Remember me
▼ Content

Hilarious Strawmen by the Deniers



Page 2 of 3<123>
10-10-2016 07:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: I was noting that a simple increase in temperature will make some areas worse and some better.

You didn't really emphasize how AGW will make places better because that's kind of against your religion. You're not allowed to imply that AGW is good. It must be demonized. It can only be bad, like a "Climate" deity is arbitrarily dispensing punishments, not blessings.


I'm not emphasizing that because it's not the main effect. Quit preaching.

That's the difference between your denomination and that of the climate lemmings. They believe the "Climate" goddess is a gentle, loving deiry who is cradling the earth in "greenhouse effect" warmth for the benefit of mankind.


Oh, and it normally is good. Without the GHE, we'd be freezing our posteriors off at some -10, 20 degrees Celsius.

jwoodward48 wrote: Anyway, how do you know that increases in the CO2 concentration didn't have any effect on temperature in the past? Maybe that's what brought the Earth out of some ice ages.

So once again your faith is not based on any science but on a storyline about that which you don't know, ...like a religion, ...exactly like a religion. Hmmm.


A guess = the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. The more you know...

jwoodward48 wrote: Climate refers to the weather - it's merely "the weather" with all the tiny peaks and troughs removed.

That makes no sense. Does each individual in your church get to arbitrarily decide which peak and trough removal carries the most meaning for him/her personally? Is "climate" determined arbitrary changes to graphs and charts that transform "weather" into "climate"?


It's somewhat vague, I agree.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 08:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not emphasizing that because it's not the main effect.

Delicious!

jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, and it normally is good. Without the GHE, we'd be freezing our posteriors off at some -10, 20 degrees Celsius.

You are aware that science says otherwise. Only someone whose cognitive functions are being controlled by a WACKY religious dogma would knowingly preach such a violation of physics.



jwoodward48 wrote:It's somewhat vague, I agree.

Yet you treat it like it's settled 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
10-10-2016 14:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not emphasizing that because it's not the main effect.

Delicious!


Fruity!

jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, and it normally is good. Without the GHE, we'd be freezing our posteriors off at some -10, 20 degrees Celsius.

You are aware that science says otherwise. Only someone whose cognitive functions are being controlled by a WACKY religious dogma would knowingly preach such a violation of physics.


No, I am not. How is this the case?

jwoodward48 wrote:It's somewhat vague, I agree.

Yet you treat it like it's settled science.


"Somewhat vague" and "settled science" are not mutually exclusive.

Besides, if you Google it, it comes up with a 30-year period for climate. Done. Found your interval.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 17:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:No, I am not. How is this the case?

Yes, you have been made aware many times that Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise.

Your response is to deny the science when it runs counter to your dogma.

So, yes, you are well aware of the science that you deny.

jwoodward48 wrote:"Somewhat vague" and "settled science" are not mutually exclusive.

Which should be your wake-up call.

jwoodward48 wrote:Besides, if you Google it, it comes up with a 30-year period for climate. Done. Found your interval.

That Into the Night's discussion. I don't recognize time intervals for unfalsifiable "Climate" goddesses.


.


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
10-10-2016 18:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:No, I am not. How is this the case?

Yes, you have been made aware many times that Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise.

Your response is to deny the science when it runs counter to your dogma.

So, yes, you are well aware of the science that you deny.


Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

jwoodward48 wrote:"Somewhat vague" and "settled science" are not mutually exclusive.

Which should be your wake-up call.


I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

jwoodward48 wrote:Besides, if you Google it, it comes up with a 30-year period for climate. Done. Found your interval.

That Into the Night's discussion. I don't recognize time intervals for unfalsifiable "Climate" goddesses.


Sounds like someone has a closed mind...


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 19:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

Emissivity = Absorptivity. I think you have identified one of your problems.

jwoodward48 wrote:I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

The entirely vague nature of what you are told to call "settled science" should be your wakeup call. I'm guessing you'll keep sleeping and dreaming of solidarity with your comrades.



.


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
10-10-2016 21:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

Emissivity = Absorptivity. I think you have identified one of your problems.


No, that's not always true. At different wavelengths, emissivity and absorptivity can differ.

jwoodward48 wrote:I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

The entirely vague nature of what you are told to call "settled science" should be your wakeup call. I'm guessing you'll keep sleeping and dreaming of solidarity with your comrades.


How is 30 years vague?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 01:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not emphasizing that because it's not the main effect.

Delicious!

.


Nice shot.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 01:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:

Besides, if you Google it, it comes up with a 30-year period for climate. Done. Found your interval.


Climate has no fixed interval of time specified.

You misspelled God. There is only one 'o', one 'g', no 'l' or 'e', and there is a 'd'.

Or do you want to start a Link War to 'prove' otherwise?


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 01:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:No, I am not. How is this the case?

Yes, you have been made aware many times that Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise.

Your response is to deny the science when it runs counter to your dogma.

So, yes, you are well aware of the science that you deny.


Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

Uh...yes it is.
jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:"Somewhat vague" and "settled science" are not mutually exclusive.

Which should be your wake-up call.


I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

jwoodward48 wrote:Besides, if you Google it, it comes up with a 30-year period for climate. Done. Found your interval.

That Into the Night's discussion. I don't recognize time intervals for unfalsifiable "Climate" goddesses.


Sounds like someone has a closed mind...

So...you're saying 'climate' is a word without a definition???


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 01:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

Emissivity = Absorptivity. I think you have identified one of your problems.


No, that's not always true. At different wavelengths, emissivity and absorptivity can differ.

At that same wavelength, they are always the same.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

The entirely vague nature of what you are told to call "settled science" should be your wakeup call. I'm guessing you'll keep sleeping and dreaming of solidarity with your comrades.


How is 30 years vague?


It isn't. It's a redefinition of the word 'climate'.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 02:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

Besides, if you Google it, it comes up with a 30-year period for climate. Done. Found your interval.


Climate has no fixed interval of time specified.

You misspelled God. There is only one 'o', one 'g', no 'l' or 'e', and there is a 'd'.

Or do you want to start a Link War to 'prove' otherwise?


Yes, it does; it's 30 years. That's the standard in climatology.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 02:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:No, I am not. How is this the case?

Yes, you have been made aware many times that Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise.

Your response is to deny the science when it runs counter to your dogma.

So, yes, you are well aware of the science that you deny.


Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

Uh...yes it is.


No, it's not. Why would it be?

jwoodward48 wrote:Besides, if you Google it, it comes up with a 30-year period for climate. Done. Found your interval.

That Into the Night's discussion. I don't recognize time intervals for unfalsifiable "Climate" goddesses.


Sounds like someone has a closed mind...

So...you're saying 'climate' is a word without a definition???[/quote]

No, why would you think that? It's defined as the trend in weather, and the standard is 30 years.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 02:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

Emissivity = Absorptivity. I think you have identified one of your problems.


No, that's not always true. At different wavelengths, emissivity and absorptivity can differ.

At that same wavelength, they are always the same.

But Earth isn't receiving the same wavelengths as it is emitting. GHG affect one, but not the other.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

The entirely vague nature of what you are told to call "settled science" should be your wakeup call. I'm guessing you'll keep sleeping and dreaming of solidarity with your comrades.


How is 30 years vague?


It isn't. It's a redefinition of the word 'climate'.


How is it a redefinition? It's a clarification!


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 04:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

Emissivity = Absorptivity. I think you have identified one of your problems.


No, that's not always true. At different wavelengths, emissivity and absorptivity can differ

At that same wavelength, they are always the same.

But Earth isn't receiving the same wavelengths as it is emitting.

Yes, it is. Substances that absorb a particular frequency emit on exactly that same frequency (unless something takes the energy out of it first).
jwoodward48 wrote:
GHG affect one, but not the other

There is no one but not the other.
jwoodward48 wrote:
.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

The entirely vague nature of what you are told to call "settled science" should be your wakeup call. I'm guessing you'll keep sleeping and dreaming of solidarity with your comrades.


How is 30 years vague?


It isn't. It's a redefinition of the word 'climate'.


How is it a redefinition? It's a clarification!


No, it is a redefinition. The word 'climate' does not specify a fixed time interval. Do you want to argue over the definition of 'redefinition' now?


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 04:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

Emissivity = Absorptivity. I think you have identified one of your problems.


No, that's not always true. At different wavelengths, emissivity and absorptivity can differ

At that same wavelength, they are always the same.

But Earth isn't receiving the same wavelengths as it is emitting.

Yes, it is. Substances that absorb a particular frequency emit on exactly that same frequency (unless something takes the energy out of it first).
jwoodward48 wrote:
GHG affect one, but not the other

There is no one but not the other.


Let's take this very slowly...

We have incoming radiation. We have outgoing radiation. Are those the same, or are they distinct?
jwoodward48 wrote:
.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

The entirely vague nature of what you are told to call "settled science" should be your wakeup call. I'm guessing you'll keep sleeping and dreaming of solidarity with your comrades.


How is 30 years vague?


It isn't. It's a redefinition of the word 'climate'.


How is it a redefinition? It's a clarification!


No, it is a redefinition. The word 'climate' does not specify a fixed time interval. Do you want to argue over the definition of 'redefinition' now?


Yes, in fact I do. It's not a redefinition in the "changing the goalposts" sense. It's a clarification. When I say "average speed of a car", maybe I need to specify that I meant "the average speed during Trip X" to make it clearer. That's not a redefinition. It's improving the definition.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 11:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

Emissivity = Absorptivity. I think you have identified one of your problems.


No, that's not always true. At different wavelengths, emissivity and absorptivity can differ

At that same wavelength, they are always the same.

But Earth isn't receiving the same wavelengths as it is emitting.

Yes, it is. Substances that absorb a particular frequency emit on exactly that same frequency (unless something takes the energy out of it first).
jwoodward48 wrote:
GHG affect one, but not the other

There is no one but not the other.


Let's take this very slowly...

We have incoming radiation. We have outgoing radiation. Are those the same, or are they distinct?

Let's not bother. Radiation is absorbed by a certain frequency. It will be emitted (if it is) at that same frequency. Radiation will not be absorbed by an already excited atom or molecule. You cannot violate the 2nd LoT by using radiation as the heating method. Fixating on 'greenhouse' gases is pointless because ALL gases radiate according to temperature, following Planck's law. Your sucky understanding of how domains work and your confusion between electromagnetic energy and kinetic energy is your problem.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

The entirely vague nature of what you are told to call "settled science" should be your wakeup call. I'm guessing you'll keep sleeping and dreaming of solidarity with your comrades.


How is 30 years vague?


It isn't. It's a redefinition of the word 'climate'.


How is it a redefinition? It's a clarification!


No, it is a redefinition. The word 'climate' does not specify a fixed time interval. Do you want to argue over the definition of 'redefinition' now?


Yes, in fact I do. It's not a redefinition in the "changing the goalposts" sense. It's a clarification. When I say "average speed of a car", maybe I need to specify that I meant "the average speed during Trip X" to make it clearer. That's not a redefinition. It's improving the definition.


Now you are showing you do not understand what calculus is. Yes, you are still redefining 'climate'.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 12:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

Emissivity = Absorptivity. I think you have identified one of your problems.


No, that's not always true. At different wavelengths, emissivity and absorptivity can differ

At that same wavelength, they are always the same.

But Earth isn't receiving the same wavelengths as it is emitting.

Yes, it is. Substances that absorb a particular frequency emit on exactly that same frequency (unless something takes the energy out of it first).
jwoodward48 wrote:
GHG affect one, but not the other

There is no one but not the other.


Let's take this very slowly...

We have incoming radiation. We have outgoing radiation. Are those the same, or are they distinct?

Let's not bother. Radiation is absorbed by a certain frequency.

??? Radiation that is absorbed has a certain frequency...
It will be emitted (if it is) at that same frequency.

But it usually isn't. It's normally taken away by conduction.
Radiation will not be absorbed by an already excited atom or molecule.

??? What? I'm not finding this statement anywhere. Do you understand that the energy of an excited molecule can be transferred to kinetic energy, which has no such restriction?
You cannot violate the 2nd LoT by using radiation as the heating method.

