Remember me
▼ Content

The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"



Page 2 of 6<1234>>>
07-10-2015 16:57
Hans-Jürgen
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
@climate scientist
Thanks for doing a great educational work here, and in other threads. Big respect.
07-10-2015 17:11
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Thanks Hans-Jürgen, your comment is much appreciated!
08-10-2015 04:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:Still waiting for you to post a link that shows that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT.

So the correct answer is, yes, we're done.

Let me know when you have some "greenhouse effect" 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
08-10-2015 04:25
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
I'd like to second Hans-Jürgen. You are writing great posts throughout this website climate scientist!
08-10-2015 04:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:
I'd like to second Hans-Jürgen. You are writing great posts throughout this website climate scientist!

I enjoy watching the moral support from the rest of the congregation. Where they won't help by providing any science, they'll pat on the back for trying. The Global Warming congregation is like the Special Olympics, giving out awards to everyone for participation without any expectation of actual performance.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2015 04:53
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Fundamentally, I would conclude that IBdaMann's post in this thread have unequivocally proven that man-made climate change, AGW and GHG have been satisfactorily shown to have passed both the tests of Karl Popper's falsifiable models and Heinrich Hermann Robert Koch's postulates concerning correlation and causation.

Just have a look for yourself.

Can I get a big round of applause for IBdaMann!


Edited on 08-10-2015 04:54
08-10-2015 07:51
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Thanks trafn! May I just say that I have also been really enjoying reading your posts, which are very well written, and thought provoking. I would encourage anyone who hasn't yet read them to take a look.

IBdaMann - I guess you should give yourself a pat on the back, you have clearly convinced us all, and cured us of our terrible religious obsession. Well done you!
08-10-2015 09:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
As Bertrand Russell said "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand"

It's rather obvious who the 'stupid man' is in this thread.




Edited on 08-10-2015 09:55
08-10-2015 12:58
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
Fundamentally, I would conclude that IBdaMann's post in this thread have unequivocally proven that man-made climate change, AGW and GHG have been satisfactorily shown to have passed both the tests of Karl Popper's falsifiable models and Heinrich Hermann Robert Koch's postulates concerning correlation and causation.

Just have a look for yourself.

Can I get a big round of applause for IBdaMann!


Maybe he can ask the US Airforce to send a round of these his way so he can personally test the null hypothesis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoR4ezwKh5E


09-10-2015 00:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: Fundamentally, I would conclude that IBdaMann's post in this thread have unequivocally proven that man-made climate change, AGW and GHG have been satisfactorily shown to have passed both the tests of Karl Popper's falsifiable models and Heinrich Hermann Robert Koch's postulates concerning correlation and causation.


You get a pass because you aren't very good at saying what you mean and at meaning what you say. I'll give your semantics a little touch up.

1. I would ask you to review the thread and notice that AGW and "climate" were not the subject matter. We discussed the "greenhouse effect."

2. It is Climate Scientist who deserves the credit for rendering his personal version of the "greenhouse effect" falsifiable. This is no small feat. Warmazombies are loathe to do this lest their dogmababble be falsified, as happened to Climate Scientist...which is why they just don't do it. Once they do, they invariably spiral into a death struggle to quibble over wording, to change the subject by whatever means and to fight just to stay alive.

3. The underlying requirement for science is a falsifiable model that is not false. Climate Scientist certainly got the first half but he needed to get all of it. His model violates the 1st LoT, it's false even before getting out of the gate.

4. What are you claiming about correlation and causation?

Beyond that, yes, Climate Scientist should be given credit for being bold enough to not EVADE falsifiability, for staring it in the face and for taking the huge risk of formally specifying his dogma in falsifiable terms. I don't think it matters that he failed on this attempt. He is allowed, nay encouraged, to try, try again. He showed some poor form there at the end by demanding links for explanations of what he posted but we can overlook that.

Let's encourage him to start fresh and to come at this again from a different angle somehow. After all, if he is a scientist then he will adjust his model to account for where it failed previously. If, on the other hand, his assertions really are based on static, unfalsifiable religious dogma, then he won't be permitted to change anything.

I guess we'll see.


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
09-10-2015 08:33
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
His model violates the 1st LoT


Without any references or source information to back up your statement, then you might as well be saying that the moon is made of cheese.

So, unless you have a reference/source stating that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT, then...

NON-RESPONSE: please feel free to go sit in the corner!
09-10-2015 11:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:Without any references or source information to back up your statement,

If you were a scientist you would know that you bear the full burden of providing a falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model that does not violate the laws of physics. No one is required to provide you any number of internet links, or anything else for that matter, for the privilege of pointing out its flaws.

Do you know why no one has yet received the Nobel Prize in physics for the development of "greenhouse effect" science? Would you care to guess why you won't be winning it either?

I have an idea. Why don't we start over? Let's get our terms straight (amongst ourselves) and begin again from square one. I applaud your effort to go falsifiable, and one side benefit is that you get to change your claims and you get unlimited attempts.

No links or appeals to perceived authority figures are required.


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
09-10-2015 13:41
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
NON-RESPONSE: please feel free to go sit in the corner!
09-10-2015 13:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:
NON-RESPONSE: please feel free to go sit in the corner!




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
09-10-2015 18:26
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hey guys, look, it was a bold statement I made about IBdaMann actually having proved that MMCC exists, and it's true but a bit complicated. So, to explain what I meant, I've created a whole new thread dedicated to explaining how he proved it at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-man-made-climate-change-deniers-prove-man-made-climate-change-exists-d6-e727.php#post_2703

How about taking all this silliness over there?
10-10-2015 02:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4842)
Of all the gasses commonly accepted with the name 'greenhouse gas', the most prevalent is water vapor. By various estimates the effect of water vapor is at least 70% of all 'greenhouse gas' effects, so it's worthwhile to consider the conditions surrounding it.

It is well known that areas with marine environments are colder during the day and warmer during the night than equivalent low moisture environments such as deserts at the same latitude and near the same altitude. The mean temperature is not altered, but the range of temperature sweep is. Examples of this phenomenon can be found in California, Oregon, and Washington. It can be extended by compensating by altitude the temperature differences (using the adiabatic rate of standard air).

Therefore the following model and hypothesis are proposed:

If these observations concerning water vapor are valid, then it is possible to look at water vapor as a stabilizing effect on the atmospheric temperatures. Rather than adding or subtracting energy, water vapor simply absorbs the available energy when it is available, leaving a cooler daytime temperature, and releases it when energy is not available, leaving warmer nighttime temperatures. The mean temperature stays the same.

The atmosphere in general possesses an inertial effect as well. We know this because it takes greater than a zero amount of time to heat and cool it. We can shorten the time by applying more work, but the time can never be reduced to zero.

We know that energy is introduced into the atmosphere through the infrared (and other) radiation from the Sun, which is converted to inertial energy as it strikes the ground, then spreading upward through the atmosphere as heat.

Comparing surface (ground or water) temperature to the air above it, water vapor acts as a heat sink during the day and as a heat source at night. This is the same as the rest of the atmosphere, but in marine environments this seems more pronounced than in dry environments.

If this can be done with water vapor, it can be done with carbon dioxide, methane, or any other 'greenhouse' gas. If this is so, calling them a 'greenhouse' gas is a misnomer. It would be better to call them 'phantom inertial gas' since they only act to enhance the inertial effects of atmosphere in general.

If there were no atmosphere at all, the mean temperature should not change. The temperature swings around it, however, would. Since there is no inertia of an atmosphere to consider, temperature would swing much wider. If there were a thicker atmosphere than we have, the mean temperature again would not change. The temperature swings around it, do. There is more matter per volume, and the temperature swing would be narrower.

The effect of a 'greenhouse' gas, therefore, is no different than to act as if the atmosphere had more of this inertial effect than the regular atmosphere would account for.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is satisfied since no energy is being gained or lost from the Earth.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since increased loss from excess energy (from whatever source) increases as predicted.
The 3rd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since all energy gains and losses from the Sun-Earth-Space system take place above absolute zero.
Newton's law is satisfied since all matter such as the atmosphere has mass, and therefore inertia.

It is possible to conjecture from this point the possible causes of this behavior in a phantom inertial gas. One such possibility may reside within the shape of the molecules themselves which may be able to store inertial energy in more than one mode of vibration. The water molecule, which is not symmetrical, could easily fit this model. 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. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunity for multiple vibration modes that are not available to the typical pairs of atoms comprising most of our atmosphere.
10-10-2015 03:20
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Very nice summary Into The Night. The vibrational model of atoms, with electrons jumping into different orbital shells (farther out for energy absorption, closer in for energy release) does account for the their ability to hold and then emit energy during these diurnal-nocturnal cycles.

The problem with M2C2 (man-made climate change) is that we're playing with the chemistry of the atmosphere by raising the concentration of these gases which are in the air: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and water. In the meantime:

1. The sun will continue to radiate more energy onto our planet, while...
2. The atmospheric concentrations of phantom/GHG molecules continue to rise, causing...
3. The phantom/GHG molecules to retain even more solar energy through their atomic absorption-emission cycles, resulting in...
3. The overall retained-energy content of the planet to rise, which will...
4. Melt all the ice and snow on the planet, after which...
5. All the planet's liquid water will evaporate up and off of the planet, leaving...
6. Earth as dry and lifeless as Venus.

FYI - keeping in mind that water vapor is a more powerful phantom/GHG than CO2, there is good reason to believe that this is exactly the kind of out of control process which destroyed Venus' atmosphere, and there's no reason it couldn't happen here.
10-10-2015 04:12
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature:

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf


"For present Earth conditions, CO2 accounts for about a third of the clear-sky greenhouse effect in the tropics and for a somewhat greater portion in the drier, colder extratropics, the remainder is mostly due to water vapor. The contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, considerable though it is, understates the central role of the gas as a controller of climate.

The atmosphere, if CO2 were removed from it, would cool enough that much of the water vapor would rain out. That precipitation, in turn, would cause further cooling and ultimately spiral Earth into a globally glaciated snowball state. It is only the presence of CO2 that keeps Earth's atmosphere warm enough to contain much water vapor. Conversely, increasing CO2 would warm the atmosphere and ultimately result in greater water-vapor content—a now well-understood situation known as water-vapor feedback."


10-10-2015 04:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4842)
trafn wrote:
Very nice summary Into The Night. The vibrational model of atoms, with electrons jumping into different orbital shells (farther out for energy absorption, closer in for energy release) does account for the their ability to hold and then emit energy during these diurnal-nocturnal cycles.

The problem with M2C2 (man-made climate change) is that we're playing with the chemistry of the atmosphere by raising the concentration of these gases which are in the air: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and water. In the meantime:

1. The sun will continue to radiate more energy onto our planet, while...
2. The atmospheric concentrations of phantom/GHG molecules continue to rise, causing...
3. The phantom/GHG molecules to retain even more solar energy through their atomic absorption-emission cycles, resulting in...
3. The overall retained-energy content of the planet to rise, which will...
4. Melt all the ice and snow on the planet, after which...
5. All the planet's liquid water will evaporate up and off of the planet, leaving...
6. Earth as dry and lifeless as Venus.

FYI - keeping in mind that water vapor is a more powerful phantom/GHG than CO2, there is good reason to believe that this is exactly the kind of out of control process which destroyed Venus' atmosphere, and there's no reason it couldn't happen here.

There are several problems here.
First, Venus has almost no hydrogen in it's atmosphere. It never had any. Therefore no water. The trace hydrogen that is there is locked up in hydrogen flouride and hydrogen chloride. That is a very tiny amount.
Second, Venus is not 'running away' with temperature. It's temperature is quite stable. Due to the thick atmosphere, and that mostly carbon dioxide, the daytime vs nighttime temperature on Venus are virtually identical. This actually reinforces my hypothesis that no energy is being added to the system by 'greenhouse' (inertial) gas, and such a gas only serves to limit the temperature swing while not modifying the mean temperature.
For the mean temperature to rise, energy would have to be added to the system as a whole. Any gas, including a phantom inertial gas, is not an overall heat source or heat sink. The only energy source is the Sun. The only ultimate heat sink is open space.

Assuming for a moment that such gases cause such an energy entrapment as you suggest, than any amount of energy (even a light bulb) would over time build up sufficient energy to literally fry the Earth into vapor (thus ending the process). We know this hasn't happened.

I think you are cherry picking points out of my hypothesis and considering them as the entire hypothesis.
Edited on 10-10-2015 04:40
10-10-2015 05:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Into The Night wrote: Assuming for a moment that such gases cause such an energy entrapment as you suggest, than any amount of energy (even a light bulb) would over time build up sufficient energy to literally fry the Earth into vapor (thus ending the process). We know this hasn't happened.


You've made two misconceptions here:

1. The earth is not a closed energy system (if it were, then indeed a single light bulb might, over time, fry the entire planet).

2 It's not a question of if life threatening AGW has happened yet, it's a question of whether or not we're going to let it happen in the near future.

The Earth is ultimately part of an entropic pathway in which energy flows from a more concentrated position (the Sun) to the lowest point possible (outer space), sort of like water flowing down a mountain side to the ocean. In the total length of this pathway, no energy is created or lost, however, there can be different concentrations of this energy at given points along the way.

Think of the Earth like a lake along that entropic pathway, between the mountain top (Sun) and the ocean (outer space), where the energy merely stops for a while before continuing downward. Increasing GHG's is similar to digging a deeper lake. Water still flows in and out of the lake (conservation of energy), but more water is now being held inside the lake at any given moment. In the case of M2C2 (man-made climate change), the increased GHG's are allowing the atmosphere to retain a larger amount of solar energy at any given moment, thereby increasing the over-all heat content of the planet which, in turn, will have long-term devastating impacts on the biosphere.

The climates we are suited best to live in are the ones when that flow of solar energy into, and then back out from the earth maintains seasonal vulnerabilities like those during the first half of the twentieth century. Increasing GHG's will, over time, raise the planet's net atmospheric energy/heat content (dig the lake deeper), which will be the driving force that will melt the planet's solid water, followed by evaporation of the planet's liquid water. The conservation of energy will be maintained throughout this process, but then, instead of going from summer to winter, we will be going from summer to hell.

And by the way, if you're going to nit-pick such insignificant minutia as a single light bulb, why don't you start counting mouse farts as well?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
10-10-2015 05:28
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Into the Night,

Thanks for your two posts so far here tonight. They were great in that they helped me to clarify the entropic pathway component of the M2C2 equation.

I'm in the process of writing the second edition of a climate change book I originally wrote in 2014 titled "Bursting the Atmosphere: what happens when rain fall up." I'll be using the entropic pathway in the new edition.

I've attached a copy of the first edition for you if you'd like to read it. Your feedback would be most welcome.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Attached file:
burstingtheatmosphere_1stedition2014_4.pdf
10-10-2015 05:32
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
The 'greenhouse effect' does not violate the laws of physics. It was also confirmed by observed spectra in the 1960s.


"The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR into the essentially zero-temperature reservoir of space. It therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate between the two.

The greenhouse effect shifts the planet's surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature. The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from the furnace. The temperature of your house is intermediate between the temperature of the flame in your furnace and the temperature of the outdoors, and adding insulation shifts it toward the former by reducing the rate at which the house loses energy to the outdoors.

As Fourier already understood, when it comes to relating temperature to the principles of energy balance, it matters little whether the heat-loss mechanism is purely radiative, as in the case of a planet, or a mix of radiation and turbulent convection, as in the case of a house—or a greenhouse. Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation."

"Though the first calculation of the warming of Earth due to CO2 increase was carried out by Arrhenius in 1896, accurate CO2 and water-vapor spectroscopy and a fully correct formulation of planetary energy balance did not come together until the work of Syukuro Manabe and Richard Wetherald in 1967.

With that development, the theory was brought to its modern state of understanding. It has withstood all subsequent challenges and without question represents one of the great triumphs of 20th-century physics."


Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature - Physics Today, 2011

Hitran


10-10-2015 05:35
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
.
From: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy

"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does.

Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

"The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies established long ago that water vapour and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs.

Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change. CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system."



Edited on 10-10-2015 05:35
10-10-2015 07:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4842)
trafn wrote:
Into The Night wrote: Assuming for a moment that such gases cause such an energy entrapment as you suggest, than any amount of energy (even a light bulb) would over time build up sufficient energy to literally fry the Earth into vapor (thus ending the process). We know this hasn't happened.


You've made two misconceptions here:

1. The earth is not a closed energy system (if it were, then indeed a single light bulb might, over time, fry the entire planet).

2 It's not a question of if life threatening AGW has happened yet, it's a question of whether or not we're going to let it happen in the near future.

The Earth is ultimately part of an entropic pathway in which energy flows from a more concentrated position (the Sun) to the lowest point possible (outer space), sort of like water flowing down a mountain side to the ocean. In the total length of this pathway, no energy is created or lost, however, there can be different concentrations of this energy at given points along the way.

Think of the Earth like a lake along that entropic pathway, between the mountain top (Sun) and the ocean (outer space), where the energy merely stops for a while before continuing downward. Increasing GHG's is similar to digging a deeper lake. Water still flows in and out of the lake (conservation of energy), but more water is now being held inside the lake at any given moment. In the case of M2C2 (man-made climate change), the increased GHG's are allowing the atmosphere to retain a larger amount of solar energy at any given moment, thereby increasing the over-all heat content of the planet which, in turn, will have long-term devastating impacts on the biosphere.

The climates we are suited best to live in are the ones when that flow of solar energy into, and then back out from the earth maintains seasonal vulnerabilities like those during the first half of the twentieth century. Increasing GHG's will, over time, raise the planet's net atmospheric energy/heat content (dig the lake deeper), which will be the driving force that will melt the planet's solid water, followed by evaporation of the planet's liquid water. The conservation of energy will be maintained throughout this process, but then, instead of going from summer to winter, we will be going from summer to hell.

And by the way, if you're going to nit-pick such insignificant minutia as a single light bulb, why don't you start counting mouse farts as well?


The Earth is not a lake. Neither does digging a lake deeper effect the level of a lake.

I am not nit picking. Any trapped energy has nowhere to go. That's the only way it can be trapped. Even if a tiny portion of energy is trapped, this sets up a feedback loop that doesn't end until the Earth is vaporized by the accumulated energy. If you would rather use farts, fine. It would be the Fart That Destroyed the World. (sounds like a good movie!)

Any entrapment of energy in this way creates what essentially amounts to a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
Edited on 10-10-2015 07:51
10-10-2015 07:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4842)
trafn wrote:
Hi Into the Night,

Thanks for your two posts so far here tonight. They were great in that they helped me to clarify the entropic pathway component of the M2C2 equation.

I'm in the process of writing the second edition of a climate change book I originally wrote in 2014 titled "Bursting the Atmosphere: what happens when rain fall up." I'll be using the entropic pathway in the new edition.

I've attached a copy of the first edition for you if you'd like to read it. Your feedback would be most welcome.


The book seems to ramble into a lot of off topic directions. From what I dug out of it though, you at some point came across the graph published by NASA at one time of the structure of the atmosphere.

Your explanation for this graph is rather incorrect. Here is why:

All energy received by the Earth from the Sun comes in the form of electromagnetic energy. As this energy strikes matter it excites the molecules within, raising their temperature.

The atmosphere is quite transparent, but a small amount of this energy does directly heat the matter in the atmosphere itself. Different gases respond to different spectra of light. Most respond to the infrared, just like the land and oceans themselves.

The energy that gets through the atmosphere strikes the surface, raising it's temperature. The hotter surface moves upward through the atmosphere, heating it. As you rise in altitude, the air gets colder. This is known as the adiabatic lapse rate. In the troposphere, this lapse rate normally is about 3.5 degrees F or 2 degrees C per one thousand feet. This cooling stops at the tropopause, which varies in altitude from about 30,000 ft to about 40,000 ft depending on your latitude and air pressure (barometer reading). This is the coldest point in the lower atmosphere.

As you enter the stratosphere, the temperature begins to rise again. The reason for this is that the effect of the direct energy put into the atmosphere at this altitude now becomes the predominate method of heating. More ultraviolet light is available at this altitude as well, and the energy is sufficient to begin forming ozone from the available oxygen. The ozone formation effectively stores the energy in much the same way water vapor would in the lower atmosphere which only lasts as long as there is energy available. During the day this area sees a cooling effect from the formation of ozone, but it is not enough to cool the rest of the thermal energy caused by conversion from electromagnetic energy.

At night, this energy stored in the ozone is returned to the rest of the atmosphere as the ozone layer self destructs (ozone is an unstable molecule) and warms the air in this region. Thus, ozone does for the stratosphere what water vapor or carbon dioxide does for the troposphere. It simply limits the temperature swing somewhat. As before the mean temperature does not change due to the effects of ozone.

At dawn, the whole process starts over again. Building the ozone layer during the day, destroying it each night.

Above this point, the atmosphere begins cooling again, until you reach open space, where the temperature remains more or less constant. The reason is that there is so little mass left at this altitude to react with electromagnetic energy it just never heats up.
10-10-2015 12:15
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
.

The Physics of Climate Change- Sept 2015
Andy Dessler - Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University.

In this lecture, he starts explaining the physics at about 8min 30sec



Edited on 10-10-2015 12:24
10-10-2015 13:59
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Into the Night,

Before I go any further, I'd just like to say how much I am enjoying your posts. They are informative, well thought out, and firmly based in what most people today accept as the current knowledge base of the physical sciences.

Even though we do disagree on some key points, I do find high merit in most of what you say, and I'm looking forward to continuing our discussions.

As I've always stated, agreement is not required to participate on this website, but respect is requested, and I do respect your point of view.

Perhaps others here who tend to often stray off topic will follow your example.

Thank you again,

Trafn



PS - Ceist, please don't feel left out, as your posts have always been great, too!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 10-10-2015 14:03
10-10-2015 14:20
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Into the Night wrote:

The Earth is not a lake. Neither does digging a lake deeper effect the level of a lake.

I am not nit picking. Any trapped energy has nowhere to go. That's the only way it can be trapped. Even if a tiny portion of energy is trapped, this sets up a feedback loop that doesn't end until the Earth is vaporized by the accumulated energy. If you would rather use farts, fine. It would be the Fart That Destroyed the World. (sounds like a good movie!)

Any entrapment of energy in this way creates what essentially amounts to a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.


Hi Into the Night,

1. I was only using the lake as anology/metaphor for the Earth's capacity to temporarily retain energy (i.e. - water) as solar EM radiation falls down the entropic pathway from a higher state (the Sun/mountain top) to a lower state (outer space/the ocean).

2. Digging a lake deeper, as you correctly stated, will not effect the level of the lake. However, my point was that it will effect the retention capacity of the lake, just as the increasing the concentration of GHG's in our atmosphere will increase the EM radiation retention capacity of our Earth.

3. "Trapping" is a colloquial interpretation of Earth's temporary EM radiation retention capacity, which is commonly used today both within and outside of the scientific community. It's like when people say that the Sun sends us heat every day. No, the Sun does not send us heat, it sends us EM radiation which we then experience as heat. We could spend eons arguing both the validity and merit of using the term "trapping" in our climate science discussions, or we could agree that we're just saying the same thing sometimes with different words and move on to more substantive matters. I hope we can choose the latter, with the understanding that we can also return to this topic if the need arises.

4. Yes, I do like your idea for the fart movie. Do you have any contacts in Hollywood?

5. Yes, pure "trapping" without release (i.e. - permanent EM radiation retention) would raise the possibility of a perpetual motion machine. But, as I clarified in point #3, above, I'm using the term "trapping" to refer to "temporary" EM radiation retention which is then followed by release (just like the lake "temporarily" holds onto the water before releasing it downstream to the ocean).

Thoughts?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 10-10-2015 14:21
10-10-2015 14:41
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Into the Night wrote:


The book seems to ramble into a lot of off topic directions. From what I dug out of it though, you at some point came across the graph published by NASA at one time of the structure of the atmosphere.

Your explanation for this graph is rather incorrect. Here is why:...


Hi Into the Night,

Thank you for your feedback on my book. I found your post very valuable, and though I don't find that much of what you're stating conflicts with what I wrote, I do think it raises the point that I did not adequately explain myself in the first edition. This error of clarification on my part, being a common pitfall of authorship, is the reason I'm writing the second edition so as to both update its content and improve its clarity.

I have exchanged several posts with IBdaMann about this, resulting in the realization that I need to include a "definitions" section in the second edition. You can read these posts at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/bursting-the-atmosphere-what-happens-when-rain-falls-up-d6-e703.php#post_2193

Thanks again for your constructive feedback




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
10-10-2015 14:59
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
Thanks trafn! May I just say that I have also been really enjoying reading your posts, which are very well written, and thought provoking. I would encourage anyone who hasn't yet read them to take a look.

IBdaMann - I guess you should give yourself a pat on the back, you have clearly convinced us all, and cured us of our terrible religious obsession. Well done you!


I think IBdaMann is well deserving of the "Not even wrong" award.

"The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong



Edited on 10-10-2015 14:59
10-10-2015 16:10
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Thanks for reminding me Ceist, YES, thank you Climate Scientist for the compliment you gave me earlier. I apologize for not saying so sooner.

As for you, IBdaMann, in the past you have made some very intelligent, thought provoking contributions to this website which I have thoroughly enjoyed. I look forward to the time when these kinds of posts replace the ones which do not.

("not even wrong".... that's a good one
)


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
10-10-2015 20:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4842)
trafn wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The Earth is not a lake. Neither does digging a lake deeper effect the level of a lake.

I am not nit picking. Any trapped energy has nowhere to go. That's the only way it can be trapped. Even if a tiny portion of energy is trapped, this sets up a feedback loop that doesn't end until the Earth is vaporized by the accumulated energy. If you would rather use farts, fine. It would be the Fart That Destroyed the World. (sounds like a good movie!)

Any entrapment of energy in this way creates what essentially amounts to a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.


Hi Into the Night,

1. I was only using the lake as anology/metaphor for the Earth's capacity to temporarily retain energy (i.e. - water) as solar EM radiation falls down the entropic pathway from a higher state (the Sun/mountain top) to a lower state (outer space/the ocean).

2. Digging a lake deeper, as you correctly stated, will not effect the level of the lake. However, my point was that it will effect the retention capacity of the lake, just as the increasing the concentration of GHG's in our atmosphere will increase the EM radiation retention capacity of our Earth.

3. "Trapping" is a colloquial interpretation of Earth's temporary EM radiation retention capacity, which is commonly used today both within and outside of the scientific community. It's like when people say that the Sun sends us heat every day. No, the Sun does not send us heat, it sends us EM radiation which we then experience as heat. We could spend eons arguing both the validity and merit of using the term "trapping" in our climate science discussions, or we could agree that we're just saying the same thing sometimes with different words and move on to more substantive matters. I hope we can choose the latter, with the understanding that we can also return to this topic if the need arises.

4. Yes, I do like your idea for the fart movie. Do you have any contacts in Hollywood?

5. Yes, pure "trapping" without release (i.e. - permanent EM radiation retention) would raise the possibility of a perpetual motion machine. But, as I clarified in point #3, above, I'm using the term "trapping" to refer to "temporary" EM radiation retention which is then followed by release (just like the lake "temporarily" holds onto the water before releasing it downstream to the ocean).

Thoughts?

All of this is dependent on one misunderstanding of heat. The greater the differences of temperature between two objects, the greater the heat flow. Anything that tends to warm the surface or the lower atmosphere will simply radiate that much faster into space.

If you follow my hypothesis stated earlier, the core argument is that 'greenhouse' gases are misnamed. They cannot add energy to the mean temperature. They cannot subtract anything from the mean temperature. Your argument of these gases is exactly like digging the lake deeper and watching the water level rise as a result. If it rises even a little as a result, the valley will overflow in time (the Earth is vaporized). The reason is the lake itself gets deeper as the result of water level rise, which creates a positive feedback loop. This is assuming the outflow remains the same and inflow remains the same.

The greenhouse gas model would have to work the same way. Even the trickle of a tiny creek (using the lake analogy) would destroy the valley. Even a tiny amount of energy entrapment would destroy the Earth, even if you never increased the cause of that entrapment.

In real lakes, if anything tends to a water level rise in the lake, the outflow increases. The lake level returns to normal. If anything reduces the water level, the outflow decreases. The result is a stable system, and it will remain so indefinitely.

If the inflow increases (the Sun's energy output increases), the water level will rise, even though the outflow is also increasing. If the inflow decreases, the water level will fall, even though the outflow is also decreasing. This is just the same as heat flow. (Sadi Carnot would probably love this analogy)
10-10-2015 20:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4842)
trafn wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


The book seems to ramble into a lot of off topic directions. From what I dug out of it though, you at some point came across the graph published by NASA at one time of the structure of the atmosphere.

Your explanation for this graph is rather incorrect. Here is why:...


Hi Into the Night,

Thank you for your feedback on my book. I found your post very valuable, and though I don't find that much of what you're stating conflicts with what I wrote, I do think it raises the point that I did not adequately explain myself in the first edition. This error of clarification on my part, being a common pitfall of authorship, is the reason I'm writing the second edition so as to both update its content and improve its clarity.

I have exchanged several posts with IBdaMann about this, resulting in the realization that I need to include a "definitions" section in the second edition. You can read these posts at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/bursting-the-atmosphere-what-happens-when-rain-falls-up-d6-e703.php#post_2193

Thanks again for your constructive feedback


Rambling authors? Don't I know it! I do not need to read the posts themselves. I am already aware IBdaMann places great importance on getting the definitions right.
10-10-2015 21:35
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Into the Night,

Here are my thoughts on your most recent response to my prior posts (your statements are in bold italics).

Anything that tends to warm the surface or the lower atmosphere will simply radiate that much faster into space.

Agreed, unless there's additional insulation being added which allows the EM radiation to come in but not leave as fast. Ultimately, the radiation will leave, but as the GHG atmospheric concentrations continue to rise (the added insulation), it will just take more time for it to do so. In the meantime, while the radiation derived energy remains in our biosphere longer, it will have more time to interact with, and change, our environment (i.e. - melt ice, raise sea levels, etc.).

...'greenhouse' gases are misnamed. They cannot add energy to the mean temperature. They cannot subtract anything from the mean temperature.

Agreed, the GHG's in and of themselves neither add to, nor subtract energy from the system. However, their increasing concentrations can have the effect of causing longer retention of the IR radiation emitted from Earth's surface that would otherwise travel more quickly into outer space.

Your argument of these gases is exactly like digging the lake deeper and watching the water level rise as a result.

I apologize; let me clarify. When I said "dig the lake deeper" I wasn't comparing the lake at its original depth to what would occur immediately after digging it deeper when more water would be required so that it could rise up to its original level and thus continue releasing water downward toward the ocean. I was trying to compare the original lake to the deeper lake after the deeper dug lake had refilled to the level of the original lake. Please take a moment to reread the original post in that context.

Even a tiny amount of energy entrapment would destroy the Earth, even if you never increased the cause of that entrapment.

True, but there is no such thing as true, permanent entrapment of energy, as I am unaware of any insulator with 100% efficiency. There can only be a further increase in the amount of time between when the sun's radiated solar energy arrives here and when it then finally leaves us for outer space, once again.

So, I would summarize that we continue to say the same thing, but from two different view points.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
10-10-2015 21:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: Agreed, unless there's additional insulation being added which allows the EM radiation to come in but not leave as fast.

...and that cannot happen. The scientifically illiterate make this mistake frequently because, well, they are scientifically illiterate.

Learn the difference between thermal radiation and thermal conduction/convection. "Insulation" does not apply to thermal radiation. No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. No substance can "slow" thermal radiation. Quantity of mass can, but not any particular substance.

Thermal radiation is a function of temperature only. If the atmospheric temperature increases then the amount of thermal radiation increases. If the amount of thermal radiation decreases then the atmospheric temperature has decreased (not increased).

Please, look it up and verify. I was fully expecting Climate Scientist to try to go down this road when he realized he wasn't going to get beyond his violation of the 1st LoT in his existing model. This was the roadblock he had waiting for him.

There is no "greenhouse effect." Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

trafn wrote: Agreed, the GHG's in and of themselves neither add to, nor subtract energy from the system. However, their increasing concentrations can have the effect of causing longer retention of the IR radiation emitted from Earth's surface that would otherwise travel more quickly into outer space.

Nope. Sorry. Retention just doesn't happen. It's a matter of temperature and of temperature alone. Please, take a look at the Stefan-Botlzmann equation. Do you notice that everything is simply a function of temperature and nothing of physical composition?


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
10-10-2015 22:35
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
IBdaMann, I wonder if the problem here isn't that one of us is right and the other is wrong. I'm beginning to see that the real issue is one of our interpreting the same thing from different scientific perspectives.

You, with the LoT's and the Stefan-Botlzmann equation, are solidly grounded in physics. I, on the other hand, do have some physics training (example: I used to teach high school physics), but I am much more grounded in chemistry, the field in which I did graduate level studies and research.

I think maybe we're really saying the same thing, but accidentally misinterpreting one another by each using our preferred field of science to process the other person's point of view (kinda like asking an Italian chef to make French pastry).

Thoughts?




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
10-10-2015 23:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: IBdaMann, I wonder if the problem here isn't that one of us is right and the other is wrong.

I claim only what the body of science claims. I know you don't like your dogma being called "dogma" because part of your dogma states that your dogma is science. So wherever your dogma runs counter to science, while calling it science, you are unequivocally incorrect.

Also, any time that you "disagree" with the science I present, in defense of your dogma that runs counter to science, in the belief that your dogma is science, you are also unequivocally incorrect.

Your statement above implies that you perceive the science that I present as being merely my subjective opinion. In that, you are also unequivocally incorrect. When I present science, the science is correct. I present it for public verification. It is folly to disagree with science under the belief that you are disagreeing with me. I am just the messenger. I'm also trying to help you out. I am simply explaining to you, with scientific support, where your dogma is mistaken. I have no vested interest if you decide to continue to believe whatever you wish to believe. I am a freedom of religion kind of guy.

But, yes, whenever you get riled because you don't appreciate the falsifiable models that scientists have developed, you're the one that ends up on the side of "wrong."

trafn wrote: You, with the LoT's and the Stefan-Botlzmann equation, are solidly grounded in physics.

Btw..did you look up the Stefan-Boltzmann equation? Did you see that it is a function of only temperature? Would you mind acknowledging that?

Take the "You" out of it. This isn't about me. It's not even about you. It's about your dogma on the one hand and science on the other. They conflict. Your dogma loses. It's that simple. I neither win nor lose. You only lose to the extent that your ego feels damaged because your religious sensitivities were offended, but you can control that. You can choose to let go of the dogma at any time and embrace science (real science, not "The Science").

I'll tell you what...my promise to you. I won't push any unfalsifiable dogma onto you, as some people you trusted obviously have. I will give you only science that you can verify at your convenience. You believe whatever you wish...the science or the dogma, and I won't care.

Of course, when you take personal jabs at me because you don't like the science I present, well, that's an invitation for the gloves to come off.

trafn wrote: but I am much more grounded in chemistry, the field in which I did graduate level studies and research.

Then you have no excuse for confusing thermal radiation with thermal convection.


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
10-10-2015 23:28
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Yes, IBdaMann, I know the Stefan-Botlzmann equation, and of course it only talks about temperature, because that's the only kind of variables which it has (variables representing temperature). That doesn't make it, or the LoT's the only valid scientific ways to interpret M2C2.

As for taking jabs at you, you only make fun of yourself when you use the Special Olympics to make fun of others. Here's what Barbara Streisand had to say about this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4y57MfdXSE

So, IBdaMann, do you need help putting on your coat, or finding a job?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
10-10-2015 23:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: Yes, IBdaMann, I know the Stefan-Botlzmann equation, and of course it only talks about temperature, because that's the only kind of variables which it has (variables representing temperature).

Well, no, it expresses thermal radiation, in terms of constants and only one variable, i.e. temperature. I was just wondering if you noticed that there is no variable for chemical composition. Would you happen to have any thoughts on why that is?

trafn wrote: That doesn't make it, or the LoT's the only valid scientific ways to interpret M2C2.

Please remember that Climate Scientist and I were discussing his version of the "greenhouse effect."

I previously discussed how differing members of a particular congregation derive differing personal meaning from the same religious dogma. Climate Scientist's faith has led him to his own "understanding" of what the "greenhouse effect" means to him, which is not the same understanding that you have. For that reason his understanding suffers from violating the 1st LoT whereas yours suffers from violating the laws of thermal radiation.

Regardless of minor differences in your own deep, personal faiths, you both call yourselves Global Warming believers.

Similarly, two people who both "accept Jesus as their saviors" might disagree about whether Jesus would allow female ministers, for example.

trafn wrote: As for taking jabs at you, you only make fun of yourself when you use the Special Olympics to make fun of others.

So you think I might be insulting the Special Olympians?

For your information, I am praising your mutual support for each other. Encouragement, participation, the rewarding of effort, the reassurance that they are not alone, ...those are all notable gestures.

It's intended as a compliment.


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
11-10-2015 00:06
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Dear IBdaMann,

Given the consistency with which you praise anyone or anything other than yourself and your own ideas, it would be a far fetched conclusion to surmise that you ever praise anyone else.

Also, given your preference to turn the whole of science which dissatisfies you into dogma, discourse with you most often ends up looking like this:



...which by the way is too bad, as you're obviously a very intelligent and well educated individual.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 11-10-2015 00:07
Page 2 of 6<1234>>>





Join the debate The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics35509-01-2018 14:22
Does 97% of science agree?917-12-2017 00:24
The Science of Doom922-11-2017 04:53
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
▲ 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