Remember me
▼ Content

Realclimate and the silliest arguments of climate deniers



Page 1 of 212>
Realclimate and the silliest arguments of climate deniers26-09-2016 17:50
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

Real climate covers the the silliest argument, used by the silliest people. To be fair I learned something I have always said that everything we knew about the earths atmosphere since Tyndell was wrong but infact it's Joseph Fourier. so they are 192 years behind the times.
26-09-2016 19:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: Real climate covers the the silliest argument, used by the silliest people.

And you know what the irony is, don't you? The silly arguments are those made by the creators of that website.

Watch.

What's your favorite silly argument made by "deniers"?



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
26-09-2016 19:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Is it possible to be more pig headed and obtuse? If you clicked on the link you would know wouldn't you dumbass.
26-09-2016 19:42
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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?
26-09-2016 19:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
26-09-2016 19:50
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
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.
26-09-2016 19:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
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!


.


So you can't click a link? dumbass.
26-09-2016 20:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: So you can't click a link? dumbass.

Idiot chithead has to EVADE his own topic and blame me. What a loser. spot can't even answer a fukcing EASY question for the discussion HE initiated. What a fukcing moron.

------

spot, you really don't know anything, do you? When you were young your parents probably tried to get you to play with rocks in the hopes their intelligence would rub off onto you.

No, I'm not going to click on your stupid link. If you can't even address your own topic then why should anyone else?


. E . V . A . S . I . O . N . ... it suits you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
26-09-2016 20:08
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
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.
26-09-2016 20:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But what about the other laws? You can't just focus on one and then claim that you've proved AGW. That's the fallacy fallacy again (or similar).
26-09-2016 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
copypaste because he cant be bothered to click a link

...deleted useless quote...



Whether you link to the article or quote it directly here, it is still the same silly argument. Magick Blankets don't exist. Anything that keeps energy in keeps energy out.

The atmosphere is not an insulator. It is a mass. It takes time to warm it and it takes time to cool it.

Water has a high specific heat. It takes longer to heat and cool water than anything else in the atmosphere. That is the only reason you don't see large temperature changes on overcast days into the nights (such as near marine environments).

Carbon dioxide is not remarkable in this property. It behaves as any other gas.

Cumulo type clouds are localized and don't do much except lose surface heat through convection. You need that good ole' stratus overcast to see the effect.

There is no Magick Blanket.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2016 21:41
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...Er, Into, about that, CO2 is largely transparent to shortwave radiation and largely opaque to longwave radiation. So what you said "anything that keeps energy in also keeps it out"... It might not be completely true.

At the very least, it's not obvious.
Edited on 26-09-2016 21:48
26-09-2016 22:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot posted: Joseph Fourier, who in 1824 was the first to understand the importance of the greenhouse effect.

Question: What was Fourier's "greenhouse effect" model?
Answer: There isn't one. There never was.

Name dropping of a dead person and then pretending to speak for him.

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: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.

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.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
26-09-2016 23:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


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

I... kind of dispute that. 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?
spot posted: Of course, in neither case is the second law of thermodynamics violated.

Stefan-Boltzmann is 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?


I can see why you dislike strawmen.

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?


IB, if I stuck Tai into a vacuum jar that's perfectly transparent and perfectly insulative, what would happen under the following circumstances?

1. I throw Tai into space, inside his jar.
2. I throw Tai into a room at 0C.
3. I throw Tai into the Sun.

If I'm right, 1 and 2 will have distinct end results.

Heat is not flowing from the room to Tai, as Tai is warmer than 0C. And yet, compared to Tai-In-Space, Tai-In-Room is warmer.

There's probably something I missed, though, that invalidates this line of inquiry.

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?


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

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.


The radiation can't heat the Earth on its own, but compared to getting toasty 2K radiation... I'd prefer to be in a room at cloud-temperature over space-temperature, even though both are colder than I am.


"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!
27-09-2016 16:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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.

<facepalm> No, I don't seem to be implying it. I am outright expressly stating it.

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

Are you going to finally, for once, point to Stefan-Boltzmann and state in which manner it is incorrect?

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?

AAAAAAAgggghhh! No. No. No. Can you translate that into Stefan-Boltzmann terms?



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

Full stop. This is an error right here.

"Insulation" and "thermal radiation" have nothing to do with each other. Insulation applies to thermal conduction/convection. I suggest you read up on the difference between thermal radiation and thermal conduction/convection because until you do you are wasting everyone's time.

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

Explain. Hint: you're going to lose this one.

Make sure to clarify how someone sitting outside at night with clouds can directly test how things would be without the clouds and tell me how I can perform that test.

Make sure to show how one can directly test the causality, i.e. clouds make it warmer as opposed to some warmer conditions caused other conditions which caused the clouds to form...and how I can perform that test.

This will certainly prove most interesting.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-09-2016 16:20
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


That would be you are or you'r.
27-09-2016 16:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


Yes, what of all that do you wish to talk about? I suggest you start a thread for each point you want to talk about. Then we can look at the detail of each point and see what merrits it has.
27-09-2016 16:28
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Alright simple question needs a simple answer, Is air a black-body? don't need a string of insults just yes/no will suffice.
27-09-2016 16:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:Alright simple question needs a simple answer, Is air a black-body?

"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.

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

Has the lack of any need for any insults ever prevented you from rifling them off?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-09-2016 16:34
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Allright another question does the Stefan-Boltzmann law apply to non-blackbodies?
27-09-2016 16:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: Allright another question does the Stefan-Boltzmann law apply to non-blackbodies?

We have a problem here. You are reverting back to your obstinate, bulveristic self, demanding answers to poorly worded questions with seemingly no intention of discussing the issue but rather to find some semantic quirk on which you can harp. If I ask for clarification you are going to accuse me of dodging your poorly worded question.

So, having said that, can you word your question without using the word "apply"?

If you asking if there are bodies in nature that are not ideal black bodies that absorb/radiate per Stefan-Boltzmann then the answer is "yes there are."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-09-2016 16:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
I can't see the problem its a simple question that can be answered yes/no. You can ask for clarification but I fail to see how I can make the question any more clear.
27-09-2016 17:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: I can't see the problem

...and that is the problem. Anyone who understands the material wouldn't ask that question. Also, the fact that you are demanding answers to your terse questions rather than admitting that you don't have a clue and would like some help tells me I should only give you terse responses, and they're not going to be any more polite than your stupid demands.

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

Let's press forward with the overarching understanding that it is you who is failing to understand.

So, did you get around to rewording your question or did I sufficiently answer it?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-09-2016 17:06
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Is the Stefan-Boltzmann law pertinent to non-blackbodies?

There you go same question without the word apply, happy?
27-09-2016 17:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
I still don't have an answer
27-09-2016 17:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:
Is the Stefan-Boltzmann law pertinent to non-blackbodies?

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

No, I'm not happy. Re-read my previous posts for clues as to what I'm looking for.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-09-2016 17:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
I don't think re-reading everything you wrote will help me. a yes/no answer however would.
27-09-2016 17:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: I don't think re-reading everything you wrote will help me. a yes/no answer however would.

Well if you can't be bothered to help me help you then how about I just give you both a "yes" and a "no" and you pick the one you like best?

It works for me.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-09-2016 17:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Most of the general population probably haven't heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law but you mention it several times a day on average so I would have thought you were an expert. My own research indicates the answer to the question; "Does the Stefan-Boltzmann law apply to non-blackbodies?" is "no".

See not hard.
Edited on 27-09-2016 17:50
27-09-2016 18:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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.

What matters is whether reciting those words gives you a Global Warming "high." All other concerns are irrelevant.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-09-2016 18:18
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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." (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.)
27-09-2016 18:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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."

I don't know if you have noticed but spot is already underway with his Global Warming Jihad and is wearing a vest packed with implosives (you should have been around during the tafn days).

spot already operates under the hypothesis that all deniers are awful less-than-humans. You won't find too many people who care what spot has to say.

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.)

I am necessarily what spot considers to be "awful" by simply not believing in his WACKY religion. He has never, to my recollection, even attempted to rationally discuss anything with any non-believer. In his defense, though, I don't think he ever learned how to rationally discuss anything.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-09-2016 18:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That's no "simple question"... That's a loaded question!

Dun dun dun dun du-duuuun. What will spot do now that I've revealed his plot?
27-09-2016 19:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
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.
27-09-2016 19:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Why wouldn't it? After all, if you aren't a black body... Then the energy coming in and the energy coming out will still be the same. Temperature is safe. (I have my doubts, but this is what I've learned.)
27-09-2016 21:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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.

Why are you still on this? Didn't you arrive at the answer you wanted? Surely you have been satisfied and are now moving on to other things, yes?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-09-2016 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
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.


You still stuck in an argument of the Stone?


The Parrot Killer
27-09-2016 22:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What, pray tell, is the Argument of the Stone?
27-09-2016 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
What, pray tell, is the Argument of the Stone?


It is discarding an argument without counter-argument or determination of fallacy.

It is discarding an argument out of hand (typically because someone just doesn't like it).

Discarding an argument in this way is itself a fallacy, based on attempting to invalidate the law of identity in formal logic.

It is called this because the conversation is effectively terminated. It's like talking to a stone.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-09-2016 22:38
28-09-2016 19:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
I haven't dismissed your argument I haven't addressed your argument yet. I've demanded yes/no answers to questions that can be answered yes/no. Asking is air a black-body? and does the Stefan-Boltzman apply to non black-bodies? are not a trick questions. We need to agree on certain basic facts before we can have the pure logic debate about your argument that you crave. I can see why you don't like this line of questioning but if you were prepared to admit that you were human and made mistakes it would not be that painful for you. Dumbass
Page 1 of 212>





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