Remember me
▼ Content

Realclimate and the silliest arguments of climate deniers



Page 2 of 2<12
28-09-2016 20:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
spot wrote: I haven't dismissed your argument I haven't addressed your argument yet.

You haven't clarified your questions either.

spot wrote: I've demanded yes/no answers to questions that can be answered yes/no.

You're asking people to pin themselves down on ambiguous positions by way of poorly worded questions.

You don't want to discuss. You don't want to clarify. You are just looking to tag people as "wrong." You can blome E.

spot wrote: ... and does the Stefan-Boltzman apply to non black-bodies? are not a trick questions.

There are many "non black-bodies" to some of which the answer is "yes" and to some the answer is "no" and you are simply weaseling to get one answer or the other so you can say "You're WRONG!"

The correct answer to your question is "yes and no." Actually, the correct response to your question is to simply ignore it.

Dumbass.


.


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
28-09-2016 21:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
you posted this;
s
pot posted: The atmosphere acts like a blanket which inhibits heat loss.

Nope. Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise.

spot posted: The Earth loses heat to the cold universe. The atmosphere inhibits this heat loss.

Nope. Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise.

spot posted:Therefore, the surface remains warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.

Did you just pull the classic warmizombie goalpost shift? Did you quietly shift from talking about the entire planet's overall average temperature to speaking about "the bottom of the atmosphere" while hoping no one would notice?

spot posted: Of course, in neither case is the second law of thermodynamics violated.

Stefan-Boltzmann is violated.


But you have already admitted air is not a black-body. So obviously Stefan-Boltzman does not apply to it, ergo simply invoking Stefan-Boltzman tells us nothing, it does not invalidate the greenhouse effect. So you were wrong.
28-09-2016 21:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
spot wrote:
you posted this;
s
pot posted: The atmosphere acts like a blanket which inhibits heat loss.

Nope. Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise.

spot posted: The Earth loses heat to the cold universe. The atmosphere inhibits this heat loss.

Nope. Stefan-Boltzmann says otherwise.

spot posted:Therefore, the surface remains warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.

Did you just pull the classic warmizombie goalpost shift? Did you quietly shift from talking about the entire planet's overall average temperature to speaking about "the bottom of the atmosphere" while hoping no one would notice?

spot posted: Of course, in neither case is the second law of thermodynamics violated.

Stefan-Boltzmann is violated.


But you have already admitted air is not a black-body. So obviously Stefan-Boltzman does not apply to it, ergo simply invoking Stefan-Boltzman tells us nothing, it does not invalidate the greenhouse effect. So you were wrong.


Go read his post again, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2016 21:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
No matter how many times I re-read it he's still wrong.
Edited on 28-09-2016 21:26
28-09-2016 21:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
spot wrote:No matter how many times I re-read it he's still wrong.


Aaaah, you're just looking for the answer you desperately need to reaffirm your self worth and your investment of self-identity into your WACKY religion.

That's too easy. I can accommodate you.

ANSWER FOR spot: greenhouse gases trap the heat from the sun and increase earth's temperature by reducing earth's emissions. At no point is Stefan-Boltzmann violated. We need a tax on carbon emissions.

There! How's that?


.


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
28-09-2016 23:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hey, people can think that you are wrong without intentionally trying to delude themselves. Ease off a bit.

Of course, you've given an entirely correct summary of GW theory and one of the ways to deal with it, if it exists. (s) He's already reached a 1st grade level understanding of thermodynamics, right Surface? Isn't that when you British geniuses learn how to compute triple integrals, too? (/s)
29-09-2016 14:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote: Hey, people can think that you are wrong without intentionally trying to delude themselves. Ease off a bit.

No can do mon frère. It's one thing to think I'm mistaken. It's quite another to bulveristically dismiss science that I provide while insulting me without any valid science whatsoever. The latter EARNS all the mockery and derision received.

Those who insist that respect is a one-way street deserve ALL the disrespect they receive.

jwoodward48 wrote: Of course, you've given an entirely correct summary of GW theory

I know. I built in a fundamental violation of physics.

jwoodward48 wrote: ... and one of the ways to deal with it, if it exists.

Actually, there's absolutely NO rational reason to believe that a government tax would be any sort of remedy. That's why I included an insistence on a "carbon tax" in my "answer to spot" ... to complete the absurdity.

jwoodward48 wrote: (s) ... (/s)

Don't you mean "(f)" and "(/f)" : for "facetious"?
Don't you mean "<f>" and "</f>" : for proper markup syntax?

Just asking.


.


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
29-09-2016 15:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
(S) for sarcasm. I did mean <s>, but that might be confused with strike through, so meh.
29-09-2016 16:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote: (S) for sarcasm. I did mean <s>, but that might be confused with strike through, so meh.

I didn't really see any sarcasm. I saw facetiousness. I'll relook at it.


.


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
29-09-2016 16:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, you're right, it's facetiousness. Argh, I'm perpetuating something similar to the "irony" overuse. I must commit sudoku.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Realclimate and the silliest arguments of climate deniers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'313-08-2019 14:20
boreallfor is out of arguments1010-07-2019 06:57
Climate change politics may defy even the most rational arguments: Don Pittis025-03-2019 15:01
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
▲ 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