Remember me
▼ Content

The Debate


The Debate14-05-2017 20:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
I have gone out an looked at the other forums for Climate Change Debate and it was pretty shocking.

Most of these sites do not allow "deniers".

And why is that? One put it succinctly by essentially saying that "It is all your fault that you forced me to shove my fingers in my ears and close my eyes because you were throwing wicked science at me that was against my beliefs."

All over the net what we're seeing is the totally false claim of 97% consensus was why those totally unqualified to tell you that water was H2O were screaming "GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL US ALL".

The actual science that shows no such thing and the total lack of any significant heating doesn't make any difference.

We have even seen them resorting to fake news to "prove" that we are heating. We have seen NOAA and NASA standing behind fake science and the entire Democrat party supporting it because Trump said it was a hoax.

Well, whether or not the True Believers follow their religion religiously you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The actual science such as: http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html#width or: https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf or: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25472-congress-investigates-fraudulent-science-used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty

Or even direct measurements of the effects of CO2: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

have no effect.

What we have seen is the founding of a new religion. And one that is supported almost entirely by people who do not know anything whatsoever about it.

The same people that decry the "damage" of Christianity for suggesting that we be better to one another are telling us we should destroy the "fossil fuel" owners. They don't even know that almost everyone that owns an IRA - all of the little people - are the true owners.

Will anyone be able to counteract The Church of Global Warming? I find it extremely doubtful. Even those arguing against it often do not have sufficient knowledge of science to make any sense. So how could you expect a minority - real scientists - to make a dent in these beliefs?

The only thing that will work is the failure of their God to deliver on his promises. So we will have to wait it out - 2010, 2020 - perhaps even later in another little ice age before the most stubborn give up.
14-05-2017 23:16
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Hy Wake, could you possibly give a me a list of those forums? Sure I googled some, but those I found were pretty lame. I am sure you will know more than those I found. If posting them here is a problem, please send a private message.

thx
15-05-2017 04:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Leitwolf wrote:
Hy Wake, could you possibly give a me a list of those forums? Sure I googled some, but those I found were pretty lame. I am sure you will know more than those I found. If posting them here is a problem, please send a private message.

thx


The only one that isn't a "denier hater" is the Canadian group.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/climate-change/

Others that are almost complete irresponsible are:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/ These people make Chief Stupidlight look almost sane.

http://www.ejleadershipforum.org/

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/6/1/Climate_Change_Forum (I would be careful of this one since it appears to me to be capable of identify theft or at least of selling all of your personal information for advertising.)

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/48618-arctic-sea-ice-extent-area-and-volume/?page=16

Lot's of absolutely PRO-AGW's here. I don't think you could get any scientific fact in with a crowbar. The one that calls himself "meteroligist" thinks that warm today means AGW is occuring. That past history is no proof of future occurrence.

If it's cold today that proves AGW even more positively.
15-05-2017 05:33
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: chief stupidlight"....If it's cold today that proves AGW even more positively.

Solar TSI has been languid for decades & below normal for 10+years (including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low). Last three years have been Earth's successively hottest years. For 388+ straight months Earth temps have been over the 20th Century average. They ain't goin' ta retreat to 20th Century average or go lower, like AGW denier liar whiners keep sayin' we're in an ice age. Presently, to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is almost 10,000 cubic kilometers less than the average year for the 1980's. Presently, to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 11,000+ cubic kilometers less than the year 1979. Predictions are being listed, declaring the decades in the future when many of Mt.Rainier's glaciers cease to exist.
15-05-2017 20:41
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Is there no one else? It that really all? I mean, we are discussing here on the english version of a danish message board, and the danish version seems to have just as many posts. Given that Denmark holds only 5 mio. residents, that relation may be reasonable.

But the rest of the world? Reddit? If have seen that before, it is totally pathetic. ejleadershipforum is not even a message board. scienceagogo is a few posts now and then, most remain unanswered. And americanwx is struggling to have any discussion.

Furthermore we have couple of "critical" sites, but they too will not have open discussion boards.

And then there a couple of german message boards on politics and so on. But once you try to reasonably discuss climate change, things turn nasty.

It's just incredible..
17-05-2017 21:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Wake wrote: What we have seen is the founding of a new religion. And one that is supported almost entirely by people who do not know anything whatsoever about it.

Hence my long-standing signature block item:

"Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate."

Wake wrote: Will anyone be able to counteract The Church of Global Warming?

The Church of Global Warming is dying very rapidly. Nobody outside it pays any attention to the "Climate Conferences." or to the IPCC. A religion of hate and of blind obedience to stupidity is just not in high demand except to scientifically illiterate losers.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
17-05-2017 22:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: What we have seen is the founding of a new religion. And one that is supported almost entirely by people who do not know anything whatsoever about it.

Hence my long-standing signature block item:

"Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate."

Wake wrote: Will anyone be able to counteract The Church of Global Warming?

The Church of Global Warming is dying very rapidly. Nobody outside it pays any attention to the "Climate Conferences." or to the IPCC. A religion of hate and of blind obedience to stupidity is just not in high demand except to scientifically illiterate losers.


It would be nice to see. NOAA and NASA suddenly is releasing real information since Trump threatened to cut their funding. The latest papers out of them suddenly find no heating where before we were having "the hottest year ever".
17-05-2017 23:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Wake wrote:It would be nice to see. NOAA and NASA suddenly is releasing real information since Trump threatened to cut their funding. The latest papers out of them suddenly find no heating where before we were having "the hottest year ever".

This is the current situation we face in that area.

No person, organization or government can measure the earth's average global temperature to any useful accuracy. This precludes anyone from knowing if there is any warming or cooling.

Anytime your computed temperature change is less than your margin of error, you can draw no conclusions. This, however, does not stop the Church of Global Warming from preaching dogma as "valid resulting conclusions" from the tops of the highest mountains.

Government agencies are headed by political appointees who follow the political agendas of their appointing administration. The political appointees who headed NASA and NOAA during the Obama administration cultivated a government propaganda factory to fabricate fake Climate news for the devoted gullible, complete with fabricated numbers but absent any margin of error.

If you want to identify gullible people, just look for those who rush to post the government-fabricated fake newsbites, e.g. "last [insert time period] was the warmest of the instrument record!"

This is the world in which we live.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
17-05-2017 23:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:It would be nice to see. NOAA and NASA suddenly is releasing real information since Trump threatened to cut their funding. The latest papers out of them suddenly find no heating where before we were having "the hottest year ever".

This is the current situation we face in that area.

No person, organization or government can measure the earth's average global temperature to any useful accuracy. This precludes anyone from knowing if there is any warming or cooling.

Anytime your computed temperature change is less than your margin of error, you can draw no conclusions. This, however, does not stop the Church of Global Warming from preaching dogma as "valid resulting conclusions" from the tops of the highest mountains.

Government agencies are headed by political appointees who follow the political agendas of their appointing administration. The political appointees who headed NASA and NOAA during the Obama administration cultivated a government propaganda factory to fabricate fake Climate news for the devoted gullible, complete with fabricated numbers but absent any margin of error.

If you want to identify gullible people, just look for those who rush to post the government-fabricated fake newsbites, e.g. "last [insert time period] was the warmest of the instrument record!"

This is the world in which we live.


.


Since 1979 we have had the capacity from satellite data to calculate the heat on the surface of the Earth over a 24 hour period almost to the square meter.

But no one has used that data to confront the True Believers until Dr. Spencer.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

Now what we're seeing is comments like "see it's going up" when it averages a neutral climate.
18-05-2017 02:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Wake wrote: Since 1979 we have had the capacity from satellite data to calculate the heat on the surface of the Earth over a 24 hour period almost to the square meter.

Yeah, I know you BELIEVE that. I notice that you made ZERO mention of margins of error which are everything.

What margin of error do you consider acceptable?

Wake wrote: But no one has used that data to confront the True Believers until Dr. Spencer.

What is a "True Believer" and why should I care what this Dr. Spencer has to say?

Wake wrote: Now what we're seeing is comments like "see it's going up" when it averages a neutral climate.


Do you believe there is such a thing as a "global climate"?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
18-05-2017 05:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Since 1979 we have had the capacity from satellite data to calculate the heat on the surface of the Earth over a 24 hour period almost to the square meter.

Yeah, I know you BELIEVE that. I notice that you made ZERO mention of margins of error which are everything.

What margin of error do you consider acceptable?

Wake wrote: But no one has used that data to confront the True Believers until Dr. Spencer.

What is a "True Believer" and why should I care what this Dr. Spencer has to say?

Wake wrote: Now what we're seeing is comments like "see it's going up" when it averages a neutral climate.


Do you believe there is such a thing as a "global climate"?


Click.
18-05-2017 05:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Wake wrote: Click.

... and that says it all.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
25-05-2017 20:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Click.

... and that says it all.
.


What really says it all is that you think that there is "margin of error". What do you believe is a margin of error in a IR photograph that can read temperatures within very small fractions of a degree? They can zoom in so closely that they can pick up the body heat of a dog on a warn night.

This technology is unquestionably accurate and there is almost no "margin of error". Unless you wish to invent some.
25-05-2017 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Click.

... and that says it all.
.


What really says it all is that you think that there is "margin of error". What do you believe is a margin of error in a IR photograph that can read temperatures within very small fractions of a degree? They can zoom in so closely that they can pick up the body heat of a dog on a warn night.

That depends entirely on how many samples are taken and how steep the temperature gradient is over that sample area. Since the Church of Global Warming refers to the entire globe as the sample area, the population gradient must be taken from the same area.
Wake wrote:
This technology is unquestionably accurate and there is almost no "margin of error". Unless you wish to invent some.

Margin of error is a statistical calculation. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the instrument(s). It is a required calculation for any statistical summary.

IR photographs and IR imaging is great, but they are very poor at measuring absolute temperatures. The reason is that you don't know the emissivity of the object you are measuring. These can show relative temperatures very well, but they cannot measure absolute temperature, which is required to determine the temperature of the Earth.

To determine the emissivity of a surface, you need to know it's temperature accurately beforehand. Since you don't know what it is without using a contact thermometer, using IR imaging to measure the temperature of the Earth is essentially an argument from randU, a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-05-2017 21:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Click.

... and that says it all.
.


What really says it all is that you think that there is "margin of error". What do you believe is a margin of error in a IR photograph that can read temperatures within very small fractions of a degree? They can zoom in so closely that they can pick up the body heat of a dog on a warn night.

That depends entirely on how many samples are taken and how steep the temperature gradient is over that sample area. Since the Church of Global Warming refers to the entire globe as the sample area, the population gradient must be taken from the same area.
Wake wrote:
This technology is unquestionably accurate and there is almost no "margin of error". Unless you wish to invent some.

Margin of error is a statistical calculation. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the instrument(s). It is a required calculation for any statistical summary.

IR photographs and IR imaging is great, but they are very poor at measuring absolute temperatures. The reason is that you don't know the emissivity of the object you are measuring. These can show relative temperatures very well, but they cannot measure absolute temperature, which is required to determine the temperature of the Earth.

To determine the emissivity of a surface, you need to know it's temperature accurately beforehand. Since you don't know what it is without using a contact thermometer, using IR imaging to measure the temperature of the Earth is essentially an argument from randU, a fallacy.


Temperatures are not "relative". They are absolute and measured in Kelvin. There is a slight deviation in fractions of a percent since the Earth is not a perfect ball.

You have absolutely NO NEED to know emissivity. In any case it changes across the entire face of the Earth pointed to the Sun.

We have absolute measurements of the Sun's emissions on a second by second basis.

Where in hell are you getting idea like this from? You first talk about science and then deny it.
25-05-2017 23:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Click.

... and that says it all.
.


What really says it all is that you think that there is "margin of error". What do you believe is a margin of error in a IR photograph that can read temperatures within very small fractions of a degree? They can zoom in so closely that they can pick up the body heat of a dog on a warn night.

That depends entirely on how many samples are taken and how steep the temperature gradient is over that sample area. Since the Church of Global Warming refers to the entire globe as the sample area, the population gradient must be taken from the same area.
Wake wrote:
This technology is unquestionably accurate and there is almost no "margin of error". Unless you wish to invent some.

Margin of error is a statistical calculation. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the instrument(s). It is a required calculation for any statistical summary.

IR photographs and IR imaging is great, but they are very poor at measuring absolute temperatures. The reason is that you don't know the emissivity of the object you are measuring. These can show relative temperatures very well, but they cannot measure absolute temperature, which is required to determine the temperature of the Earth.

To determine the emissivity of a surface, you need to know it's temperature accurately beforehand. Since you don't know what it is without using a contact thermometer, using IR imaging to measure the temperature of the Earth is essentially an argument from randU, a fallacy.


Temperatures are not "relative".

Temperatures can be measured relative to each other, just as distance on a ruler can be measured relative to another mark on the same ruler.
Wake wrote:
They are absolute and measured in Kelvin.
Temperature is measured on many scales. Kelvin is only one of them. There is no 'best' scale. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
What you call 'zero' is actually chosen by YOU. You choose the reference for your particular needs at the time.

This is actually starting to enter another Domain of mathematics.

Wake wrote:
There is a slight deviation in fractions of a percent since the Earth is not a perfect ball.
Makes no diff.
Wake wrote:
You have absolutely NO NEED to know emissivity.
If you are going to measure temperature by using infrared imaging, yes you do.
Wake wrote:
In any case it changes across the entire face of the Earth pointed to the Sun.
It changes every few inches, across a surface of approx 170 million square miles. Such a change can be rather dramatic.
Wake wrote:
We have absolute measurements of the Sun's emissions on a second by second basis.
But you don't know it's emissivity. Therefore you don't know it's absorption rate.
Wake wrote:
Where in hell are you getting idea like this from? You first talk about science and then deny it.

I have denied no science. Please state the theory of science you think I have violated.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-05-2017 00:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Click.

... and that says it all.
.


What really says it all is that you think that there is "margin of error". What do you believe is a margin of error in a IR photograph that can read temperatures within very small fractions of a degree? They can zoom in so closely that they can pick up the body heat of a dog on a warn night.

That depends entirely on how many samples are taken and how steep the temperature gradient is over that sample area. Since the Church of Global Warming refers to the entire globe as the sample area, the population gradient must be taken from the same area.
Wake wrote:
This technology is unquestionably accurate and there is almost no "margin of error". Unless you wish to invent some.

Margin of error is a statistical calculation. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the instrument(s). It is a required calculation for any statistical summary.

IR photographs and IR imaging is great, but they are very poor at measuring absolute temperatures. The reason is that you don't know the emissivity of the object you are measuring. These can show relative temperatures very well, but they cannot measure absolute temperature, which is required to determine the temperature of the Earth.

To determine the emissivity of a surface, you need to know it's temperature accurately beforehand. Since you don't know what it is without using a contact thermometer, using IR imaging to measure the temperature of the Earth is essentially an argument from randU, a fallacy.


Temperatures are not "relative".

Temperatures can be measured relative to each other, just as distance on a ruler can be measured relative to another mark on the same ruler.
Wake wrote:
They are absolute and measured in Kelvin.
Temperature is measured on many scales. Kelvin is only one of them. There is no 'best' scale. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
What you call 'zero' is actually chosen by YOU. You choose the reference for your particular needs at the time.

This is actually starting to enter another Domain of mathematics.

Wake wrote:
There is a slight deviation in fractions of a percent since the Earth is not a perfect ball.
Makes no diff.
Wake wrote:
You have absolutely NO NEED to know emissivity.
If you are going to measure temperature by using infrared imaging, yes you do.
Wake wrote:
In any case it changes across the entire face of the Earth pointed to the Sun.
It changes every few inches, across a surface of approx 170 million square miles. Such a change can be rather dramatic.
Wake wrote:
We have absolute measurements of the Sun's emissions on a second by second basis.
But you don't know it's emissivity. Therefore you don't know it's absorption rate.
Wake wrote:
Where in hell are you getting idea like this from? You first talk about science and then deny it.

I have denied no science. Please state the theory of science you think I have violated.


By the posting you are getting wackier.

Since you don't understand the Kelvin scale it's no surprise you think there are "many" scales. What in hell does emissivity have to do with absorption? Infrared imaging TELLS you what the emissions are and not visa versa.

What you apparently don't know about science would fill a book. You have no idea of why I would speak of the Earth not being a perfect sphere. You don't appear to understand the basic laws of radiation after talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as if it were a magic bullet. I am having trouble thinking of something you do know about science since you don't understand satellite measurements of energy output.
26-05-2017 01:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Click.

... and that says it all.
.


What really says it all is that you think that there is "margin of error". What do you believe is a margin of error in a IR photograph that can read temperatures within very small fractions of a degree? They can zoom in so closely that they can pick up the body heat of a dog on a warn night.

That depends entirely on how many samples are taken and how steep the temperature gradient is over that sample area. Since the Church of Global Warming refers to the entire globe as the sample area, the population gradient must be taken from the same area.
Wake wrote:
This technology is unquestionably accurate and there is almost no "margin of error". Unless you wish to invent some.

Margin of error is a statistical calculation. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the instrument(s). It is a required calculation for any statistical summary.

IR photographs and IR imaging is great, but they are very poor at measuring absolute temperatures. The reason is that you don't know the emissivity of the object you are measuring. These can show relative temperatures very well, but they cannot measure absolute temperature, which is required to determine the temperature of the Earth.

To determine the emissivity of a surface, you need to know it's temperature accurately beforehand. Since you don't know what it is without using a contact thermometer, using IR imaging to measure the temperature of the Earth is essentially an argument from randU, a fallacy.


Temperatures are not "relative".

Temperatures can be measured relative to each other, just as distance on a ruler can be measured relative to another mark on the same ruler.
Wake wrote:
They are absolute and measured in Kelvin.
Temperature is measured on many scales. Kelvin is only one of them. There is no 'best' scale. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
What you call 'zero' is actually chosen by YOU. You choose the reference for your particular needs at the time.

This is actually starting to enter another Domain of mathematics.

Wake wrote:
There is a slight deviation in fractions of a percent since the Earth is not a perfect ball.
Makes no diff.
Wake wrote:
You have absolutely NO NEED to know emissivity.
If you are going to measure temperature by using infrared imaging, yes you do.
Wake wrote:
In any case it changes across the entire face of the Earth pointed to the Sun.
It changes every few inches, across a surface of approx 170 million square miles. Such a change can be rather dramatic.
Wake wrote:
We have absolute measurements of the Sun's emissions on a second by second basis.
But you don't know it's emissivity. Therefore you don't know it's absorption rate.
Wake wrote:
Where in hell are you getting idea like this from? You first talk about science and then deny it.

I have denied no science. Please state the theory of science you think I have violated.


By the posting you are getting wackier.
I take it you can't specify the law being violated.
Wake wrote:
Since you don't understand the Kelvin scale
Whatever gave you that idea?
Wake wrote:
it's no surprise you think there are "many" scales.
There are. Do you consider the inch or the centimeter to be the only 'true' measure of distance?
Wake wrote:
What in hell does emissivity have to do with absorption?
Everything. They are the same. That is basic blackbody science.
Wake wrote:
Infrared imaging TELLS you what the emissions are and not visa versa.
Wrong. Infrared imaging tells you the amount of light, or the radiance of something. That is the combined light from emission via S-B plus any reflected or refracted light.
Wake wrote:
What you apparently don't know about science would fill a book.

Attempted redefinition of 'void' as 'non-void'.
Wake wrote:
You have no idea of why I would speak of the Earth not being a perfect sphere.
Don't see why you are making a point of this. It makes no difference to emissivity.
Wake wrote:
You don't appear to understand the basic laws of radiation after talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as if it were a magic bullet.

I can't help it if you can't understand the difference between thermal energy, kinetic energy, and electromagnetic energy.
Wake wrote:
I am having trouble thinking of something you do know about science since you don't understand satellite measurements of energy output.

No. Satellites measure electromagnetic energy, or in other words, light. They cannot measure thermal energy since they are not in contact with the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-05-2017 03:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Wake wrote: Since you don't understand the Kelvin scale it's no surprise you think there are "many" scales.

Well, your position has degenerated to the point that you can only embarrass yourself with your own scientific illiteracy and have been relegated to merely hurling lame declarations that others don't understand the science you don't understand.

Too funny.

Wake wrote: What in hell does emissivity have to do with absorption?

<head in hands> You've got to be joking! </head in hands>

This is the hallmark question of the scientifically illiterate. Yes, there really are stupid questions and now we have a real winner.

That was one seriously stupid question.

Wake wrote: What you apparently don't know about science would fill a book.

Once again, the scientifically brain-dead is pathetically declaring that *others* somehow don't understand science.

Priceless.

Wake wrote: You have no idea of why I would speak of the Earth not being a perfect sphere.

I know exactly why. You read something that you didn't understand, about some radiation formulas being based on the surface of a sphere, and you had no understanding of the material to tell you that blackbody radiation applies to all matter, always, everywhere, regardless of shape.

Rushing to Wikipedia is not even a close substitute for learning the material ... which you obviously don't want to do.

Wake wrote: You don't appear to understand the basic laws of radiation after talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as if it were a magic bullet.

He has only been explaining it to you in post after post.

This is yet another example of your desperate bid to win an argument by simply declaring that your opponent somehow does not understand the science you don't understand.

Wake wrote: I am having trouble thinking of something you do know about science ....

Quite the testament to your inability to think.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
26-05-2017 17:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
.


You don't even know what I said. So carry on.
26-05-2017 20:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
.


You don't even know what I said. So carry on.


Then you must have some inability to communicate. Why don't you try saying what you 'said' in a different way?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-05-2017 20:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
.


You don't even know what I said. So carry on.


Then you must have some inability to communicate. Why don't you try saying what you 'said' in a different way?


You do not appear to have any problems communicating. This was not directed at you. But to our friend who does not know what radiation is.
26-05-2017 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
.


You don't even know what I said. So carry on.


Then you must have some inability to communicate. Why don't you try saying what you 'said' in a different way?


You do not appear to have any problems communicating. This was not directed at you. But to our friend who does not know what radiation is.


His point is clear. He also addressed each of the things you 'said' quite well. I believe the inability to communicate is either you, or you are just trying to hurl an insult instead of addressing the substance of the conversation.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-05-2017 20:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
.


You don't even know what I said. So carry on.


Then you must have some inability to communicate. Why don't you try saying what you 'said' in a different way?


You do not appear to have any problems communicating. This was not directed at you. But to our friend who does not know what radiation is.


His point is clear. He also addressed each of the things you 'said' quite well. I believe the inability to communicate is either you, or you are just trying to hurl an insult instead of addressing the substance of the conversation.


The substance of the conversation was that he was denying thermal radiation or low frequencies of any sort were electromagnetic in nature.

(Wikipedia) "Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum."

(Wikipedia) "Ultra low frequency (ULF) is the ITU designation for the frequency range of electromagnetic waves between 300 hertz and 3 kilohertz. In magnetosphere science and seismology, alternative definitions are usually given, including ranges from 1 mHz to 100 Hz, 1 mHz to 1 Hz, 10 mHz to 10 Hz."

ANY wave that can move through a vacuum is electromagnetic in nature.

Or are you also denying that? Do you want to argue about the nature of photons?
26-05-2017 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
.


You don't even know what I said. So carry on.


Then you must have some inability to communicate. Why don't you try saying what you 'said' in a different way?


You do not appear to have any problems communicating. This was not directed at you. But to our friend who does not know what radiation is.


His point is clear. He also addressed each of the things you 'said' quite well. I believe the inability to communicate is either you, or you are just trying to hurl an insult instead of addressing the substance of the conversation.


The substance of the conversation was that he was denying thermal radiation or low frequencies of any sort were electromagnetic in nature.
Nope. He is saying thermal energy is not the same as electromagnetic energy.
Wake wrote:
(Wikipedia) "Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum."
Quoting Wikipedia is summarily dismissed. This is wrong. Thermal energy does not radiate. Electromagnetic energy does.
Wake wrote:
(Wikipedia) "Ultra low frequency (ULF) is the ITU designation for the frequency range of electromagnetic waves between 300 hertz and 3 kilohertz. In magnetosphere science and seismology, alternative definitions are usually given, including ranges from 1 mHz to 100 Hz, 1 mHz to 1 Hz, 10 mHz to 10 Hz."
Wikipedia is summarily dismissed. This is also somewhat wrong. I am a licensed radio technician. I know what the ITU designations are and why. They come from the FCC designations. You are AGAIN confusing electromagnetic energy with thermal energy (probably because you believe Wikipedia is infallible).
Wake wrote:
ANY wave that can move through a vacuum is electromagnetic in nature.
This is correct.
Wake wrote:
Or are you also denying that?
Huh??? I'm the one that said it!
Wake wrote:
Do you want to argue about the nature of photons?

We could, but you probably will get in trouble there too, since you don't seem to understand the difference between thermal energy and light.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit




Join the debate The Debate:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
debate2103-10-2020 20:14
Setting the record straight on the climate debate4018-03-2020 05:32
Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?6519-07-2019 07:37
Climate debate myth1822-06-2019 20:58
Climate change is on the move — but the political debate is standing still130-04-2019 16:29
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact