The True Believer's Delima

Surface Detail wrote:
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

Please feel free to continue with your political ranting though. It's all good entertainment.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

Please feel free to continue with your political ranting though. It's all good entertainment.

So you're saying that everything is great as long as we don't exceed 2,000 ppm. I've been waiting for you to say that.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

Please feel free to continue with your political ranting though. It's all good entertainment.

So you're saying that everything is great as long as we don't exceed 2,000 ppm. I've been waiting for you to say that.

Literacy is clearly not where your strengths lie either.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

Please feel free to continue with your political ranting though. It's all good entertainment.

So you're saying that everything is great as long as we don't exceed 2,000 ppm. I've been waiting for you to say that.

Literacy is clearly not where your strengths lie either.

So you're saying that in the past with .2% we had runaway global warming. It must be one of the other. You have told us that there aren't any other options.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:

Surface Detail wrote:
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

So you're saying that everything is great as long as we don't exceed 2,000 ppm. I've been waiting for you to say that.

Wake wrote: How to guarantee the end of the world when conditions 500 times worse had NO effect?

Wake wrote: How to guarantee the end of the world when conditions 500 times worse had NO effect?

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: How to guarantee the end of the world when conditions 500 times worse had NO effect?

The bottom line is that there is no "atmospheric composition" component to Stefan-Boltzmann, hence the earth will have the same radiance regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This lays waste to the warmizombie claim that CO2 somehow REDUCES earth's radiance. Clearly it does not. It cannot.

There is no "greenhouse effect" that any person can falsifiably express that doesn't violate physics and that is thus not FALSE.

Wake wrote:And I've been trying to tell you that the emissivity correction factor (epsilon) is just that.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote:And I've been trying to tell you that the emissivity correction factor (epsilon) is just that.

Emissivity is not a "correction value."

Tell me what you think Emissivity is

Read the following statement and keep it in mind:

There is no "greenhouse effect" that any person can falsifiably express that doesn't violate physics."

Wake wrote: Sorry, but I gave you references and you simply ignore them.

Wake wrote: You are nothing more than the same thing on the different heal as all the other True Believers.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: Sorry, but I gave you references and you simply ignore them.

It's a sad state when you need others to do your thinking for you. I asked you what *you* think Emissivity is. You should have just admitted that you don't know.

I tried to explain Emmisivity to you. I know what it is. You clearly don't even want to know.

Wake wrote: You are nothing more than the same thing on the different heal as all the other True Believers.

What beliefs do you claim I have?

Wake wrote:I gave you references.

Wake wrote:I You know what? You and I agree on most things but you have a completely incorrect idea of what you're talking about.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote:I gave you references.

I didn't want any references.

Wake wrote:I You know what? You and I agree on most things but you have a completely incorrect idea of what you're talking about.

You are the one who is greatly mistaken, and you are an intellectual coward. You EVADE easy, straightforward questions.

Try not misstating my position.

I'll give you a chance. Do you believe in "greenhouse effect"?


.

Wake wrote: But you don't have any idea of the Stefan-Boltzmann law as stated in every reference I gave.

Wake wrote: Do you also believe that science is only science if it can "falsifiable" theorems?

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: But you don't have any idea of the Stefan-Boltzmann law as stated in every reference I gave.

Hey loser, there aren't flavors of Stefan-Boltzmann. There's just one law and if you have any questions then ask. Judging by your understanding, you MUST have a bajillion.

Wake wrote: Do you also believe that science is only science if it can "falsifiable" theorems?

Moron, science doesn't have theorems ... it has models/theories and they must all be falsifiable.
.

Wake wrote: So what you're saying is that psychology isn't a science.

Wake wrote: Nor astrophysics since none of their "non-science" is "falsifiable".

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: So what you're saying is that psychology isn't a science.

Correct. Psychology, mixology, cosmetology, etc... are all arts, complete with their own terminology/jargon/vocabulary.

Wake wrote: Nor astrophysics since none of their "non-science" is "falsifiable".

Astrophysics is science. It is compromised of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Wake wrote: Tell you what - after that posting just try to get a job above street sweeper. You aren't aware that companies always check social media before hiring people don't you?

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: Tell you what - after that posting just try to get a job above street sweeper. You aren't aware that companies always check social media before hiring people don't you?

That was one LAME attempt to bully/intimidate me.

Too funny.

So I threaten you? Wow. It's because of the science, isn't it?

All you have to do is ask. I'm more than happy to explain.

However, if you prefer to be picked apart, I can oblige as well.


.

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: Tell you what - after that posting just try to get a job above street sweeper. You aren't aware that companies always check social media before hiring people don't you?

That was one LAME attempt to bully/intimidate me.

Too funny.

So I threaten you? Wow. It's because of the science, isn't it?

All you have to do is ask. I'm more than happy to explain.

However, if you prefer to be picked apart, I can oblige as well.


.

Hey dumbass - I fought in a war. Do you think some feckless jerk COULD threaten me? I raced cars. I raced motorcycles. I raced bicycles. I raced on-shore and off-shore sailboats. I climbed to the masthead of a 50 foot sloop in heavy winds to free the jib halyard. I did high energy nuclear research with a device that used 20 million volts.

You are nothing more than a big mouth small time student. But your supreme lack of knowledge of science just put you in the do-not-hire bucket. Do you really believe that advertising ignorance is good for your career?

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: Tell you what - after that posting just try to get a job above street sweeper. You aren't aware that companies always check social media before hiring people don't you?

That was one LAME attempt to bully/intimidate me.

Too funny.

So I threaten you? Wow. It's because of the science, isn't it?

All you have to do is ask. I'm more than happy to explain.

However, if you prefer to be picked apart, I can oblige as well.


.

Hey dumbass - I fought in a war. Do you think some feckless jerk COULD threaten me? I raced cars. I raced motorcycles. I raced bicycles. I raced on-shore and off-shore sailboats. I climbed to the masthead of a 50 foot sloop in heavy winds to free the jib halyard. I did high energy nuclear research with a device that used 20 million volts.

You are nothing more than a big mouth small time student. But your supreme lack of knowledge of science just put you in the do-not-hire bucket. Do you really believe that advertising ignorance is good for your career?

Like either of you senile fools are still working.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: So what you're saying is that psychology isn't a science.

Correct. Psychology, mixology, cosmetology, etc... are all arts, complete with their own terminology/jargon/vocabulary.

Wake wrote: Nor astrophysics since none of their "non-science" is "falsifiable".

Astrophysics is science. It is compromised of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Wake wrote: You ask what I believe "emissivity" to be - it is the difference between the bandwidth of the total flux emitted from a received amount of energy with a specific material as compared to a perfect black body.

Wake wrote: And the flux of a perfect black body is over an entire band of wavelengths and in the case of a perfect black body that flux would be emitted in the wavelengths around a center point and reducing to either higher or lower wavelengths in the shape of a bell curve.

Wake wrote: Your mistake in reading the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is that you understand it only to mean a dimensionless quantity without understanding what that means.

Wake wrote: Despite your demand that science be perfect it isn't.

Wake wrote: Even the Stefan-Boltzmann law has been changed. And it is only an idealization.

Wake wrote:
So saying that science can only be predicated on the possibility of falsification is nothing more than saying "I should be able to prove you wrong".

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: You ask what I believe "emissivity" to be - it is the difference between the bandwidth of the total flux emitted from a received amount of energy with a specific material as compared to a perfect black body.

Emissivity is a percentage, not a difference.

With 1.00 (100%) as an upper limit reference point. Emissivity is the efficiency percentage of a body to absorb and to radiate.

... an no, it's not for a "material" or "substance" but for a "body." The reason it is called BLACKBODY science is because the atomic unit is the "body."

As far as terminology goes ... I don't care what terms you use. Just tuck away in the back of your mind that "greybody" is not the correct term. All bodies with an emissivity greater than 0.0 are black bodies, with those of emissivity 1.0 are "ideal" black bodies. Now you are wiser than most of the people with whom you will discuss the matter.

Wake wrote: And the flux of a perfect black body is over an entire band of wavelengths and in the case of a perfect black body that flux would be emitted in the wavelengths around a center point and reducing to either higher or lower wavelengths in the shape of a bell curve.

We refer to the peak as the "peak wavelength." As temperature increases, the curve, or "signature" shifts to higher temperatures with the peak shifting as well, and the amplitude increases as well, and the shape of the curve changes as it shifts.

Wake wrote: Your mistake in reading the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is that you understand it only to mean a dimensionless quantity without understanding what that means.

Emissivity is a dimensionless constant and is exactly what I wrote above.

Wake wrote: Despite your demand that science be perfect it isn't.

Would you kindly point to the post in which I insisted this?

Wake wrote: Even the Stefan-Boltzmann law has been changed. And it is only an idealization.

Why is any of that relevant?

Has Stefan-Boltzmann been shown to be false?

Wake wrote:
So saying that science can only be predicated on the possibility of falsification is nothing more than saying "I should be able to prove you wrong".

This is a simple matter of you not knowing what "falsifiability" is.

I will correct this.

Falsifiability is an inherent quality that indicates that *IF* an argument is false then one will know how to demonstrate that it is false.

Falsifiability does not mean an argument is false or that it can be shown to be false by anyone. It is strictly an "If it is false then ..."

... and fossils don't burn. There are no fossil fuels.


.

Wake wrote: I wish you would learn to actually know something before posting. Your entire intent is to argue and nothing more.

Wake wrote: If you do not know an exact percentage it is a differentiation - a difference.

Wake wrote: The term "greybody" is the standard term and you are again inventing your own science.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: I wish you would learn to actually know something before posting. Your entire intent is to argue and nothing more.

I very politely taught you a bunch of stuff. You apparently are nothing more than a scientifically illiterate, argumentative ashsole.

I guess it's back to mocking you.

Wake wrote: If you do not know an exact percentage it is a differentiation - a difference.

Got it. You don't know the difference between a percentage and subtraction. You are mathematically illiterate as well.

Wake wrote: The term "greybody" is the standard term and you are again inventing your own science.

You obviously didn't read the part about how I don't care what you believe. You simply insist on being an argumentative ashsole.

Who is going to believe that a scientifically illiterate moron, such as yourself, has any clue whatsoever of what standards are.

Again why do you want nothing more than to argue no matter how stupid you appear?
.

Wake wrote: Since I helped develop the method of detecting HIV I had to be around homosexuals a great deal and you argue exactly like they do. I don't care what your anger is from being different - if you don't know what you're talking about cease and desist.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: Since I helped develop the method of detecting HIV I had to be around homosexuals a great deal and you argue exactly like they do. I don't care what your anger is from being different - if you don't know what you're talking about cease and desist.

Yet you keep blathering.

Is the "effect" of "greenhouse effect" an increase in the average global temperature? Yes or no? That should be the EASIEST of all questions.


.

James_ wrote: The experiment is a demonstration of the physics behind the science.

James_ wrote: BTW "Duh_Mann" can't you say something besides Stefan-Boltzmann ?

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: The experiment is a demonstration of the physics behind the science.

Ergo, it SHOULD be a simple matter for you to just express, in your own words, how you believe soot increases temperature.

Why is it proving to be an impossible task?

James_ wrote: BTW "Duh_Mann" can't you say something besides Stefan-Boltzmann ?

Can't you avoid violating it? How is it my fault that you are a science denier?

So while we're on the topic, here's Stefan-Boltzmann for you:

Radiance (Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

What about it specifically do you deny? I know you HATE it because it clearly shows that Radiance follows Temp, i.e. Radiance can never decrease while Temp increases, yet your WACKY religious dogma proclaims just that, i.e. that earth's Radiance decreases while earth's Temp increases.

Your religion is based on science denial and requires you to HATE those who offer science for consideration.

Enjoy the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It's on the house.


.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: The experiment is a demonstration of the physics behind the science.

Ergo, it SHOULD be a simple matter for you to just express, in your own words, how you believe soot increases temperature.

Why is it proving to be an impossible task?

James_ wrote: BTW "Duh_Mann" can't you say something besides Stefan-Boltzmann ?

Can't you avoid violating it? How is it my fault that you are a science denier?

So while we're on the topic, here's Stefan-Boltzmann for you:

Radiance (Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

What about it specifically do you deny? I know you HATE it because it clearly shows that Radiance follows Temp, i.e. Radiance can never decrease while Temp increases, yet your WACKY religious dogma proclaims just that, i.e. that earth's Radiance decreases while earth's Temp increases.

Your religion is based on science denial and requires you to HATE those who offer science for consideration.

Enjoy the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It's on the house.


.

You really don't have anything, do you ? I almost feel like I am kicking a beaten dog right now. That's something I don't believe in.
As for your Stefan-Boltzmann, this link references a depth of 30 ft. for soil temperature not influenced by the atmosphere. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-24/news/ct-wea-0924-asktom-20110924_1_soil-temperatures-warmest-depth

And this link shows that the thermosphere is warmer than the troposphere.
https://goo.gl/images/0R4LtZ

And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser. At the moment I am a science denier. I know this must be true because that's what you said.

James_ wrote: You really don't have anything, do you ? I almost feel like I am kicking a beaten dog right now.

James_ wrote: And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser.

James_ wrote: At the moment I am a science denier. I know this must be true because that's what you said.

Wake wrote: Do you suppose that the thinning atmosphere exposing all gases to direct solar radiation just might have something to do with it?

James_ wrote: And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser.

Don't you understand chemistry? O2 and Carbon plus heat combine to make CO2. The size of an O2 molecule is 152 picometers and the size of a carbon atom is 170 pm. The size of a CO2 molecule is 232 pm so to those with a little knowledge we know that increasing CO2 actually reduces atmospheric density but not pressure since the weight is the same.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser.

Don't you understand chemistry? O2 and Carbon plus heat combine to make CO2. The size of an O2 molecule is 152 picometers and the size of a carbon atom is 170 pm. The size of a CO2 molecule is 232 pm so to those with a little knowledge we know that increasing CO2 actually reduces atmospheric density but not pressure since the weight is the same.

I agree with whatever you say. You should post why climate change is happening so everybody will know. And if it's not changing you need to let us know.