Hilarious Strawmen by the Deniers

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.

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.

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.

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"?

jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not emphasizing that because it's not the main effect.

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

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

IBdaMann wrote:

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:No, I am not. How is this the case?

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

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

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.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the four hells! By the beersodden beard of Armok! Earth's emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity!

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

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.

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.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not emphasizing that because it's not the main effect.

Delicious!

.

jwoodward48 wrote:

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

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!

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...

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.

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?

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?

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.

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...

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.

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'.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
GHG affect 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!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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'.

jwoodward48 wrote:How is it a redefinition? It's a clarification!

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Different gases radiate differently.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes. I am describing the components of the weather which makes the climate.

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.

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.

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

jwoodward48 wrote: It would be very volatile, though;

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

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.

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.


.

jwoodward48 wrote:Climate is more of a field than a single statistic.

jwoodward48 wrote: How did you derive your statement from mine?

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

jwoodward48 wrote: Quantum mechanics is also a field of study, is it not?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Saying that "climate science is a field" does not mean that it is not science. That is all I showed.

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.


.