystanders opinion.


*humble bow* and thank you for your faith in me.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-01-2019 09:46
25-01-2019 15:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
Wake wrote:
I am sorry that you have to put up with my endless arguments with Nightmare. I simply cannot believe that he is willing to claim endlessly that the science of spectography that has been studied for hundreds of years simply doesn't exist.

That the science of weather and the study of the climate can't be accomplished because your fingertips are a different temperature than Antarctica.

The lunatic idea that he knows not more than I about my home town in which I've lived for 70 years and that since east Oakland isn't actually east but south that east Oakland doesn't exist.

He is a science denier. And that is a hell of a lot more serious that the fake claims of being AGW deniers.

There are serious scientists and not just fakes, who believe in global warming. The reason they can do this is because of a very narrow view of science. If you are willing to believe the temperature charts from NASA that have so obviously been doctored you can say things that are wrong but which you honestly believe to be right.

So don't be fooled by completely honest attempts to convince you by people who do not know enough.

And most assuredly do NOT listen to people who have no credentials in science and want to tell you ANYTHING yea or nay. And Nightmare surely leads the last of those.


We used to have worse on here. Litesong was much worse.
25-01-2019 20:44
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
I am sorry that you have to put up with my endless arguments with Nightmare. I simply cannot believe that he is willing to claim endlessly that the science of spectography that has been studied for hundreds of years simply doesn't exist.

That the science of weather and the study of the climate can't be accomplished because your fingertips are a different temperature than Antarctica.

The lunatic idea that he knows not more than I about my home town in which I've lived for 70 years and that since east Oakland isn't actually east but south that east Oakland doesn't exist.

He is a science denier. And that is a hell of a lot more serious that the fake claims of being AGW deniers.

There are serious scientists and not just fakes, who believe in global warming. The reason they can do this is because of a very narrow view of science. If you are willing to believe the temperature charts from NASA that have so obviously been doctored you can say things that are wrong but which you honestly believe to be right.

So don't be fooled by completely honest attempts to convince you by people who do not know enough.

And most assuredly do NOT listen to people who have no credentials in science and want to tell you ANYTHING yea or nay. And Nightmare surely leads the last of those.


We used to have worse on here. Litesong was much worse.
I will take your word for it since frankly I don't remember him. Fake science spread by people whose entire knowledge of climate change is from an article in Ladies Home Journal is the basis of the AGW movement. We just heard Ocasio-Cortez saying that if we don't stop ALL fossil fuel use in the United States this very moment that the world will be dead in 12 years. This is the sort of people behind the climate change movement.
26-01-2019 00:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
I will take your word for it since frankly I don't remember him.


Really??? YOU responded to more of litebeer's messages than practically anyone else bothered to! YOU even blamed me for getting him banned! Now you say you don't remember him??? Do you really have that bad a memory???


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-01-2019 00:06
27-01-2019 14:37
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
I am sorry that you have to put up with my endless arguments with Nightmare. I simply cannot believe that he is willing to claim endlessly that the science of spectography that has been studied for hundreds of years simply doesn't exist.

That the science of weather and the study of the climate can't be accomplished because your fingertips are a different temperature than Antarctica.

The lunatic idea that he knows not more than I about my home town in which I've lived for 70 years and that since east Oakland isn't actually east but south that east Oakland doesn't exist.

He is a science denier. And that is a hell of a lot more serious that the fake claims of being AGW deniers.

There are serious scientists and not just fakes, who believe in global warming. The reason they can do this is because of a very narrow view of science. If you are willing to believe the temperature charts from NASA that have so obviously been doctored you can say things that are wrong but which you honestly believe to be right.

So don't be fooled by completely honest attempts to convince you by people who do not know enough.

And most assuredly do NOT listen to people who have no credentials in science and want to tell you ANYTHING yea or nay. And Nightmare surely leads the last of those.


We used to have worse on here. Litesong was much worse.
I will take your word for it since frankly I don't remember him. Fake science spread by people whose entire knowledge of climate change is from an article in Ladies Home Journal is the basis of the AGW movement. We just heard Ocasio-Cortez saying that if we don't stop ALL fossil fuel use in the United States this very moment that the world will be dead in 12 years. This is the sort of people behind the climate change movement.


Yes.

There is a character type traitor. This sort will always want to destroy society to kill off their fellows. They generally are cowardly and unsucessful at actual doing stuff. They deeply resent those who do stuff.

50 years ago such people became communists.

Now they join the Green movement.

For Stalin they were useful idiots. Today the Agri-lobby uses the same types to make food twicce the price it should be.
27-01-2019 20:22
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I will chime in here...

I've been clear about my education, or lack thereof, so it's only logical that I could not say for certain who is right or wrong. What I do know from life experience is that the one who loses his cool is the one that is losing the argument.

ITN, thank you for taking the time to answer all the posts in the way you do with the heart of a teacher. I have learned a great deal from you.

Wake, I have actually enjoyed your arguments with ITN. They make me think things through. However, when your strongest punch is an insult, you have convinced no one. I am not offended by insults and neither is ITN, but it takes away from any argument you may have. If I pay to see a fight, I want to see a good fight. If there is no knockout and the fight seems to be a draw, the man talking trash is the clear loser. If you are right about something and fully understand it, you'll able to peal that subject like an onion and argue every detail of every layer. So far I haven't seen that from you. If ITN is wrong, then show me and everyone here. Science is falsifiable and so is ITN.


Just a bystanders opinion.



Perhaps how you can respond to someone who lives in Seattle and has for their life, telling me that the Oakland Airport is not in east Oakland when I was born and raised 2 miles from that airport and presently live five miles from it. And when I ask him where the hell he gets that he responds "read the map".

How do you respond to someone that says that you cannot define climate change except in a circular manner. Have you looked at the local weather reports? Don't they tell you what the weather is expected to be for the entire week comparing each day to the next? Climate change like most real world data sets HAVE to be defined against themselves.

How do you respond to someone that says that light doesn't warm the earth - only infrared radiation? Don't you believe that any and all energy is the radiation of heat? Or would you suppose that somehow the Sun is transferring heat to the surrounding environment only in Infrared radiation.

What do you say to someone that thinks that most of the Sun's energy is radiated in the Ifrared bands? This shows that he doesn't understand that the higher frequencies carry far more energy than the lower ones such an IR.

What do you say to someone that denies that you can measure the Earth's mean global temperature from satellites because "light isn't heat".

If you are learning from Nightmare you are not learning. He has shown every single stand he has taken to be so anti-science that it is pitiful.
27-01-2019 22:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I will chime in here...

I've been clear about my education, or lack thereof, so it's only logical that I could not say for certain who is right or wrong. What I do know from life experience is that the one who loses his cool is the one that is losing the argument.

ITN, thank you for taking the time to answer all the posts in the way you do with the heart of a teacher. I have learned a great deal from you.

Wake, I have actually enjoyed your arguments with ITN. They make me think things through. However, when your strongest punch is an insult, you have convinced no one. I am not offended by insults and neither is ITN, but it takes away from any argument you may have. If I pay to see a fight, I want to see a good fight. If there is no knockout and the fight seems to be a draw, the man talking trash is the clear loser. If you are right about something and fully understand it, you'll able to peal that subject like an onion and argue every detail of every layer. So far I haven't seen that from you. If ITN is wrong, then show me and everyone here. Science is falsifiable and so is ITN.


Just a bystanders opinion.



Perhaps how you can respond to someone who lives in Seattle and has for their life,

I haven't lived in Seattle all my life, Wake.
Wake wrote:
telling me that the Oakland Airport is not in east Oakland

It isn't. It's south-south-east of Oakland.
Wake wrote:
when I was born and raised 2 miles from that airport and presently live five miles from it.

I can't help it if you're lost in your own home town. I fly into that airport on occasion, Wake. I use a compass to align my gyros, you know. I also use GPS. Soon I'll also be using ADS-B. Should make tracking the traffic in that mess easier to handle.
Wake wrote:
And when I ask him where the hell he gets that he responds "read the map".

Read the map, Wake.
Wake wrote:
How do you respond to someone that says that you cannot define climate change except in a circular manner.

Okay Wake. Define 'climate change'. Remember, you cannot define a word with itself.
Wake wrote:
Have you looked at the local weather reports?

What about 'em?
Wake wrote:
Don't they tell you what the weather is expected to be for the entire week comparing each day to the next?

No.
Wake wrote:
Climate change like most real world data sets HAVE to be defined against themselves.

Climate change is a data set?? Where is it?? Who collected it and when? What form does the data take? What instrument was used? Who calibrated it? What units are used? Where is the raw data? How does this conform to the usual definition of a 'climate'? How does a data set, which is static, mean 'change'?
Wake wrote:
How do you respond to someone that says that light doesn't warm the earth

It does.
Wake wrote:
- only infrared radiation?

Infrared radiation is light, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Don't you believe that any and all energy is the radiation of heat?

No. First, not all energy from the Sun intersects the Earth, Wake. Second, light can only heat if it is absorbed, Wake. Third, according to quantum mechanics (which you deny), only certain frequencies result in conversion to thermal energy upon absorption, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Or would you suppose that somehow the Sun is transferring heat to the surrounding environment only in Infrared radiation.

In general, that is true.
Wake wrote:
What do you say to someone that thinks that most of the Sun's energy is radiated in the Ifrared bands?

It is.
Wake wrote:
This shows that he doesn't understand that the higher frequencies carry far more energy than the lower ones such an IR.

The width of the entire IR band is the reason, Wake. Visible light has a very narrow band by comparison. UV even more narrow. X-rays, even more narrow. While these are higher frequencies of light and each photon is higher in energy, the total energy emitted by the Sun is primarily infrared. That is the part of light that heats the Earth anyway.
Wake wrote:
What do you say to someone that denies that you can measure the Earth's mean global temperature from satellites

You can't. Satellites can only measure light, not temperature.
Wake wrote:
because "light isn't heat".

It isn't. Light is electromagnetic energy. Only that light that is absorbed and converted to thermal energy is heat.
Wake wrote:
If you are learning from Nightmare you are not learning.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is not learning, Wake.
Wake wrote:
He has shown every single stand he has taken to be so anti-science that it is pitiful.

No, it is YOU that denies science, Wake. Specifically, you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and quantum mechanics (especially energy absorption theories).

Higher frequency light, when absorbed, does not cause conversion to thermal energy. It causes chemical reactions or direct ionization.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2019 01:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I will chime in here...

I've been clear about my education, or lack thereof, so it's only logical that I could not say for certain who is right or wrong. What I do know from life experience is that the one who loses his cool is the one that is losing the argument.

ITN, thank you for taking the time to answer all the posts in the way you do with the heart of a teacher. I have learned a great deal from you.

Wake, I have actually enjoyed your arguments with ITN. They make me think things through. However, when your strongest punch is an insult, you have convinced no one. I am not offended by insults and neither is ITN, but it takes away from any argument you may have. If I pay to see a fight, I want to see a good fight. If there is no knockout and the fight seems to be a draw, the man talking trash is the clear loser. If you are right about something and fully understand it, you'll able to peal that subject like an onion and argue every detail of every layer. So far I haven't seen that from you. If ITN is wrong, then show me and everyone here. Science is falsifiable and so is ITN.


Just a bystanders opinion.



Perhaps how you can respond to someone who lives in Seattle and has for their life,

I haven't lived in Seattle all my life, Wake.
Wake wrote:
telling me that the Oakland Airport is not in east Oakland

It isn't. It's south-south-east of Oakland.
Wake wrote:
when I was born and raised 2 miles from that airport and presently live five miles from it.

I can't help it if you're lost in your own home town. I fly into that airport on occasion, Wake. I use a compass to align my gyros, you know. I also use GPS. Soon I'll also be using ADS-B. Should make tracking the traffic in that mess easier to handle.
Wake wrote:
And when I ask him where the hell he gets that he responds "read the map".

Read the map, Wake.
Wake wrote:
How do you respond to someone that says that you cannot define climate change except in a circular manner.

Okay Wake. Define 'climate change'. Remember, you cannot define a word with itself.
Wake wrote:
Have you looked at the local weather reports?

What about 'em?
Wake wrote:
Don't they tell you what the weather is expected to be for the entire week comparing each day to the next?

No.
Wake wrote:
Climate change like most real world data sets HAVE to be defined against themselves.

Climate change is a data set?? Where is it?? Who collected it and when? What form does the data take? What instrument was used? Who calibrated it? What units are used? Where is the raw data? How does this conform to the usual definition of a 'climate'? How does a data set, which is static, mean 'change'?
Wake wrote:
How do you respond to someone that says that light doesn't warm the earth

It does.
Wake wrote:
- only infrared radiation?

Infrared radiation is light, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Don't you believe that any and all energy is the radiation of heat?

No. First, not all energy from the Sun intersects the Earth, Wake. Second, light can only heat if it is absorbed, Wake. Third, according to quantum mechanics (which you deny), only certain frequencies result in conversion to thermal energy upon absorption, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Or would you suppose that somehow the Sun is transferring heat to the surrounding environment only in Infrared radiation.

In general, that is true.
Wake wrote:
What do you say to someone that thinks that most of the Sun's energy is radiated in the Ifrared bands?

It is.
Wake wrote:
This shows that he doesn't understand that the higher frequencies carry far more energy than the lower ones such an IR.

The width of the entire IR band is the reason, Wake. Visible light has a very narrow band by comparison. UV even more narrow. X-rays, even more narrow. While these are higher frequencies of light and each photon is higher in energy, the total energy emitted by the Sun is primarily infrared. That is the part of light that heats the Earth anyway.
Wake wrote:
What do you say to someone that denies that you can measure the Earth's mean global temperature from satellites

You can't. Satellites can only measure light, not temperature.
Wake wrote:
because "light isn't heat".

It isn't. Light is electromagnetic energy. Only that light that is absorbed and converted to thermal energy is heat.
Wake wrote:
If you are learning from Nightmare you are not learning.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is not learning, Wake.
Wake wrote:
He has shown every single stand he has taken to be so anti-science that it is pitiful.

No, it is YOU that denies science, Wake. Specifically, you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and quantum mechanics (especially energy absorption theories).

Higher frequency light, when absorbed, does not cause conversion to thermal energy. It causes chemical reactions or direct ionization.


Every single posting you make you dig yourself into a deeper hole. Not only are you a fool, but a stupid one at that.
28-01-2019 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Every single posting you make you dig yourself into a deeper hole. Not only are you a fool, but a stupid one at that.


Insult fallacy.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Members:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
An open letter to all members of Climate-debate.com7202-11-2015 22:55
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact