Realclimate and the silliest arguments of climate deniers

spot wrote: Real climate covers the the silliest argument, used by the silliest people.

spot wrote:
Is it possible to be more pig headed and obtuse? If you clicked on the link you would know wouldn't you dumbass.

spot wrote: Is it possible to be more pig headed and obtuse?

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
Is it possible to be more pig headed and obtuse? If you clicked on the link you would know wouldn't you dumbass.

Rather than overload with drivel please make a single point and then that can be discussed.

Which aspect of global warming do you feel most threatened by?

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: Is it possible to be more pig headed and obtuse?

Is it possible for you to be more of a moron? I think not. Not only are you scientifically illiterate, you are simply illiterate as well.

What is YOUR FAVORITE silly denier argument?


Wait! Don't tell me you already EVADING this issue ... that you initiated ... because you have no flipping idea what is science and what is your WACKY religion!


.

spot wrote: So you can't click a link? dumbass.

One of the silliest arguments of climate deniers goes like this: the atmosphere with its greenhouse gases cannot warm the Earth's surface, because it is colder than the surface. But heat always flows from warm to cold and never vice versa, as stated in the second law of thermodynamics.

The freshly baked Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts has recently phrased it thus in his maiden speech:

It is basic. The sun warms the earth's surface. The surface, by contact, warms the moving, circulating atmosphere. That means the atmosphere cools the surface. How then can the atmosphere warm it? It cannot. That is why their computer models are wrong.

This is of course not only questions the increasing human-caused greenhouse effect, but in general our understanding of temperatures on all planets, which goes back to Joseph Fourier, who in 1824 was the first to understand the importance of the greenhouse effect.

The atmosphere acts like a blanket which inhibits heat loss. In fact according to Roberts' logic, a blanket could also not have a warming effect:

It's simple. The body warms the blanket. This means that the blanket cools the body. So how can the blanket warm it? It cannot!

The answer is simple. The warm body loses heat to the cold air. The blanket inhibits and slows this heat loss. Therefore you stay warmer under a blanket.

The Earth loses heat to the cold universe. The atmosphere inhibits this heat loss. Therefore, the surface remains warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.

It is true that the surface loses heat to the atmosphere – but less than it would otherwise lose directly to space. Just as I lose less heat to the blanket than I would otherwise lose to the air, without blanket.

Of course, in neither case is the second law of thermodynamics violated. The heat always flows from warm to cold – just more or less effectively. The processes of heat transfer are quite different – for the blanket it is mainly heat conduction, for the greenhouse effect it is thermal radiation. The climate deniers claim that the colder atmosphere cannot radiate thermal radiation towards the warmer surface. This is of course nonsense. The cool Earth also sends thermal radiation towards the hot sun – how would thermal radiation leaving Earth know how warm the surface is that it's going to hit? It's just that the sun sends more radiation back to us – the net flow is from hot to cold. More is not implied by the second law of thermodynamics.

Thanks to two Germans (Gerlich and Tscheuschner of the TU Braunscheig – deeply embarrassing for this university), the absurd claim that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics even made it into an obscure physics journal – obviously there was no peer review to speak of. The bizarre article was promptly demolished by some US physicists. Just recently I read the claim again in an article of coal lobbyist Lars Schernikau – with such fairy-tale beliefs of its representatives, one is not surprised by the decline of the coal industry.

The thermal radiation from the atmosphere toward the ground, which allegedly cannot exist, is of course routinely measured, including its increase (see e.g. Philipona et al. 2004, 2012).

And you can even feel it. Those who sometimes sit outside in the garden after dark know this. Under a dense, low cloud layer you do not nearly get cold as fast as on a clear starry night. This is due to the thermal radiation coming from the clouds. They are colder than our body, but warmer than the night sky in clear air.

Roberts said: "Like Socrates, I love asking questions to get to the truth." Perhaps he will ponder my answer next time he sits in his garden at night, or slips under a blanket.

spot wrote:
copypaste because he cant be bothered to click a link

...deleted useless quote...

spot posted: Joseph Fourier, who in 1824 was the first to understand the importance of the greenhouse effect.

spot posted: The atmosphere acts like a blanket which inhibits heat loss.

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

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

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

spot posted: The climate deniers claim that the colder atmosphere cannot radiate thermal radiation towards the warmer surface.

spot posted: Under a dense, low cloud layer you do not nearly get cold as fast as on a clear starry night.

spot posted: This is due to the thermal radiation coming from the clouds.

IBdaMann wrote:

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

spot posted: The climate deniers claim that the colder atmosphere cannot radiate thermal radiation towards the warmer surface.

When did any "denier" claim limitations on the specific direction(s) that EM can radiate?

The claim is that heat will not flow from the the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. You believe this is a "silly denier claim" yes?

spot posted: Under a dense, low cloud layer you do not nearly get cold as fast as on a clear starry night.

How does one ever know how fast one would otherwise "get cold" if the clouds were removed? Can anyone remove clouds and perform a direct test?

spot posted: This is due to the thermal radiation coming from the clouds.

Absolutely. Real furnaces those clouds are. You can FEEL their heat. I use them to keep my dinner hot.

Silly warmizombie arguments.

jwoodward48 wrote: Err, IB, you seem to be implying that the energy coming out of an atmosphere is independent of the composition of said atmosphere.

jwoodward48 wrote:I... kind of dispute that.

jwoodward48 wrote: If the atmosphere is opaque to radiation (which is is at the wavelengths we're talking about), then some of the energy that would normally (read: if-there-were-no-atmosphere) escape... doesn't. Not yet. It goes back down, and down isn't up, right?

jwoodward48 wrote: IB, if I stuck Tai into a vacuum jar that's perfectly transparent and perfectly insulative, ...

jwoodward48 wrote:Err, IB, you're being a little silly. This is testable - at least the correlation is.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
Is it possible to be more pig headed and obtuse? If you clicked on the link you would know wouldn't you dumbass.

Rather than overload with drivel please make a single point and then that can be discussed.

Which aspect of global warming do you feel most threatened by?

Whilst your often wrong your not as wrong as a certain pair of Muppets claiming the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics.

spot wrote:
copypaste because he cant be bothered to click a link

One of the silliest arguments of climate deniers goes like this: the atmosphere with its greenhouse gases cannot warm the Earth's surface, because it is colder than the surface. But heat always flows from warm to cold and never vice versa, as stated in the second law of thermodynamics.

The freshly baked Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts has recently phrased it thus in his maiden speech:

It is basic. The sun warms the earth's surface. The surface, by contact, warms the moving, circulating atmosphere. That means the atmosphere cools the surface. How then can the atmosphere warm it? It cannot. That is why their computer models are wrong.

This is of course not only questions the increasing human-caused greenhouse effect, but in general our understanding of temperatures on all planets, which goes back to Joseph Fourier, who in 1824 was the first to understand the importance of the greenhouse effect.

The atmosphere acts like a blanket which inhibits heat loss. In fact according to Roberts' logic, a blanket could also not have a warming effect:

It's simple. The body warms the blanket. This means that the blanket cools the body. So how can the blanket warm it? It cannot!

The answer is simple. The warm body loses heat to the cold air. The blanket inhibits and slows this heat loss. Therefore you stay warmer under a blanket.

The Earth loses heat to the cold universe. The atmosphere inhibits this heat loss. Therefore, the surface remains warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.

It is true that the surface loses heat to the atmosphere – but less than it would otherwise lose directly to space. Just as I lose less heat to the blanket than I would otherwise lose to the air, without blanket.

Of course, in neither case is the second law of thermodynamics violated. The heat always flows from warm to cold – just more or less effectively. The processes of heat transfer are quite different – for the blanket it is mainly heat conduction, for the greenhouse effect it is thermal radiation. The climate deniers claim that the colder atmosphere cannot radiate thermal radiation towards the warmer surface. This is of course nonsense. The cool Earth also sends thermal radiation towards the hot sun – how would thermal radiation leaving Earth know how warm the surface is that it's going to hit? It's just that the sun sends more radiation back to us – the net flow is from hot to cold. More is not implied by the second law of thermodynamics.

Thanks to two Germans (Gerlich and Tscheuschner of the TU Braunscheig – deeply embarrassing for this university), the absurd claim that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics even made it into an obscure physics journal – obviously there was no peer review to speak of. The bizarre article was promptly demolished by some US physicists. Just recently I read the claim again in an article of coal lobbyist Lars Schernikau – with such fairy-tale beliefs of its representatives, one is not surprised by the decline of the coal industry.

The thermal radiation from the atmosphere toward the ground, which allegedly cannot exist, is of course routinely measured, including its increase (see e.g. Philipona et al. 2004, 2012).

And you can even feel it. Those who sometimes sit outside in the garden after dark know this. Under a dense, low cloud layer you do not nearly get cold as fast as on a clear starry night. This is due to the thermal radiation coming from the clouds. They are colder than our body, but warmer than the night sky in clear air.

Roberts said: "Like Socrates, I love asking questions to get to the truth." Perhaps he will ponder my answer next time he sits in his garden at night, or slips under a blanket.

spot wrote:Alright simple question needs a simple answer, Is air a black-body?

spot wrote:don't need a string of insults just yes/no will suffice.

spot wrote: Allright another question does the Stefan-Boltzmann law apply to non-blackbodies?

spot wrote: I can't see the problem

spot wrote: You can ask for clarification but I fail to see how I can make the question any more clear.

spot wrote:
Is the Stefan-Boltzmann law pertinent to non-blackbodies?

There you go same question without the word apply, happy?

spot wrote: I don't think re-reading everything you wrote will help me. a yes/no answer however would.

spot wrote: My own research indicates the answer to the question; "Does the Stefan-Boltzmann law apply to non-blackbodies?" is "no".
See not hard.

jwoodward48 wrote:IB, he's annoying as hell, but that'll just give him a martyr complex and support his hypothesis that "all deniers are awful people."

jwoodward48 wrote: (Not that you're being that awful, but as I should know, the slightest insult, seen through the Veil of the Enemy, becomes a sign of despicability.)

spot wrote: Ask the same question again, wonder if anybody has the balls to give a yes/no answer. Or are we going to go off on a dadaist tangent again.

spot wrote:
Ask the same question again, wonder if anybody has the balls to give a yes/no answer. Or are we going to go off on a dadaist tangent again.

jwoodward48 wrote:
What, pray tell, is the Argument of the Stone?