Remember me
▼ Content

The Data Mine



Page 3 of 8<12345>>>
21-10-2015 00:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - trapping leading to vaporization is actually PART OF the LoT's. How do you think an electronic cigarettes works?

Perhaps what we are really dealing with here isn't a violation of the LoT's, but a violation of your sense of security in your concept of "The Earth." Might it just be a tad too scary for you to consider that we could indeed destroy/vaporize/kill this planet and turn it into a lifeless mass.


Not at all. If the scenario was possible, it would have already happened long ago. We wouldn't be here to bandy about the argument. The Earth would've been destroyed long before vegetation began forming in the sea.

Electronic cigarettes work for the same reason keeping your house warm: insulation in the form of trapped air. The atmosphere is not trapped air.
21-10-2015 00:45
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - I think you may be about a decade or so behind the times when you state I happen to acknowledge the absorption of IR energy at certain frequencies by various gases commonly referred to as 'greenhouse' gases. However, such gases tend to cool the surface of the Earth during the day, since the energy they absorb never reaches the surface.

I'm not going to take the time to provide you with links on this as I know you are aware of google, but you really do need to get a better grasp on what science has to say about this today.

The GHG's don't absorb solar radiated energy on it's way TO earth and, therefore, do not prevent that energy from reaching the earth's surface. Instead, that solar radiated energy in question has:

1. already reached the earth's surface as predominantly non-IR EM radiation, and...

2. been absorbed by the earth's surface, and...

3. then then re-released by the earth's surface as IR EM radiation upward into the atmosphere, which...

4. is THEN absorbed by the GHG's (they like IR EM radiation), thereby...

5. retaining (i.e. - trapping) energy that would have otherwise been radiated back into outer space.

Bravo, well said by me if I do say so (and trafn takes a bow)!

Oh, but who cares. What's a little well known science got to do with anything, right?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-10-2015 00:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you said The atmosphere is not trapped air.

Would someone please tell that to gravity.

Hey wait, maybe if we just pretend there's no atmosphere, then we would have a Unified Field Theory!

No, wait, that would be "pretend there's no gravity."

Oops.



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-10-2015 00:55
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you said It is MUCH harder to rule things out than to rule things in.

A man is found dead.
Upon completion of his autopsy, no bullet holes are found on his body.
Upon completion of his autopsy, no bullet wounds are found in his body.
Upon completion of his autopsy, no bullets are found in his body.
Upon completion of his autopsy, no conclusive cause of death was determined.
This man did not die from a recent gunshot wound to his body.




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 21-10-2015 01:11
21-10-2015 03:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
trafn wrote: but you really do need to get a better grasp on what science has to say about this today.

I appreciate the invitation to the party.

trafn wrote: The GHG's don't absorb solar radiated energy on it's way TO earth and, therefore, do not prevent that energy from reaching the earth's surface.

You have a little problem here.

Which atmospheric gases do you believe care about the direction of the solar EM they are absorbing?

trafn wrote: Instead, that solar radiated energy in question has:

1. already reached the earth's surface as predominantly non-IR EM radiation, and...

2. been absorbed by the earth's surface, and...

3. then then re-released by the earth's surface as IR EM radiation upward into the atmosphere, which...

4. is THEN absorbed by the GHG's (they like IR EM radiation),

Nope. Plenty of the solar EM is IR, much of which is absorbed before reaching the surface. It's the visible light that pretty much makes it all the way to the surface. UVC is absorbed by the ozone before ever reaching the surface.

trafn wrote: thereby...

5. retaining (i.e. - trapping) energy that would have otherwise been radiated back into outer space.

Hence your "trapping" thing doesn't happen.


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
21-10-2015 06:39
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdasMarxistischeMensch - you stated Which atmospheric gases do you believe care about the direction of the solar EM they are absorbing?

For the well informed, ALL gases care about the direction of the solar EM they are absorbing.

If they're gases which are transgender male to female, then they want the solar EM they are absorbing to be blowing up their skirts.

If they're gases which are transgender female to male, then they want the solar EM they are absorbing to be blowing down their skirts.

See silly, you learned something!

As for the "trapping" thing, I guess you've never been caught in the same room as a transgender GHG!

* - I've temporarily adjusted your moniker to honor it being National Socialist Science Month in Germany.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 21-10-2015 06:40
21-10-2015 10:33
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
References to back these statements up can be found in any text properly describing thermal dynamics


Well then please indulge us. I am dying to see these thermodynamic statements from referenced sources that supposedly explain exactly how the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT.

The problem is that you were attempting to show linkage of data by using unsupported opinion pieces. That's like saying the data is linked simply because someone said so.


Nope. Not 'showing linkage' of any data. I was just making a point.
21-10-2015 13:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
[quote]climate scientist wrote: Well then please indulge us. I am dying to see these thermodynamic statements from referenced sources that supposedly explain exactly how the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT. [quote]

Right after you provide authoritative references explaining how Christian salvation violates the 1st LoT.


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
21-10-2015 13:33
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
From Scientific American:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/fox-commentator-distorts-physics/

"On the August 6 edition of Fox and Friends Saturday, the hosts interviewed Joe Bastardi—whom they introduced as "chief meteorologist at WeatherBell"—on global warming:

Bastardi claimed that the idea of manmade global warming is incompatible with the laws of physics.

"[Saying that CO2 could affect the climate] contradicts what we call the first law of thermodynamics: energy can never be created nor destroyed," Bastardi said. "So, to look for an input of energy into the atmosphere you have to come from a foreign source." His prepared remarks were accompanied by screens that seemed to display an intent from the TV show to be pedagogical.

The first law of thermodynamics does indeed guarantee conservation of energy. And the CO2 injected into the atmosphere does not carry energy with it—or rather, it does, because matter always carries energy, but not in a way that would raise temperatures significantly, if at all. But no one has ever claimed that CO2 would raise temperature by itself. Putting it this way is a grotesque distortion of what climatologists say.

What climate science says is not that CO2 carries energy into the atmosphere or somehow magically generates it out of nowhere. Instead, it says that CO2 and other gases acts as a blanket, keeping heat from escaping into space. This, as Bastardi should know, is called the greenhouse effect.

The Earth radiates into space roughly the same amount of energy that it receives from the sun. But much of what it radiates is in the infrared spectrum, whereas most of the sun's energy reaches us in the visible spectrum.

The greenhouse effect results from the fact that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, chiefly water vapor) is more opaque to infrared radiation than it is to visible light. So it lets the sun's rays in, but it won't allow the Earth to cool down too much."

This article is written by this guy:

http://sciencewriter.org/about/

Now it is your turn...

[climate scientist sits back and waits for yet another predictable excuse from IBdaMann, about why he does not need to provide any proof or evidence to back up his ridiculous claim about the greenhouse effect violating the 1st LoT...]
21-10-2015 14:55
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@climate scientist - don't hold your breath.

Our little IBdasMarxistischeMensch can't even come up with a simple falsifiable model to justify a single thing he says.

And you want him to know how to find an authoritative reference in the modern age of computers. Please, the guy still uses doodle.



PS - Scientific American. Nice!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-10-2015 16:47
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
References to back these statements up can be found in any text properly describing thermal dynamics


Well then please indulge us. I am dying to see these thermodynamic statements from referenced sources that supposedly explain exactly how the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT.



These science rejecting Dunning-Krugerites don't seem to have ever read a textbook on the principles of atmospheric thermodynamics.

Let's google that for them:

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=NrvDU9_HDaGN8QfS_IGwBg&gws_rd=ssl#q=principles+of+atmospheric+thermodynamics&start=0

They have as much hope of finding a textbook or any authoritative source to support their bizarre pseudosciency claims as a flat-earther has.



Edited on 21-10-2015 16:52
21-10-2015 18:56
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - yes, but don't you get it Ceist. Flat Earth is exactly what they believe in, cause that way, when sea levels rise, the water just runs over the edges.

Problem solved!




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-10-2015 21:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
climate scientist wrote:
From Scientific American:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/fox-commentator-distorts-physics/

"On the August 6 edition of Fox and Friends Saturday, the hosts interviewed Joe Bastardi—whom they introduced as "chief meteorologist at WeatherBell"—on global warming:

Bastardi claimed that the idea of manmade global warming is incompatible with the laws of physics.

"[Saying that CO2 could affect the climate] contradicts what we call the first law of thermodynamics: energy can never be created nor destroyed," Bastardi said. "So, to look for an input of energy into the atmosphere you have to come from a foreign source." His prepared remarks were accompanied by screens that seemed to display an intent from the TV show to be pedagogical.

The first law of thermodynamics does indeed guarantee conservation of energy. And the CO2 injected into the atmosphere does not carry energy with it—or rather, it does, because matter always carries energy, but not in a way that would raise temperatures significantly, if at all. But no one has ever claimed that CO2 would raise temperature by itself. Putting it this way is a grotesque distortion of what climatologists say.

What climate science says is not that CO2 carries energy into the atmosphere or somehow magically generates it out of nowhere. Instead, it says that CO2 and other gases acts as a blanket, keeping heat from escaping into space. This, as Bastardi should know, is called the greenhouse effect.

The Earth radiates into space roughly the same amount of energy that it receives from the sun. But much of what it radiates is in the infrared spectrum, whereas most of the sun's energy reaches us in the visible spectrum.

The greenhouse effect results from the fact that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, chiefly water vapor) is more opaque to infrared radiation than it is to visible light. So it lets the sun's rays in, but it won't allow the Earth to cool down too much."

This article is written by this guy:

http://sciencewriter.org/about/

Now it is your turn...

[climate scientist sits back and waits for yet another predictable excuse from IBdaMann, about why he does not need to provide any proof or evidence to back up his ridiculous claim about the greenhouse effect violating the 1st LoT...]


Unfortunately, the visible light is not what warms the oceans or the typical granite. UV and frequencies starting in the infrared spectrum can do this. Most of the UV is stopped by ozone, leaving the infrared. This same infrared has to get down TO the surface to warm rocks and oceans. That means it has to get past the 'greenhouse' gases. Absorption of incoming energy cools the surface during the day, not warms it.

Both water and granite reflect visible light. They don't absorb it much at all.
21-10-2015 23:25
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night: your questions are way too simple. Here's an answer that's not:



Earth's energy budget diagram. Incoming sunlight is on the left; outgoing infrared or "longwave" radiation is on the right. Credits: From Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E. (1997). "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Association 78: 197-208.

I'll leave you to check the I/O balance, but here are a few clues:

1. Incoming solar radiant energy: 77 + 30 + 168 + 67 = 342

2. I and O energy exchange at earth's surface: 168 + 324 = 24 + 78 + 390

3. I and O energy exchange in atmosphere: 67 + 24 + 78 + 350 = 165 + 30 + 324

4. Outgoing radiant energy: 107 + 235 = 342

In the end, both incoming and outgoing balance at 342.

The GHG effect occurs when the increase in mass (i.e. - atmospheric concentration) of the GHG's leads to an increase in back radiation. It works much in the same way as a capcitor works in an electrical circuit, retaining energy for later release. As the volume/concentration of the GHG's increase, so too does the capacitance, or GHG effect.

In the above diagram, the "324" factor (back radiation) is the key. As energy is stored in the GHG's (increased capacitance) there is a cooling effect and the "324" factor decreases. But as energy is released (decreased capacitance), there is a warming effect and the "324" factor increases.

If graphed (y axis = back radiation, x axis = time), you would expect this cycle of increased to decreased capacitance to produce an undulating back radiation curve that if averaged (i.e. - highs cancelling lows) would approximate a flat line at a relatively constant horizontal orientation, yielding relatively constant surface temperatures. This would be true if GHG levels remained relatively constant. But GHG concentrations are increasing which means there is more capacitance in the system which leads to an elevation in the graph of the undulating capacitance curve. As the curve rises, so, too, does the surface's temperature.

You can follow the source above to addition links for the data if you like.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
22-10-2015 00:22
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - here's a 2009 updated version of the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram. These values are all globally and annually averaged, with the "net absorbed" part of 0.9 W/m2 due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

I haven't had time to work the numbers yet. Let me know if you find anything wrong. Please be specific if you do.




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
22-10-2015 02:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night: your questions are way too simple. Here's an answer that's not:

The standard warmazombie axiom that bullshit sufficiently convoluted is perfectly valid science.

trafn wrote:Earth's energy budget diagram.

What is an "energy budget" supposed to be? There is no such thing in science. Yes, there might be such a thing in sufficiently convoluted bullshit, but that doesn't count here, does it?

This diagram does nothing for me.

trafn wrote:I'll leave you to check the I/O balance, but here are a few clues:

So Global Warming meets accounting. Is that the new way to try to make things so overly complex and boring in the hope that people will just say "I don't understand it, I'll believe you if you just make it go away!"?

trafn wrote: The GHG effect occurs when the increase in mass (i.e. - atmospheric concentration) of the GHG's leads to an increase in back radiation.

Ooooh, "back radiation!" Let's see, how would this happen? Well, anytime the temperature increases, thermal radiation increases in all directions. Some of that would be considered "back radiation" simply by virtue of its direction and not by any physical property. This back radiation then causes the increase in temperature that caused itself!

Congratulations! You have just gone down the Intelligent Design path of logic and proved what you originally assumed!


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
22-10-2015 02:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - here's a 2009 updated version of the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram. These values are all globally and annually averaged, with the "net absorbed" part of 0.9 W/m2 due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

I haven't had time to work the numbers yet. Let me know if you find anything wrong. Please be specific if you do.



Where are these numbers coming from? How are they calculated? Are they measured instead? If so, by what instrumentation and how?

This is the Data Mine. Describe the source of your numbers and how they came to be.

Until that is done, this diagram contains nothing more than random numbers.
22-10-2015 02:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - I think you may be about a decade or so behind the times when you state I happen to acknowledge the absorption of IR energy at certain frequencies by various gases commonly referred to as 'greenhouse' gases. However, such gases tend to cool the surface of the Earth during the day, since the energy they absorb never reaches the surface.

I'm not going to take the time to provide you with links on this as I know you are aware of google, but you really do need to get a better grasp on what science has to say about this today.

Science is well aware of the spectra of energy absorption for a wide variety of materials, including water and granite. Nothing has changed because of 'new science'. They are also well aware of the spectra of reradiated energy from each of these materials. This too has not changed due to any 'new science'. These are constant behaviors of these materials.
trafn wrote:
The GHG's don't absorb solar radiated energy on it's way TO earth and, therefore, do not prevent that energy from reaching the earth's surface. Instead, that solar radiated energy in question has:

1. already reached the earth's surface as predominantly non-IR EM radiation, and...

2. been absorbed by the earth's surface, and...

3. then then re-released by the earth's surface as IR EM radiation upward into the atmosphere, which...

4. is THEN absorbed by the GHG's (they like IR EM radiation), thereby...

5. retaining (i.e. - trapping) energy that would have otherwise been radiated back into outer space.

Bravo, well said by me if I do say so (and trafn takes a bow)!

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. I have already described how it is IR energy that is primarily responsible for introducing energy to various substances, including granite and water (and 'greenhouse' gases).

Your model is flat wrong. Energy is NOT absorbed from the visible spectrum of light into water or granite. Both of these materials reflect that color and do not absorb it.

trafn wrote:
Oh, but who cares. What's a little well known science got to do with anything, right?

You are not describing science here. You are assuming absorption and reradiation spectra that is demonstrated to be wrong, then assuming a violation of the 1st LoT as a resulting effect.
22-10-2015 02:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you said The atmosphere is not trapped air.

Would someone please tell that to gravity.

Hey wait, maybe if we just pretend there's no atmosphere, then we would have a Unified Field Theory!

No, wait, that would be "pretend there's no gravity."

Oops.


Trapped air in insulation and an atmosphere trapped by gravity are not the same thing. This is a false equivalence.
22-10-2015 02:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you said It is MUCH harder to rule things out than to rule things in.

A man is found dead.
Upon completion of his autopsy, no bullet holes are found on his body.
Upon completion of his autopsy, no bullet wounds are found in his body.
Upon completion of his autopsy, no bullets are found in his body.
Upon completion of his autopsy, no conclusive cause of death was determined.
This man did not die from a recent gunshot wound to his body.



You are showing a negative conclusion based on searching a closed set of evidence. That is all.

It is still a lot more work than finding a bullet hole in the chest, a bullet in the chest, and blood everywhere.
22-10-2015 02:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
climate scientist wrote:
References to back these statements up can be found in any text properly describing thermal dynamics


Well then please indulge us. I am dying to see these thermodynamic statements from referenced sources that supposedly explain exactly how the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT.

The problem is that you were attempting to show linkage of data by using unsupported opinion pieces. That's like saying the data is linked simply because someone said so.


Nope. Not 'showing linkage' of any data. I was just making a point.


Go read a good book on it. There's plenty of them out there.

You were 'just making your point' by attempting to show a linkage.
22-10-2015 02:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Into the Night wrote:Trapped air in insulation and an atmosphere trapped by gravity are not the same thing. This is a false equivalence.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I would just like to ask how you would consider someone in an open pit who cannot climb out?


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
22-10-2015 02:50
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@climate scientist, Ceist and Tototo only - i find this to be a fascinating representation of the energy exchange in our atmosphere. I'd love to discuss it with you. Are there any particular components that interest you?




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 22-10-2015 03:11
22-10-2015 03:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
@ Everybody Only:
What is "Latent Heat" supposed to be? How does it factor in any significant way into the whole "global warming greenhouse gas energy budget climate forcing effect" thing?


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
22-10-2015 20:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Trapped air in insulation and an atmosphere trapped by gravity are not the same thing. This is a false equivalence.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I would just like to ask how you would consider someone in an open pit who cannot climb out?


We can climb out.
23-10-2015 03:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Into the Night wrote:We can climb out.

...and for those that cannot climb out? Are they "trapped"?



On a data topic, you were asking about the daily floating buoy data.

For example:

10/21/2300Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -24.1°C 1001.7mb
10/21/2200Z 82.926°N 85.428°W -23.7°C 1001.6mb
10/21/2100Z 82.926°N 85.427°W -22.5°C 1001.5mb
10/21/2000Z 82.926°N 85.427°W -20.9°C 1001.3mb
10/21/1900Z 82.926°N 85.427°W -20.5°C 1001.2mb
10/21/1800Z 82.926°N 85.426°W -20.3°C 1000.9mb
10/21/1700Z 82.926°N 85.426°W -20.6°C 1000.8mb
10/21/1600Z 82.926°N 85.426°W -21.2°C 1000.5mb
10/21/1500Z 82.926°N 85.427°W -21.7°C 1000.5mb
10/21/1400Z 82.926°N 85.426°W -22.4°C 1000.6mb
10/21/1300Z 82.926°N 85.426°W -22.9°C 1000.7mb
10/21/1200Z 82.926°N 85.425°W -22.2°C 1000.7mb
10/21/1100Z 82.926°N 85.424°W -21.9°C 1000.6mb
10/21/1000Z 82.926°N 85.422°W -22.9°C 1000.7mb
10/21/0900Z 82.926°N 85.421°W -22.7°C 1000.6mb
10/21/0800Z 82.927°N 85.419°W -24.0°C 1000.4mb
10/21/0700Z 82.927°N 85.417°W -23.2°C 1000.2mb
10/21/0600Z 82.927°N 85.415°W -22.6°C 1000.3mb
10/21/0500Z 82.927°N 85.414°W -22.3°C 1000.1mb
10/21/0400Z 82.927°N 85.413°W -21.6°C 1000.1mb
10/21/0300Z 82.927°N 85.414°W -21.3°C 1000.1mb
10/21/0200Z 82.927°N 85.414°W -20.2°C 1000.1mb
10/21/0100Z 82.928°N 85.414°W -19.2°C 1000.0mb
10/21/0000Z 82.928°N 85.414°W -17.9°C 1000.1mb
10/20/2300Z 82.928°N 85.414°W -17.2°C 1000.2mb
10/20/2200Z 82.928°N 85.415°W -16.7°C 1000.4mb
10/20/2100Z 82.928°N 85.418°W -16.6°C 1000.6mb
10/20/2000Z 82.927°N 85.423°W -16.8°C 1000.3mb
10/20/1900Z 82.927°N 85.427°W -15.8°C 1000.0mb
10/20/1800Z 82.926°N 85.431°W -14.4°C 999.9mb
10/20/1700Z 82.926°N 85.435°W -14.1°C 999.9mb
10/20/1600Z 82.925°N 85.437°W -14.1°C 1000.0mb
10/20/1500Z 82.925°N 85.438°W -14.2°C 1000.4mb
10/20/1400Z 82.925°N 85.440°W -14.6°C 1000.8mb
10/20/1300Z 82.925°N 85.440°W -14.9°C 1001.2mb
10/20/1200Z 82.925°N 85.442°W -14.5°C 1001.4mb
10/20/1100Z 82.925°N 85.442°W -14.4°C 1001.7mb
10/20/1000Z 82.925°N 85.442°W -14.0°C 1002.0mb
10/20/0900Z 82.924°N 85.442°W -13.8°C 1002.3mb
10/20/0800Z 82.925°N 85.442°W -14.1°C 1002.7mb
10/20/0700Z 82.925°N 85.442°W -14.5°C 1003.1mb
10/20/0600Z 82.925°N 85.442°W -15.4°C 1003.3mb
10/20/0500Z 82.925°N 85.442°W -16.7°C 1003.7mb
10/20/0400Z 82.925°N 85.442°W -17.0°C 1004.1mb
10/20/0300Z 82.925°N 85.441°W -17.1°C 1004.8mb
10/20/0200Z 82.925°N 85.439°W -17.8°C 1005.3mb
10/20/0100Z 82.925°N 85.436°W -17.8°C 1005.8mb
10/20/0000Z 82.926°N 85.433°W -16.8°C 1006.6mb

The specifics are here:
http://www.cmr.no/cmr_instrumentation/doc/PDF%20files/ICEX%20II%20datasheet.pdf


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
23-10-2015 03:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:We can climb out.

...and for those that cannot climb out? Are they "trapped"?

They are, but their air isn't.

Of course a baby elephant would get warmer as it expended energy to try to get out of the hole. If it never does, it gets colder (it dies).

On a data topic, you were asking about the daily floating buoy data.

For example:

...data...

The specifics are here:
http://www.cmr.no/cmr_instrumentation/doc/PDF%20files/ICEX%20II%20datasheet.pdf

Thank you for providing the specifics. Sounds like they're tough little buggers. I assume they just drift with the ice or the sea, then.

Thank you for providing another source of reliable and verifiable data.
Edited on 23-10-2015 03:36
23-10-2015 18:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Into the Night wrote:Thank you for providing another source of reliable and verifiable data.

Sure.

Could you help Surface Detail and I with the source of the data you used in debunking correlations between atmospheric CO2 and storm activity?

Surface Detail would like to show, if possible, how Atlantic storm activity is steadily growing and how hurricane Patricia corroborates the IPCC projection of increased storm activity and valid data would be useful in that regard.


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
23-10-2015 23:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Thank you for providing another source of reliable and verifiable data.

Sure.

Could you help Surface Detail and I with the source of the data you used in debunking correlations between atmospheric CO2 and storm activity?

Surface Detail would like to show, if possible, how Atlantic storm activity is steadily growing and how hurricane Patricia corroborates the IPCC projection of increased storm activity and valid data would be useful in that regard.


Historical category level convective activity (named hurricanes) since 1965.

year wind Hg Cat Name
1965 80 x x anna
. 135 941 4 betsy
. 85 974 2 carol
. 70 977 1 elena
1966 110 970 3 alma
. 65 985 1 becky
. 70 995 1 celia
. 75 989 1 dorothy
. 110 950 3 faith
. 130 929 4 inez
1967 75 982 1 arlene
. 95 958 2 chloe
. 140 923 5 beulah
. 75 973 1 doria
. 75 987 1 fern
. 80 981 1 heidi
1968 65 965 1 abby
. 65 990 1 brenda
. 70 985 1 dolly
. 75 965 1 gladys
1969 75 997 1 blanche
. 105 951 3 debbye
. 150 900 5 camille
. 100 973 3 francelia
. 110 979 3 gerda
. 75 984 1 holly
. 100 964 3 inga
. 65 985 1 i-21
. 90 978 2 kara
. 90 973 2 laurie
. 65 988 1 i-28
. 80 979 1 martha
1970 70 993 1 alma
. 110 945 3 celia
. 110 967 3 ella
. 90 974 2 h2-18
. 65 988 1 h1-19
1971 75 974 1 h1-14
. 75 977 1 beth
. 80 978 1 fern
. 140 973 5 edith
. 95 959 2 ginger
. 70 989 1 irene
1972 75 977 1 agnes
. 90 976 2 betty
. 70 997 1 dawn
. x x 4 charlie
1973 80 986 1 alice
. 80 977 1 brenda
. 100 962 3 ellen
. 70 978 1 fran
1974 100 977 3 becky
. 130 928 4 carmen
. 95 971 2 fifi
. 65 999 1 gertrude
1975 75 980 1 blanche
. 100 963 3 caroline
. 95 965 2 doris
. 110 955 3 eloise
. 90 977 2 faye
. 120 939 4 gladys
1976 105 957 3 belle
. 80 964 1 candice
. 90 945 2 emmy
. 100 963 3 frances
. 90 970 2 gloria
. 65 990 1 holly
1977 150 926 5 anita
. 65 995 1 babe
. 65 993 1 clara
. 75 980 1 dorothy
. 70 994 1 evelyn
1978 80 980 1 cora
. 120 956 4 ella
. 85 976 2 flossie
. 115 947 4 greta
. 70 991 1 kendra
1979 65 986 1 bob
. 150 924 5 david
. 115 943 4 frederic
. 85 975 2 gloria
. 75 983 1 henri
1980 165 899 5 allen
. 85 975 2 bonnie
. 70 989 1 charley
. 70 993 1 georges
. 65 985 1 earl
. 100 658 3 frances
. 90 971 2 ivan
. 85 986 2 jeanne
. 75 985 1 karl
1981 70 995 1 dennis
. 80 966 1 emily
. 100 975 3 floyd
. 90 98 2 gert
. 115 946 4 harvey
. 105 959 3 irine
. 75 980 1 katrina
1982 75 985 1 alberto
. 115 950 4 debby
1983 100 962 3 alicia
. 70 986 1 barry
. 65 664 1 chantal
1984 115 979 4 diana
. 65 993 1 hortense
. 90 965 2 josephine
. 80 971 1 klaus
. 70 980 1 lili
1985 65 1002 1 bob
. 75 980 1 claudette
. 80 987 1 danny
. 110 953 3 elena
. 125 920 4 gloria
. 75 971 1 juan
. 105 654 3 kate
1986 75 990 1 bonnie
. 70 980 1 charley
. 90 979 2 earl
. 75 1000 1 frances
1987 65 987 1 arlene
. 110 958 3 emily
. 65 993 1 floyd
1988 65 987 1 debby
. 70 982 1 florence
. 160 888 5 gilbert
. 125 938 4 helene
. 125 932 4 joan
. x x x keit
1989 70 984 1 chantal
. 90 965 2 dean
. 90 968 2 erin
. 75 979 1 felix
. 125 935 4 gabrielle
. 140 918 5 hugo
. 75 982 1 jerry
1990 70 973 1 bertha
. 95 980 2 diana
. 105 956 3 gustiv
. 85 978 2 isidore
. 75 980 1 josephine
. 70 985 1 klaus
. 65 987 1 lili
. 75 989 1 nana
1991 100 950 3 bob
. 115 644 4 claudette
. 90 980 2 grace
. 65 972 1 h1-12
1992 150 922 5 andrew
. 95 965 2 bonnie
. 95 965 2 charley
. 75 973 1 frances
1993 100 960 3 emily
. 0 0 0 floyd
. 85 970 2 gert
. 65 990 1 harvy
1994 70 979 1 chris
. 95 972 2 florence
. 75 980 1 gordon
1995 65 982 1 allison
. 85 973 2 erin
. 120 929 4 felix
. 95 968 2 humberto
. 95 957 2 iris
. 120 935 4 luis
. 100 949 3 marilyn
. 65 987 1 noel
. 130 916 4 opal
. 100 956 3 roxanne
. 75 971 1 tanya
1996 100 960 3 bertha
. 75 985 1 cesar
. 70 989 1 dolly
. 125 933 4 edourd
. 105 946 3 fran
. 120 935 4 hortense
. 400 960 3 isidore
. 100 960 3 lili
. 65 983 1 marco
1997 65 986 1 bill
. 70 984 1 danny
. 110 946 3 erika
1998 100 654 3 bonnie
. 90 960 2 danielle
. 85 964 2 earl
. 135 937 4 georges
. 80 975 1 ivan
. 90 969 2 jeanne
. 90 970 2 karl
. 65 995 1 lisa
. 155 905 5 mitch
. 75 979 1 nicole
1999 125 944 4 bret
. 120 942 4 cindy
. 90 962 2 dennis
. 135 921 4 floyd
. 130 930 4 gert
. 95 958 2 irine
. 85 979 2 jose
. 135 933 4 lenny
2000 100 950 3 alberto
. 75 997 1 debby
. 70 985 1 florence
. 70 981 1 gordon
. 120 943 4 isaac
. 80 975 1 joyce
. 120 939 4 keith
. 85 965 2 michael
2001 105 968 3 erin
. 100 962 1 felix
. 70 975 1 gabrielle
. 90 970 2 humberto
. 125 948 4 iris
. 70 982 1 karen
. 120 934 4 michelle
. 65 986 1 noel
. 80 973 1 olga
2002 85 960 2 gustav
. 110 934 3 isidore
. 75 980 1 kyle
. 125 938 4 lili
2003 80 979 1 claudette
. 95 1000 1 danny
. 65 986 1 erika
. 125 939 4 fabian
. 145 915 5 isabel
. 90 969 2 juan
. 110 952 3 kate
2004 105 957 3 alex
. 130 941 4 charley
. 95 964 2 danialle
. 125 935 4 frances
. 65 985 1 gaston
. 145 910 5 ivan
. 105 950 3 jeanne
. 125 938 4 karl
. 65 987 1 lisa
2005 0 0 0 no catagory storm activity
2006 65 985 1 ernesto
. 80 963 1 florence
. 105 955 3 gordon
. 105 955 3 helene
. 75 985 1 isaac
2007 150 905 5 dean
. 150 929 5 felix
. 80 985 1 humberto
. 65 988 1 karen
. 70 990 1 lorenzo
2008 110 952 3 bertha
. 85 963 2 dolly
. 135 941 4 gustav
. 75 977 1 hanna
. 125 935 4 ike
. 75 984 1 kyle
. 115 958 4 omar
. 125 944 4 paloma
2009 115 943 4 bill
. 105 958 3 fred
. 90 975 2 ida
2010 95 946 2 alex
. 115 942 4 danielle
. 125 924 4 earl
. 135 964 4 igor
. 120 948 4 julia
. 110 956 3 karl
. 75 982 1 lisa
. 75 976 1 otto
. 90 981 2 paula
. 85 977 2 richard
. 65 989 1 shary
. 85 982 2 tomas
2011 105 942 3 irene
. 120 642 4 katia
. 70 983 1 maria
. 65 994 1 nate
. 120 940 4 ophelia
. 80 976 1 philippe
. 100 966 3 rina
2012 75 974 1 chris
. 85 973 2 erneso
. 95 965 2 gordon
. 70 965 1 isaac
. 90 970 2 kirk
. 70 968 1 leslie
. 100 964 3 michael
. 80 978 1 nadine
. 80 966 1 rafael
. 100 940 3 sandy
2013 80 979 1 humberto
. 75 983 1 ingrid
2014 85 972 2 arthur
. 70 996 1 bertha
. 75 963 1 cristoral
. 105 955 3 edourd
. 70 983 1 fay
. 125 940 4 gonzalo
2015 100 0 3 danny
. 75 0 1 fred
. 135 0 4 joaquin


Source: Tropical Prediction Center, operated by NOAA.
Note. Reliable data goes back to 1944 when we first started flying aircraft into hurricanes. This list has been 'cherry picked' only back to 1960 due to the comparison against CO2 measurements not being available before then. 2015 measurements are not final and therefore contain no pressure information.

As you can see, by any measure, hurricane activity seems to have NO correlation with either CO2 concentration, temperature (whether you use local station data or composite NOAA manufactured stuff), or the size of any ice pack claimed.

Note there was no named category level convective activity at all in 2005. So, starting from THAT as a base...you could say this activity has increased since 2005, but that's really cherry picking.

(gawd the table handling on this site sucks)
Edited on 23-10-2015 23:29
23-10-2015 23:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Note there was no named category level convective activity at all in 2005.

I guess Katrina, Rita and Wilma must have been figments of our collective imagination then.
23-10-2015 23:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Note there was no named category level convective activity at all in 2005.

I guess Katrina, Rita and Wilma must have been figments of our collective imagination then.


Not at all. Data was misformatted that year. Corrected dataset for that year follows:

2005 65 992 1 cindy
. 130 9360 4 denis
. 135 929 4 emily
. 85 975 2 irene
. 150 902 5 katrina
. 100 960 3 maria
. 80 979 1 nate
. 80 976 1 ohelia
. 70 985 1 philippe
. 150 897 5 rita
. 70 979 1 stan
. 65 987 1 vince
. 150 882 5 wilma
. 100 960 3 beta
. 75 979 1 epsilon

Same source: corrected for 2005 (sorry about that!)

Guess you can't use 2005 as the starting base after all!
Edited on 23-10-2015 23:36
23-10-2015 23:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Thanks. IBdaMann has, however, misinformed you. We were talking about storms worldwide, not just in the Atlantic. Also, the suggested correlation is between the frequency of intense storms (i.e. at least Category 4) and global temperature, not all storms and CO2. Detail is not IBdaMann's strong point.

A graph showing the number of storms (hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones) of Category 4 or higher that have occurred anywhere in the world each year would be interesting.
24-10-2015 00:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:
Thanks. IBdaMann has, however, misinformed you. We were talking about storms worldwide, not just in the Atlantic.

What we were talking about doesn't include the Atlantic?

How did that happen?


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
24-10-2015 00:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Thanks. IBdaMann has, however, misinformed you. We were talking about storms worldwide, not just in the Atlantic.

What we were talking about doesn't include the Atlantic?

How did that happen?

Not just in the Atlantic.
24-10-2015 00:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Thanks. IBdaMann has, however, misinformed you. We were talking about storms worldwide, not just in the Atlantic.

What we were talking about doesn't include the Atlantic?

How did that happen?

Not just in the Atlantic.

So it includes the Atlantic, yes? We can talk about the Atlantic because it's included in what we're talking about, yes?

*and* we have data for the Atlantic, so we can talk about 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
24-10-2015 00:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
We also have data for the Pacific, and you'd reach a completely different conclusion if you just used that data. Neither ocean is representative of the whole globe. That's why it only makes sense to include the data on all intense storms.
24-10-2015 00:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:
We also have data for the Pacific, and you'd reach a completely different conclusion if you just used that data. Neither ocean is representative of the whole globe. That's why it only makes sense to include the data on all intense storms.

We can certainly talk about the Pacific after we talk about the Atlantic.


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
24-10-2015 02:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Thanks. IBdaMann has, however, misinformed you. We were talking about storms worldwide, not just in the Atlantic. Also, the suggested correlation is between the frequency of intense storms (i.e. at least Category 4) and global temperature, not all storms and CO2. Detail is not IBdaMann's strong point.

A graph showing the number of storms (hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones) of Category 4 or higher that have occurred anywhere in the world each year would be interesting.


Eastern pacific data hurricane summary. This is the year, followed by the number of category level convective storms, followed by the number of those category 4 or greater.


year hur cat4
-----------------------
1965 1 0
1966 7 0
1967 7 1
1968 6 0
1969 4 0
1970 5 0
1971 12 1
1972 9 1
1973 7 9
1974 11 1
1975 9 2
1976 9 4
1977 4 0
1978 14 5
1979 6 2
1980 7 1
1981 8 0
1982 12 1
1984 13 4
1985 13 3
1986 9 3
1987 10 2
1988 7 2
1989 9 2
1990 16 4
1991 10 2
1992 16 7
1993 11 7
1994 10 5
1995 7 3
1996 5 1
1997 11 8
1998 9 3
1999 6 1
2000 6 1
2001 8 2
2002 8 4
2003 7 0
2004 6 2
2005 7 1
2006 11 2
2007 4 1
2008 7 1
2009 8 3
2010 3 1
2011 10 4
2012 10 1
2013 10 0
2014 16 7
2015 15 9

Source: Tropical Prediction Center operated by NOAA.
Note: Data before 1971 contains incomplete information. Eastern Pacific storms are not as closely monitored as Atlantic hurricane activity due to the lessor likelihood of landfall. This information is tabulated for marine traffic use.

Note: Detail data available. Summary provided instead to save room in the website.

As you can see, the eastern pacific record is filled with quiet years and violent years that seem to have no correlation with CO2, temperatures, or ice packs.

2015 seems to a particularly violent year in the Eastern Pacific. The last time we had this many cat4 storms and higher was in 1973. We came somewhat close in 1992, 1993, and 1997.
These were followed by quiet years in 1996 and 2000. In 2013 we had a lot of cat1 to cat3 storms, but no cat4 storms or higher. In 2010 we had barely much activity at all.

Isn't attempting to win by moving the goalposts a bitch SF?
Edited on 24-10-2015 02:08
24-10-2015 03:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
I'm not "attempting to win", nor am I "moving goalposts". I'm simply trying to get an unbiased view of the data. The data in the paper I referred to in the other thread indicated that, up until 2004 (the paper was published in 2005), the number and proportion of storms of Category 4 and above throughout the world had increased. I suggested that, by the same criteria, that increase had continued. That's why I said I'd like to see the same data series continued. IBdaMann's the goalpost shuffler here.

Nobody expects the number to increase monotonically. That's why you have to plot a graph of the data rather than making guesses at a trend from tabular data.
Edited on 24-10-2015 03:37
24-10-2015 09:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:I'm not "attempting to win", nor am I "moving goalposts".

Oh yeah, you're moving the goalposts faster than anyone can keep up, just because you want to EVADE discussing that which you asserted before thinking it through. You are so accustomed to not checking your facts and just reposting whatever wacky feel-good church literature that you encounter that you were caught off guard and panicked.

Good job at EVADING and of shifting what was an easily verifiable assertion (verifiably false) into the realm of complete unfasifiability just to defend your religion.

Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann's the goalpost shuffler here.

In line with you not being the expert at what things mean, providing data that backs your religious claims into a corner is not "shifting goal posts."

Surface Detail wrote: That's why you have to plot a graph of the data rather than making guesses at a trend from tabular data.

Not at all. You can reformat the data any way you wish. No one else is required to do that for you. If that's your best excuse for EVADING the topic, it's pretty lame.


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
Page 3 of 8<12345>>>





Join the debate The Data Mine:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate Data Gaps?125-06-2019 13:28
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data627-05-2019 21:00
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 03:44
▲ 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