You mean the Imaginary 2nd LoT. The real one is quite fine with things heating up.
Fixating on 'greenhouse' gases is pointless because ALL gases radiate according to temperature, following Planck's law.

I thought they emitted according to what they absorbed? ??? You're switching positions.

Different gases radiate differently.
Your sucky understanding of how domains work and your confusion between electromagnetic energy and kinetic energy is your problem.

Your faith in your friends is yours.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

The entirely vague nature of what you are told to call "settled science" should be your wakeup call. I'm guessing you'll keep sleeping and dreaming of solidarity with your comrades.


How is 30 years vague?


It isn't. It's a redefinition of the word 'climate'.


How is it a redefinition? It's a clarification!


No, it is a redefinition. The word 'climate' does not specify a fixed time interval. Do you want to argue over the definition of 'redefinition' now?


Yes, in fact I do. It's not a redefinition in the "changing the goalposts" sense. It's a clarification. When I say "average speed of a car", maybe I need to specify that I meant "the average speed during Trip X" to make it clearer. That's not a redefinition. It's improving the definition.


Now you are showing you do not understand what calculus is. Yes, you are still redefining 'climate'.


Hah! That's a good one. Tell me, how] does my quoted sentence demonstrate an illiteracy of calculus?

Also note that I said average, not instantaneous.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 13:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:How is it a redefinition? It's a clarification!

What does global weather averaged over two days look like? Let's use the previous 48 hours as an example?


.


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
11-10-2016 14:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You're asking me to do climate science? Heh. No, I'm not a climate scientist. You've already driven out all of those.

If you use a short time frame it's actually more difficult to adequately describe the climate thereof; that's why we use 30 years instead.
11-10-2016 16:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: You're asking me to do climate science? Heh. No, I'm not a climate scientist. You've already driven out all of those.

Learn to read. I'm not asking for any science.

I want you to simply describe what something looks like, i.e. global weather averaged over a couple of days. You can use any couple of days that you wish.

jwoodward48 wrote: If you use a short time frame it's actually more difficult to adequately describe the climate thereof; that's why we use 30 years instead.

Sorry, my mathematically-challenged science denier, averages are easier with smaller denominators because a smaller series is required to be computed.

So, now that we have debunked your bogus rationalization, what does global weather averaged over a couple of days look like?

It's time like this that you most clearly realize that you've been duped. It's OK to be embarrassed.


.


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
11-10-2016 21:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Let's not bother. Radiation is absorbed by a certain frequency.

??? Radiation that is absorbed has a certain frequency...

Typo. Radiation is absorbed at a certain frequency.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It will be emitted (if it is) at that same frequency.

But it usually isn't. It's normally taken away by conduction.

Now you accept this??? Okay. Fine. I'm talking about if it emits at all.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Radiation will not be absorbed by an already excited atom or molecule.

??? What? I'm not finding this statement anywhere. Do you understand that the energy of an excited molecule can be transferred to kinetic energy, which has no such restriction?

Do you understand that you are shifting context to build your argument that you can somehow warm the surface from a colder substance?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot violate the 2nd LoT by using radiation as the heating method.

You mean the Imaginary 2nd LoT. The real one is quite fine with things heating up.
Fixating on 'greenhouse' gases is pointless because ALL gases radiate according to temperature, following Planck's law.

I thought they emitted according to what they absorbed? ??? You're switching positions.

No, I'm not. They emit according to the frequency they absorb following Planck's law (if they emit at all).


jwoodward48 wrote:
Different gases radiate differently.

True. So?


jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Your sucky understanding of how domains work and your confusion between electromagnetic energy and kinetic energy is your problem.

Your faith in your friends is yours.

Irrelevant reference to Star Wars dismissed.


jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
.
jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:I said not. But it doesn't matter, because it's 30 years.

The entirely vague nature of what you are told to call "settled science" should be your wakeup call. I'm guessing you'll keep sleeping and dreaming of solidarity with your comrades.


How is 30 years vague?


It isn't. It's a redefinition of the word 'climate'.


How is it a redefinition? It's a clarification!


No, it is a redefinition. The word 'climate' does not specify a fixed time interval. Do you want to argue over the definition of 'redefinition' now?


Yes, in fact I do. It's not a redefinition in the "changing the goalposts" sense. It's a clarification. When I say "average speed of a car", maybe I need to specify that I meant "the average speed during Trip X" to make it clearer. That's not a redefinition. It's improving the definition.


Now you are showing you do not understand what calculus is. Yes, you are still redefining 'climate'.


Hah! That's a good one. Tell me, how] does my quoted sentence demonstrate an illiteracy of calculus?

Also note that I said average, not instantaneous.

You switched between 'average' and 'instantaneous'. It's like you don't understand the concept of a derivative. Since you now differentiate between the two, we can drop this subject.

Now, concerning the definition of 'redefinition'. That simply means you are arbitrarily changing the definition. You are changing the definition of 'climate' by attempting to impose fixed time intervals upon it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-10-2016 21:29
12-10-2016 11:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: You're asking me to do climate science? Heh. No, I'm not a climate scientist. You've already driven out all of those.

Learn to read. I'm not asking for any science.

I want you to simply describe what something looks like, i.e. global weather averaged over a couple of days. You can use any couple of days that you wish.


Climate isn't really meaningful for a few days, but I'll do it anyway. Note that I am sometimes describing the raw data that would make up climate.

The average weather of a region over a few days would consist of the average temperature, pressure, wind, humidity, and precipitation, or data thereof, plus other things like how many tornadoes, etc. If you look at all of this over 30 years, you get a sense of the climate.

1. Temperature: This could just be the average temperature for the few days, or all the data collected on temperature, or the high and low for each day/night, or the average temperature for each hour (averaged over all days).
2. Pressure: Either all pressure data, or the average pressure. If you have a larger area, isobars could be useful.
3. Wind: Ditto. What were the prevailing air mass movements?
4. Humidity: Ditto.
5. Precipitation: Depth and type, either average or (more likely) data.
6. Various other measurements: was there a tornado, was there an inversion, etc.

As you can see, climate isn't a single number. It's a description of many measurements that altogether make up the meteorological tendencies of a region.

Many of these measurements are not very useful for averaging over the globe (humidity, pressure, wind), but temperature is, especially if anomalies are used.

jwoodward48 wrote: If you use a short time frame it's actually more difficult to adequately describe the climate thereof; that's why we use 30 years instead.

Sorry, my mathematically-challenged science denier, averages are easier with smaller denominators because a smaller series is required to be computed.

I'm not describing the ease of computation. I'm saying that a smaller sample size tends to be less accurate. (I made a slight typo: I meant the climate of the region, not the time frame.)

So, now that we have debunked your bogus rationalization, what does global weather averaged over a couple of days look like?

Since many weather-components don't make sense to average over the globe, we are left with things like... temperature. (Precipitation might be good to have a global map, it's not quite as useful as an average.)

It's time like this that you most clearly realize that you've been duped. It's OK to be embarrassed.


Oh, thanks, but I'm not embarrassed about my understanding of science. It's quite better than yours, so I still get to feel superior. (No, I'm not actually smartier-than-thou, I'm mocking you.)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 20:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: You're asking me to do climate science? Heh. No, I'm not a climate scientist. You've already driven out all of those.

Learn to read. I'm not asking for any science.

I want you to simply describe what something looks like, i.e. global weather averaged over a couple of days. You can use any couple of days that you wish.


Climate isn't really meaningful for a few days, but I'll do it anyway. Note that I am sometimes describing the raw data that would make up climate.

The average weather of a region over a few days would consist of the average temperature, pressure, wind, humidity, and precipitation, or data thereof, plus other things like how many tornadoes, etc. If you look at all of this over 30 years, you get a sense of the climate.

1. Temperature: This could just be the average temperature for the few days, or all the data collected on temperature, or the high and low for each day/night, or the average temperature for each hour (averaged over all days).
2. Pressure: Either all pressure data, or the average pressure. If you have a larger area, isobars could be useful.
3. Wind: Ditto. What were the prevailing air mass movements?
4. Humidity: Ditto.
5. Precipitation: Depth and type, either average or (more likely) data.
6. Various other measurements: was there a tornado, was there an inversion, etc.

As you can see, climate isn't a single number. It's a description of many measurements that altogether make up the meteorological tendencies of a region.

Many of these measurements are not very useful for averaging over the globe (humidity, pressure, wind), but temperature is, especially if anomalies are used.

jwoodward48 wrote: If you use a short time frame it's actually more difficult to adequately describe the climate thereof; that's why we use 30 years instead.

Sorry, my mathematically-challenged science denier, averages are easier with smaller denominators because a smaller series is required to be computed.

I'm not describing the ease of computation. I'm saying that a smaller sample size tends to be less accurate. (I made a slight typo: I meant the climate of the region, not the time frame.)

So, now that we have debunked your bogus rationalization, what does global weather averaged over a couple of days look like?

Since many weather-components don't make sense to average over the globe, we are left with things like... temperature. (Precipitation might be good to have a global map, it's not quite as useful as an average.)

It's time like this that you most clearly realize that you've been duped. It's OK to be embarrassed.


Oh, thanks, but I'm not embarrassed about my understanding of science. It's quite better than yours, so I still get to feel superior. (No, I'm not actually smartier-than-thou, I'm mocking you.)

You are still attempting to redefine 'climate'. What you are describing is 'weather'. Climate is not weather. Climate is weather over 'a long time'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-10-2016 20:56
12-10-2016 23:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes. I am describing the components of the weather which makes the climate.
13-10-2016 04:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes. I am describing the components of the weather which makes the climate.

No, the components of weather comprise weather. Weather is not "climate." You've got to be pretty stupid to confuse "climate" with weather.


What does averaged global weather look like?


.


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
13-10-2016 06:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Climate: The statistics that make up weather, except this time averaged over a 30-year period, or similar. Tornadoes per year, average temperature, average precipitation, etc.

You can make this global, and the "instantaneous" global climate would be global weather. It would be very volatile, though; the trends are only visible on a longer scale. Just as local weather, it would consist of the average temperature, number of meteorological events such as tornadoes or ongoing hurricanes, the winds and pressure for a region (producing a global front map), etc.
13-10-2016 09:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Climate: The statistics that make up weather, except this time averaged over a 30-year period, or similar. Tornadoes per year, average temperature, average precipitation, etc.

This is a redefinition of 'climate'. The word 'climate' has no fixed time interval.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 18:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: Climate: The statistics that make up weather, except this time averaged over a 30-year period, or similar. Tornadoes per year, average temperature, average precipitation, etc.

So give us an example. What does one look like? What is a "climate"? Has no one ever calculated the "climate"? We clearly have 30 years of weather so what is today's "climate"? If you don't have that handy I'll take yesterday's.

jwoodward48 wrote: You can make this global, and the "instantaneous" global climate would be global weather.

Great! What does that look like? What's the most recent "instantaneous climate" you got handy?

Who normally computes the "climate"? Can I put in a request for a "2-day climate"? Who do I contact?

jwoodward48 wrote: It would be very volatile, though;

Averages are very stable and become increasingly stable as you increase the span of the average.

jwoodward48 wrote: ...the trends are only visible on a longer scale.

First, there are no trends in weather. Secondly, as you increase the span you obscure and diminish any differences/changes. In fact, since you are speaking about averaging weather, any weather average over just 24-hours will look remarkably the same as that of any other 24-hour period on the planet. If you extend it out to one week then there won't be any but microscopic differences. Going out to one year will reduce any differences to random indiscernible noise.

The idea of time-averaged global weather is absurd. The idea that differences are either magnified or somehow become clearer as the span of the average is increased is just flat wrong.

The idea that there are "trends" in random events is FALSE.

In summary, your definition of "climate" is based on a FALSE premise and a completely mistaken understanding of math.

Aside from that, it sounds good.


.


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
13-10-2016 23:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Climate: The statistics that make up weather, except this time averaged over a 30-year period, or similar. Tornadoes per year, average temperature, average precipitation, etc.

So give us an example. What does one look like? What is a "climate"? Has no one ever calculated the "climate"? We clearly have 30 years of weather so what is today's "climate"? If you don't have that handy I'll take yesterday's.

Climate is more of a field than a single statistic.
jwoodward48 wrote: You can make this global, and the "instantaneous" global climate would be global weather.

Great! What does that look like? What's the most recent "instantaneous climate" you got handy?

Who normally computes the "climate"? Can I put in a request for a "2-day climate"? Who do I contact?

I can't.
jwoodward48 wrote: It would be very volatile, though;

Averages are very stable and become increasingly stable as you increase the span of the average.

Yes! That is my point! A two-day average would change dramatically over time, while a thirty-year average would not.
jwoodward48 wrote: ...the trends are only visible on a longer scale.

First, there are no trends in weather.

Ah, I've been misusing the word "trend". I mean "tendency". Weather in the Saharan Desert tends to be warmer and drier than weather in the
Amazon rainforest.

But besides that, there are overall trends. If the average temperature tends to be warmer in 1900 than in 1800, then that is a trend.
Secondly, as you increase the span you obscure and diminish any differences/changes. In fact, since you are speaking about averaging weather, any weather average over just 24-hours will look remarkably the same as that of any other 24-hour period on the planet. If you extend it out to one week then there won't be any but microscopic differences. Going out to one year will reduce any differences to random indiscernible noise.

Why do you say this? Yes, weather changes over time.
The idea of time-averaged global weather is absurd. The idea that differences are either magnified or somehow become clearer as the span of the average is increased is just flat wrong.

They become clearer. If I have a very jagged temperature graph, zooming out tends to smooth it.
The idea that there are "trends" in random events is FALSE.

The weather is not entirely random.
In summary, your definition of "climate" is based on a FALSE premise and a completely mistaken understanding of math.

Aside from that, it sounds good.


.


Thanks!


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
14-10-2016 00:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:Climate is more of a field than a single statistic.

It's a completely unfalsifiable religion. Thanks for hammering that point home.


.


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
14-10-2016 01:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How did you derive your statement from mine?
14-10-2016 16:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: How did you derive your statement from mine?

Good catch. I jumped to conclusions without first clarifying.

When you said "climate" is a "field" ... did you mean as in a "pasture" or "lea"? ... or did you mean a field of study, e.g. Christian catechism, Akhlaaq, Vedas, etc...?


.


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
14-10-2016 17:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
A field of science, as in "a particular branch of study or sphere of activity or interest."
14-10-2016 17:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: A field of science, as in "a particular branch of study or sphere of activity or interest."

Well, it's not science, but it is a religious dogma (and a particularly WACKY one at that! I used to think Hinduism was "out there" until Global Warming came along).

The important thing is that I was correct in assuming that you were using it as a field of study, like a religious scripture, and not something real that can be observed and measured.


.


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
14-10-2016 18:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Quantum mechanics is also a field of study, is it not?
14-10-2016 19:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: Quantum mechanics is also a field of study, is it not?

Sure.

Christianity is certainly a religion, yes?


.


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
14-10-2016 21:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Saying that "climate science is a field" does not mean that it is not science. That is all I showed.
15-10-2016 01:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Saying that "climate science is a field" does not mean that it is not science. That is all I showed.


It doesn't mean it IS science either.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 17:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Climate is more of a field than a single statistic.

It's a completely unfalsifiable religion. Thanks for hammering that point home.


.


IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: A field of science, as in "a particular branch of study or sphere of activity or interest."

Well, it's not science, but it is a religious dogma (and a particularly WACKY one at that! I used to think Hinduism was "out there" until Global Warming came along).

The important thing is that I was correct in assuming that you were using it as a field of study, like a religious scripture, and not something real that can be observed and measured.


.


I was only trying to show that a scientific field is not necessarily unreal.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Hilarious Strawmen by the Deniers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'313-08-2019 14:20
Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers do the same? (2013)921-11-2017 19:25
Denying the Deniers4431-08-2017 17:13
So, how many M2C2 deniers can you fit on the head of a needle?1018-07-2017 05:28
In Obama's final State of the Union Address, he mocked deniers. He bad person?513-03-2017 04:59
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact