IBdaMann's Signature

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

Ceist wrote:
The internet is full of crackpot cranks making all sorts of bizarre evidence-free claims. Does anyone take them seriously? (except other crackpot cranks or people so desperate to find anything at all to 'confirm' their religious/ideological beliefs, that they'll use anything they find on the internet, no matter how ridiculous)

That's why when making claims about science, I think it's preferable to use evidence-based authoritative sources like the major science institutions, current science textbooks, science Journals etc.

trafn wrote:
Well, I've seen you have found yet another way to try and insult and humiliate people, by adding their quotes in your signature in a way that manipulates the quote to say the exact opposite of what the author intended.

You never cease at coming up with new ways of showing that you are not just a troll, but an **** as well.

Ceist wrote:
Well IB certainly quotes your post out of context in a deceitful way in his signature. You were replying to my post:

Ceist wrote:
listed above

I was referring to the fact that IBdaMann stampedes around the internet ranting that climate science is a religion and that climate scientists and anyone else who doesn't accept his crank beliefs are morons and Marxist warmazombies following a religious cult ... blah blah blah. He claims he is only saying what the 'body of science' says, despite never being able to provide any authoritative science sources when challenged (because there aren't any that support his ridiculous pseudoscience nonsense

).

Then, when he finally provides a link, he used Cliff Harris's website as an 'authoritative' source.

And it turned out that Cliff Harris is a devout Christian who believes that only God can change the earth's climate and believes he can predict the climate using the Bible. Harris claims he is one of the "top 10 climatologists in the last few decades" because he has kept some temperature 'scrapbooks' since he was a child.

Like IB, he also has no qualifications or background in any field of science, or any published research, but they both hold the delusional belief they are 'experts'.

IBdaMann: Hoisted with his own 'religious' petard*.

Incredibly funny.

*To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb".

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

climate scientist wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Yet they nonetheless felt the need to stick in Global Warming "conclusions" that weren't supported by anything in the report (emphasis mine):

Thus, due to a warmer atmosphere driving an increased capacity for moisture, and in common with the findings of Davis and others (2005) in East Antarctica, accumulation in the interior of the Greenland ice sheet has increased slightly in the currently warming climate

Ergo, ice mass is accumulating because of Global Warming.
I can read English. I presume you can as well.

Um, no you can't! You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word accumulation! They are talking about snow accumulation in Greenland's interior. They don't quantify ice sheet melting anywhere, or quantifying the mass balance of Greenland, which would require determining whether snow accumulation exceeds ice sheet melting.

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

Hank wrote:

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Hank wrote:


Are you saying there are no greenhouses gases?

That is exactly what I am saying.

Please then explain how we are not living on a dead ice bound planet. You can calculate what the temperature at the surface of a planet would be at a particular distance from the Sun.

The surface temperature of the Earth should be on average about -16C, instead it is +16C. -16C is almost exactly what the average surface temperature of the Moon is. What is the difference? An atmosphere that traps the Sun's heat.

The shape of the molecules are important - an asymmetric molecule (CO2, CH4, NxO, O3, etc) traps IR in the requisite wavelength band. Symmetric molecules (O2, N2, Ar, He) do not.

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

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

*sigh*

Not the "raw data" crap.

Raw data does not show accurate trends. As many deniers like to state, using raw data would not account for effects like the Urban Heat Island effect or El Nino's and La Nina's (though the latter can and does show up even when the data is modified) as well as basic noise from normal, natural changes in yearly weather patterns. This is why climatologists use anomalous temperature events rather than actual temperatures, as they've proven to be more accurate at showing trends.

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

Ceist wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The greenhouse effect is energy neutral. This is because the greenhouse effect affects the Earth as well as the space. It warms the Earth a little bit at the expense of cooling the space a little bit. Of course, the space is so big the effect on the space is not measurable. The effect on Earth is also very small, at most a few C.

So you believe "greenhouse effect" can, and does, violate Planck's Law?

No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.

Why do you keep repeating this crap?

Planck's Law describes the emission spectrum of an ideal blackbody. Real objects are not ideal blackbodies, and gases at atmospheric pressure are not blackbodies at all. Look at this video, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exfJ8VPQDTY

The methane looks completely black at this IR wavelength, even though it's at about the same temperature as the surrounding gases. That's because it's methane!

Ask IB to explain what he thinks Planck's Law actually means

So far the closest he has come to posting what he thinks it means is:

IBdaMann wrote: Planck's Law is very easy to understand: Temperature determines thermal radiation.

That's not explaining Planck's Law. He leaves out that it's a function of wavelength (or frequency).

(And totally ignores emissivity)

IBdaMann wrote:

Ceist wrote: Ask IB to explain what he thinks Planck's Law actually means

I believe I beat you to it. Check a couple of posts up.


.

Ceist wrote:
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. He just thinks he has.

Just more vague hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.

jwoodward48 wrote: So we've all seen the quotes in IB's sig. "Huh," you might have though. "Those greenies sure do sound stupid."

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: So we've all seen the quotes in IB's sig. "Huh," you might have though. "Those greenies sure do sound stupid."

Hey Into the Night, you might be right. tafn might very well be back.


.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Not tafn. (Atmospheres just packing up and leaving? That was insane.) He was still saner than you.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: So we've all seen the quotes in IB's sig. "Huh," you might have though. "Those greenies sure do sound stupid."

Hey Into the Night, you might be right. tafn might very well be back.


.

It's possible. The same pattern is there. Whether it will reach meltdown proportions remains to be seen, of course.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Not tafn. (Atmospheres just packing up and leaving? That was insane.) He was still saner than you.

Does the noise in my head bother you?

jwoodward48 wrote:Ah. You're saying that I'm like him.

jwoodward48 wrote:
You keep saying that. It's not true. Saying it another hundred times will also not make it true.

jwoodward48 wrote: But my own supposed denial of science - the same cannot be said.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: But my own supposed denial of science - the same cannot be said.

Let's see.

A. Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in temperature with decreasing emission, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann?

B. Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in energy (i.e. increase in temperature) without increasing in energy (so as to not violate the 1st LoT)?

...the ball is in your court.


.

IBdaMann wrote:Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in temperature with decreasing emission, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann?

jwoodward48 wrote: The GHE reduces emissions. This causes an increase in temperature.

IBdaMann wrote:Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in energy (i.e. increase in temperature) without increasing in energy (so as to not violate the 1st LoT)?

jwoodward48 wrote: No. There is an increase in energy. This doesn't violate the 1st, because there is a temporary decrease in the radiation that Earth gives off. The reduction of emissions exactly counterbalances the increase in temperature - more energy on Earth, less in space.

jwoodward48 wrote: Indeed. I'd just like to clarify something: do you think that any substance is capable of affecting the emissions of Earth?

If so, is any substance capable of reducing the emissions of Earth?

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in temperature with decreasing emission, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann?

jwoodward48 wrote: The GHE reduces emissions. This causes an increase in temperature.

So your answer is "Yes, 'greenhouse gas' causes the earth to increase in temperature with decreasing emission in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann science that is being denied."

Thank you.

IBdaMann wrote:Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in energy (i.e. increase in temperature) without increasing in energy (so as to not violate the 1st LoT)?

jwoodward48 wrote: No. There is an increase in energy. This doesn't violate the 1st, because there is a temporary decrease in the radiation that Earth gives off. The reduction of emissions exactly counterbalances the increase in temperature - more energy on Earth, less in space.

So your answer is that you violate the 1st LoT while claiming that you aren't violating the 1st LoT.

Thank you.

jwoodward48 wrote: Indeed. I'd just like to clarify something: do you think that any substance is capable of affecting the emissions of Earth?

If so, is any substance capable of reducing the emissions of Earth?

That pesky Stefan-Boltzmann answers this question. Is a constant solar radiation implicit in your question?

If so, what does Stefan-Boltzmann say?


.

jwoodward48 wrote: I have a question for you now: Is it possible for the atmosphere to affect the radiation that goes off the surface (that is, can the radiation leaving the Earth-system differ from the radiation leaving the Earth-surface?)?

jwoodward48 wrote: The amount of energy on Earth has increased, the amount of energy in space has decreased.

jwoodward48 wrote:That's not a yes-or-no answer, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is no. Is that correct?

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: I have a question for you now: Is it possible for the atmosphere to affect the radiation that goes off the surface (that is, can the radiation leaving the Earth-system differ from the radiation leaving the Earth-surface?)?

Sure. Of course my weasel-alert flag is now raised. Why are you now focusing on the "surface" instead of the entire earth as a body?

jwoodward48 wrote: The amount of energy on Earth has increased, the amount of energy in space has decreased.

Exactly ... like I said, this happens in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann you are denying. You should think about adjusting your claims to align with the science you deny, and stop denying it in the process.

jwoodward48 wrote:That's not a yes-or-no answer, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is no. Is that correct?

You would be correct. That is what Stefan-Boltzmann says.


.

jwoodward48 wrote: I believe that you meant "the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics."

jwoodward48 wrote:There is a positive correlation between temperature and radiance.

jwoodward48 wrote: In reality, there are other things that affect the radiance too.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:There is a positive correlation between temperature and radiance.

Stefan-Boltzmann shows that pretty clearly, yes?

jwoodward48 wrote: In reality, there are other things that affect the radiance too.

But those other factors are constants. That's key, and you should point that out.

There are no other variables within the relationship between temperature and radiance.

.

jwoodward48 wrote: Can emissivity etc. not be changed?

jwoodward48 wrote: If I painted the Earth black, wouldn't its absorbance change?

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: Can emissivity etc. not be changed?

In science, constants don't change. If something changes, it is a "variable."

jwoodward48 wrote: If I painted the Earth black, wouldn't its absorbance change?

Can you paint the earth black?


.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Can you paint the earth black?


.

...yes! I can! It's infeasible, but it's possible.

jwoodward48 wrote: It's incredibly infeasible, to the point of being functionally impossible, ...

jwoodward48 wrote: IB, that's not the point. I could construct an asteroid such that, when I press a button, the outsides flip around and become black. Emissivity is not always constant.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: IB, that's not the point. I could construct an asteroid such that, when I press a button, the outsides flip around and become black. Emissivity is not always constant.

This might be a semantic quibble but you need to then find a different term. "Emissivity" is defined as a constant.

I have a question for you, though.

What solar radiation does "greenhouse gas" absorb that the earth's surface does not? Is there any?


.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:I have a question for you, though. What solar radiation does "greenhouse gas" absorb that the earth's surface does not? Is there any?

Almost none. The GHGs don't significantly interact with sunlight IIRC.

Ceist wrote: