Remember me
▼ Content

The failure of climate change theory



Page 3 of 4<1234>
03-11-2015 21:19
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@tommy100010 - I agree with you. I have been posting here regularly for over a month now, and I've found people like IBdaMann, Into the Night and Tim the plumber to be making little sense and insulting everyone in ear shot as you are talking about. In particular, they do so without providing any personal scientific background or experience upon which to found their statements. I've addressed this in the following thread (you may want to read their profiles there):

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/who-is-who-on-climate-debate-com-d15-e789.php#post_4322

In addition, I've started a thread to discuss adding a "Post by Invitation" (PBI) feature to this website. That way, you can start a thread and only invite people who you choose to participate in that thread. My proposal is at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/pbi-a-new-way-to-moderate-climate-debate-com-without-traditional-moderators-d15-e794.php#post_4534

As you might expect, you will already find IBdaMann posting in a disruptive manner there, which only proves my point for the need to have PBI on this website.


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!
03-11-2015 21:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote: Nope, I am interested in learning more about the planet, and I am motivated by doing something worthwhile with my time, not something that is driven by sales targets.

That's awesome. Very noble. Do you think a religion is going to give you some knowledge that you aren't going to get from science? You've already learned that the "greenhouse effect" is a religious myth. Why keep the faith?

climate scientist wrote: My knowledge of climate change is based on facts and evidence, and (to keep you happy) falsifiable models.

Let's talk about some of those falsifiable models. Pick one. I'm interested. Which one convinced you Global Warming is real?

climate scientist wrote: If I am not sure about the facts and evidence relating to various aspects of climate science, then I say so.

Would you admit to being uncertain about whether there is any such thing as "climate" science?

climate scientist wrote: Likewise, I find it very interesting that there has been a hiatus in the global surface temperature record recently.

Would you admit to wondering how anyone can claim to have measured the earth's average global temperature?

climate scientist wrote: I do not think that this feature will be permanent (i.e. I think the rate of warming will pick up again, since we are still adding a copious amount of CO2 to the atmosphere every year) but I am very curious to know what the causes of the temperature hiatus are.

Please do tell why you think this. Does it have to do with your belief that CO2 has certain magical thermal energy-manufacturing superpowers? Would you admit to being uncertain as to how CO2 can create the additional energy that "warms" the earth?

Please tell me for what things mentioned above you will not admit uncertainty so we can discuss the science that made you certain.


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
03-11-2015 23:08
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
tommy100010 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tommy100010 wrote:
Climate Scientist... I have come to realize that increased atmospheric Co2 is both a cause and an effect of global warming (positive feedback) and now agree with the ipcc view.

tom


Is your belief based on some science that you have reviewed and understand, or is your belief based on WACKY religious faith?


Please.... I'm a physical chemist and have considered the evidence carefully.... I would really love for our species not to be in trouble

tom
Consider IBs 'authoritative' sources

Cliff Harris: No qualifications in any field of science and no published research. He apparently calls himself "one of the top climatologists in the world" because he has kept scrap-books of temperatures since he was a child. He is a devout Christian who believes only God can change the climate and that he can predict the climate using the Bible.


Robert Felix: An out of work former architect with no qualifications in any relevant field of science and no published research. He believes there is an Ice Age Coming..... any day now. He wrote a self-published book about his beliefs and you can buy it from his website.

IB could also be just batshyte crazy like his sources.



Edited on 03-11-2015 23:11
04-11-2015 01:25
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
You've already learned that the "greenhouse effect" is a religious myth.


Absolutely not. The greenhouse effect is inherent in the technology that we use in our lab to measure atmospheric CO2. It is also inherent in every CO2 safety sensor all over the world (such devices are common in businesses where pure CO2 gas cylinders are used). The technology is NDIR, and proves that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. See here:

http://www.licor.com/env/products/gas_analysis/LI-820/

Licor have been selling these for about 30 years, and no one has complained yet that they don't work.

Typical work safety CO2 sensors are sold here: http://www.gassensing.co.uk/about-us/our-technology/

Let's talk about some of those falsifiable models. Pick one. I'm interested. Which one convinced you Global Warming is real?


I already did. Go and search through the old posts in the other threads.

Would you admit to being uncertain about whether there is any such thing as "climate" science?


Absolutely not. Climate can be measured and studied, in the same way that the ocean can be measured and studied, or lungs, or sea ice, or possums....

Would you admit to wondering how anyone can claim to have measured the earth's average global temperature?


There are hundreds of temperature records from all around the world. When you average them, you get a global average temperature. It is possible to test whether this global average is robust by randomly excluding 50% of the stations from your average. If you get the same value, then your average is robust. This can be repeated hundreds of times, where each time you randomly exclude a different 50% of the stations. This will then give you an average global temperature +/- a standard deviation on that average, which tells you about the uncertainty of that average.

Please tell me for what things mentioned above you will not admit uncertainty so we can discuss the science that made you certain.


I have not made anything certain. Of course everything has an uncertainty, but it might be very small. The fact that you are ignorant about something does not give it a high uncertainty. Likewise, the fact that I am knowledgeable about something does not give it a low uncertainty. Uncertainty is determined by data and evidence and statistics, not by how many people agree on something.
04-11-2015 02:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
climate scientist wrote:
You've already learned that the "greenhouse effect" is a religious myth.


Absolutely not. The greenhouse effect is inherent in the technology that we use in our lab to measure atmospheric CO2. It is also inherent in every CO2 safety sensor all over the world (such devices are common in businesses where pure CO2 gas cylinders are used). The technology is NDIR, and proves that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. See here:

http://www.licor.com/env/products/gas_analysis/LI-820/

Licor have been selling these for about 30 years, and no one has complained yet that they don't work.

Typical work safety CO2 sensors are sold here: http://www.gassensing.co.uk/about-us/our-technology/

Let's talk about some of those falsifiable models. Pick one. I'm interested. Which one convinced you Global Warming is real?


I already did. Go and search through the old posts in the other threads.

Would you admit to being uncertain about whether there is any such thing as "climate" science?


Absolutely not. Climate can be measured and studied, in the same way that the ocean can be measured and studied, or lungs, or sea ice, or possums....

Would you admit to wondering how anyone can claim to have measured the earth's average global temperature?


There are hundreds of temperature records from all around the world. When you average them, you get a global average temperature. It is possible to test whether this global average is robust by randomly excluding 50% of the stations from your average. If you get the same value, then your average is robust. This can be repeated hundreds of times, where each time you randomly exclude a different 50% of the stations. This will then give you an average global temperature +/- a standard deviation on that average, which tells you about the uncertainty of that average.

Please tell me for what things mentioned above you will not admit uncertainty so we can discuss the science that made you certain.


I have not made anything certain. Of course everything has an uncertainty, but it might be very small. The fact that you are ignorant about something does not give it a high uncertainty. Likewise, the fact that I am knowledgeable about something does not give it a low uncertainty. Uncertainty is determined by data and evidence and statistics, not by how many people agree on something.

Why is there such certainty that the mid infrared that carbon dioxide absorbs must be coming from the Earth and only the Earth? The Earth isn't anywhere near that cold. Not even the troposphere is that cold.

The great bulk of mid infrared energy is incoming energy from the sun. Any absorption from the miniscule amount of carbon dioxide there is, is going to be from that incoming energy, effectively cooling the surface of the Earth during the day.

Calculating an 'average' temperature in the way you suggest creates a compositional fallacy. Even if you remove a random set of thermometers from your sample and recalculate to verify your stability, it does not mean the number you come up with has anything to do with a global temperature of any kind. It is simply the mean temperature of your sample, and only your sample. Since we do not have thermometers uniformly scattered around the world (not even close), and there is no way to verify calibration between them (not even close), there is no way to build a meaningful sample size.
04-11-2015 07:25
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
You've already learned that the "greenhouse effect" is a religious myth.


Absolutely not. The greenhouse effect is inherent in the technology that we use in our lab to measure atmospheric CO2. It is also inherent in every CO2 safety sensor all over the world (such devices are common in businesses where pure CO2 gas cylinders are used). The technology is NDIR, and proves that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. See here:

http://www.licor.com/env/products/gas_analysis/LI-820/

Licor have been selling these for about 30 years, and no one has complained yet that they don't work.

Typical work safety CO2 sensors are sold here: http://www.gassensing.co.uk/about-us/our-technology/

Let's talk about some of those falsifiable models. Pick one. I'm interested. Which one convinced you Global Warming is real?


I already did. Go and search through the old posts in the other threads.

Would you admit to being uncertain about whether there is any such thing as "climate" science?


Absolutely not. Climate can be measured and studied, in the same way that the ocean can be measured and studied, or lungs, or sea ice, or possums....

Would you admit to wondering how anyone can claim to have measured the earth's average global temperature?


There are hundreds of temperature records from all around the world. When you average them, you get a global average temperature. It is possible to test whether this global average is robust by randomly excluding 50% of the stations from your average. If you get the same value, then your average is robust. This can be repeated hundreds of times, where each time you randomly exclude a different 50% of the stations. This will then give you an average global temperature +/- a standard deviation on that average, which tells you about the uncertainty of that average.

Please tell me for what things mentioned above you will not admit uncertainty so we can discuss the science that made you certain.


I have not made anything certain. Of course everything has an uncertainty, but it might be very small. The fact that you are ignorant about something does not give it a high uncertainty. Likewise, the fact that I am knowledgeable about something does not give it a low uncertainty. Uncertainty is determined by data and evidence and statistics, not by how many people agree on something.


Based on the evidence of his posts, I think we can state with a very high degree of certainty that IBdaMann does not have an effing clue what he is raving about.


Perhaps he should go rant at every major Science Institution in the world and tell them why he's thinks they got everything so wrong - according to him: D

Like the National Academies of Sciences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JX-ioSmNW8

And perhaps he can go rant to the US Airforce that their heat seeking missiles, jets and rockets can't possibly work- according to him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoR4ezwKh5E

Or he can go have a circle jerk with his messiah Cliff Harris (who he has used as an 'authoritative' source) who has no background at all in any field of science, believes that only God can change the climate, and that he can predict climate using the Bible




Edited on 04-11-2015 07:31
04-11-2015 09:18
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Why is there such certainty that the mid infrared that carbon dioxide absorbs must be coming from the Earth and only the Earth? The Earth isn't anywhere near that cold. Not even the troposphere is that cold.

The great bulk of mid infrared energy is incoming energy from the sun. Any absorption from the miniscule amount of carbon dioxide there is, is going to be from that incoming energy, effectively cooling the surface of the Earth during the day.



Has it ever crossed your mind ITN, to do something really far out, crazy and wild like.... read an undergrad textbook on atmospheric physics and chemistry?




This 2011 article from Physics Today (published by the American Institute of Physics) is a good summary of what you would find in any current atmospheric physics and chemistry textbook.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf



Edited on 04-11-2015 09:29
04-11-2015 10:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
For those posters interested in evidence-based science rather than crank pseudoscience myths, you may find these 2 textbooks interesting:

Historical Perspectives on Climate Change by Professor James Rodger Fleming published by Oxford University Press 1998

You can find an online scanned copy here:

Historical_Perspectives_on_Climate_Change.pdf



and

The Discovery of Global Warming by Professor Spencer Weart published by Harvard University Press 2008

You can find an updated online hyperlinked version including links to many of the cited papers, on the American Institute of Physics website here:

Table of Contents here:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents

Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Changing Sun, Changing Climate?




OR:

For those who want to feed their appetite for evidence-free crank pseudoscience myths, you can always read the self-published book by an out of work former architect with no background or qualifications in any relevant field of science and no published research, who believes that an Ice Age is Coming....any day now. His science-free book is available for purchase from his personal blog website:
http://iceagenow.info/

This is one of IBdaMann's and Into the Night's preferred "authoritative" sources




Edited on 04-11-2015 11:07
04-11-2015 14:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Ceist wrote: Has it ever crossed your mind ITN, to do something really far out, crazy and wild like.... read an undergrad textbook on atmospheric physics and chemistry?

Why hasn't it ever crossed yours?

Why are you even posting in this forum? Just read what the adults post and try to learn from 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
04-11-2015 14:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote: The greenhouse effect is inherent in the technology that we use in our lab to measure atmospheric CO2.

So you concede that assumptions about "greenhouse effect" are built into the measurements that go into your studies/reports/papers, yes?

climate scientist wrote: It is also inherent in every CO2 safety sensor all over the world (such devices are common in businesses where pure CO2 gas cylinders are used). The technology is NDIR, and proves that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.

So what, exactly is your version of the "greenhouse effect"? Proving that something absorbs infrared radiation only proves that it absorbs infrared radiation. The last time we covered this topic you failed miserably to define the "greenhouse effect" in any way that did not violate the 1st LoT, and in the process revealed that you don't have a solid basis in any sort of science to even discern science from religion, so what are you saying has changed since then?

I'm always willing to go over it again. How does CO2 increase earth's amount of thermal energy (i.e. increases its temperature)?


climate scientist wrote: I already did. Go and search through the old posts in the other threads.

I already did. There's nothing but your violations of physics and your desperation to quibble over variable names.

climate scientist wrote: Absolutely not. Climate can be measured and studied, in the same way that the ocean can be measured and studied, or lungs, or sea ice, or possums....

Thank you! You have shifted back to "climate" being a physical, tangible thing that can be measured. How long before you shift back to speaking of climate as a completely notional concept, i.e. averages, statistics, data, trends, etc..?

Religions are unfalsifiable dogmas. You have gone the extra mile to ensure yours is completely unfalsifiable, and of that we are completely "certain."


climate scientist wrote: There are hundreds of temperature records from all around the world. When you average them, you get a global average temperature.

Thank you! I appreciate you confirming my assertion that you have business discussing science whatsoever.


climate scientist wrote: It is possible to test whether this global average is robust by randomly excluding 50% of the stations from your average.

Wrong. You can stop now. "Robust" is not the right word here. You don't know what you are talking about.

The next time you talk about the "average global temperature" or anything involving data, I'll remind you what kind of margin of error you consider to be "acceptable" in measurements.

climate scientist wrote: I have not made anything certain.

Oh yes you did! You went down the list and insisted that you would not admit to any uncertainty. Logic 101 ia about to come into play. Either you are lying about the uncertainty you have in the listed areas or you are certain in all of it.

climate scientist wrote: Of course everything has an uncertainty...

...except when it comes to your religious beliefs. In that case you have complete certainty that your religion is science.

climate scientist wrote: Uncertainty is determined by data and evidence and statistics, not by how many people agree on something.

You are apparently willing to accept a gargantuan margin of error in the support of your faith, and will even feign an inability to read and comprehend English in the pursuit of defending your religious paradigms.


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
04-11-2015 15:08
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
So you concede that assumptions about "greenhouse effect" are built into the measurements that go into your studies/reports/papers, yes?


No. The technology that we used to measure CO2 in the atmosphere is based on the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared at a specific wavelength. This fact also forms the basis for the greenhouse effect. The measurements that I make are not based on assumptions about the greenhouse effect. Rather, the greenhouse effect is based on the absorption properties of CO2, which is inherent in the technology that I use to make the measurements.

So what, exactly is your version of the "greenhouse effect"? Proving that something absorbs infrared radiation only proves that it absorbs infrared radiation. The last time we covered this topic you failed miserably to define the "greenhouse effect" in any way that did not violate the 1st LoT, and in the process revealed that you don't have a solid basis in any sort of science to even discern science from religion, so what are you saying has changed since then?

I'm always willing to go over it again. How does CO2 increase earth's amount of thermal energy (i.e. increases its temperature)?


I have no wish to repeat myself. I posted all this information weeks ago. You are free to go back and find it if you wish to know.

I already did. There's nothing but your violations of physics and your desperation to quibble over variable names.


It's got nothing to do with me. I quoted references from physics textbooks, scientific literature, and blog posts. You have provided nothing. If you think the information I provided violates physics, then I guess that all of the physics textbooks are wrong!

Thank you! You have shifted back to "climate" being a physical, tangible thing that can be measured.


I never said that climate is a physical tangible thing. I said it can be determined from measurements. Can time be measured? Is it a physical, tangible thing? What about the annual mean global population? Can it be determined from measurements? Can we deduce changes in annual global mean population over time? Of course.

Climate is to annual mean global population as weather is to total number of people on the planet at a single moment.

Global annual mean population = average of the number of people living on Earth over a one year period.
Climate = average of the weather over a 25 year period.

Why is the concept of climate so difficult for you to understand? It is a very simple concept.

Oh yes you did! You went down the list and insisted that you would not admit to any uncertainty. Logic 101 ia about to come into play. Either you are lying about the uncertainty you have in the listed areas or you are certain in all of it.


Okay, I will revise my statement. Some things are certain. The fact that you are wrong is certain! The fact that CO2 absorbs infrared is certain. The prediction that we will reach 2 degrees of warming or more by 2100 is not certain, but this does not mean that it is not very likely. The fact that there is such a thing as climate science is certain. That fact that you do not agree with this is irrelevant!

As I have said before, you might as well be writing that there is no such thing as the moon!
04-11-2015 15:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote: No. The technology that we used to measure CO2 in the atmosphere is based on the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared at a specific wavelength. This fact also forms the basis for the greenhouse effect.

OK, I'll remove any expectations of you being able to perform basic logic.

CO2 absorbs IR EM. Yes. Equipment that measures CO2 absorbing IR EM proves neither the "greenhouse effect" nor that the equipment is based on the "greenhouse effect."

You can't even state the "greenhouse effect" in a manner that doesn't violate the laws of physics.

climate scientist wrote: The measurements that I make are not based on assumptions about the greenhouse effect.

Yes they are. You will apparently force a square peg into a round hole if that is what is required to substantitate your faith.

At the moment there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" in science. All you've got is your own personal version that you cannot express.


climate scientist wrote: I have no wish to repeat myself.

I inderstand. If I were a deeply religious warmizombie who knew he would have to provide science that he just didn't have, I wouldn't want to go through it a second time either.

But the fact is that you revealed the bogus faith-based nature of your version of the "greenhouse effect" and how you need to believe it to be "science", to call it "science", to preach "The Science."

Let me ask you an easy, straightforward question. Would it be a true statement to say "Climate changes in mysterious ways"?


climate scientist wrote: It's got nothing to do with me.

It has everything to do with you. You are the one preaching. This is a matter of what you believe and why.

You believe in your version of the "greenhouse effect." Check. (ref: previous posts, you don't have to repeat yourself)

You believe it because of your belief in violations of physics. Check (ref: previous posts, you don't have to repeat yourself)

Ergo, it is about you.

climate scientist wrote: I never said that climate is a physical tangible thing.

Yes you did. You said it could be measured. You insisted.

Of course, as I predicted, you ran back to cover your "completely notional" ground to make sure you could escape there as needed.

Can "climate" be measured? Yes or no?

climate scientist wrote: Why is the concept of climate so difficult for you to understand? It is a very simple concept.

Oh, I assure you, I understand the concepts of "climate" and of "the human soul" very well.

The better question is why can you no better define "climate" than Christians can define "soul"? Why must you cling to complete unfalsifiability as if your life depends on you hanging on, while at the same time insisting that it is science?

climate scientist wrote: Okay, I will revise my statement. Some things are certain. The fact that you are wrong is certain! The fact that CO2 absorbs infrared is certain. The prediction that we will reach 2 degrees of warming or more by 2100 is not certain, but this does not mean that it is not very likely. The fact that there is such a thing as climate science is certain. That fact that you do not agree with this is irrelevant!


That added no clarification whatsoever.

Will you admit to knowing of no model in the body of science that defines "climate"?


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
04-11-2015 16:09
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
You can't even state the "greenhouse effect" in a manner that doesn't violate the laws of physics.


You can't back up your ridiculous notion that the greenhouse effect somehow violates the laws of physics with any evidence from scientific literature.

Yes they are. You will apparently force a square peg into a round hole if that is what is required to substantitate your faith.


No they are not! The measurements that I make are based on technology that proves that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. The measurements are not based upon any assumptions relating to the greenhouse effect. It is not complicated. NDIR analysers absorb CO2 in the air using an IR source and detector. We put air from the atmosphere into the NDIR analyser. We get a CO2 measurement. No assumptions about the greenhouse effect are made.

It has everything to do with you. You are the one preaching. This is a matter of what you believe and why.


I am not preaching about anything. I have quoted directly from scientific sources. You are the one preaching, since none of your statements are backed up by anything.

You said it could be measured. You insisted.


It can. That does not mean it is tangible.

Will you admit to knowing of no model in the body of science that defines "climate"?


No I will not. Climate is a well defined concept. I already quoted to you its meaning from several scientific sources. I have yet to see you quote anything stating that the term climate is not a scientific term.
04-11-2015 16:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
You can't even state the "greenhouse effect" in a manner that doesn't violate the laws of physics.


You can't back up your ridiculous notion that the greenhouse effect somehow violates the laws of physics with any evidence from scientific literature.

Yes they are. You will apparently force a square peg into a round hole if that is what is required to substantitate your faith.


No they are not! The measurements that I make are based on technology that proves that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. The measurements are not based upon any assumptions relating to the greenhouse effect. It is not complicated. NDIR analysers absorb CO2 in the air using an IR source and detector. We put air from the atmosphere into the NDIR analyser. We get a CO2 measurement. No assumptions about the greenhouse effect are made.

It has everything to do with you. You are the one preaching. This is a matter of what you believe and why.


I am not preaching about anything. I have quoted directly from scientific sources. You are the one preaching, since none of your statements are backed up by anything.

You said it could be measured. You insisted.


It can. That does not mean it is tangible.

Will you admit to knowing of no model in the body of science that defines "climate"?


No I will not. Climate is a well defined concept. I already quoted to you its meaning from several scientific sources. I have yet to see you quote anything stating that the term climate is not a scientific term.


I think you've discovered by now that IB has created his own religion and created his own god in his own image. He calls his god "IBAwesome!". He prays to him at least every 10 seconds and loudly proclaims his god's name over and over again:

IBAwesome! IBAwesome! IBAwesome!

Praying like this helps to calm IBdaMann's fears of the world outside his own little universe that IBAwesome! created especially for him. This special little universe is called LaLaland.

When speaking directly to IBAwesome!'s one and only True Prophet IBdaMann (praise be his name, or else!), other people must address him by his title UBAwesome! UBdaMann!

In IBAwesome!'s LaLaland (safely tucked away inside a Teflon-coated science-denier shield), the laws of physics work the way IBAwesome!'s Prophet, IbdaMann, says they do.

Anything in LaLaland is what he says it is. There can be no argument about this. IBdaMann preaches his religion on internet forums, and you are blaspheming his religion and his god IBAwesome! every time you talk about science.

In IBAwesome!'s LaLaland, science is the evil nemesis that must be vanquished! IBdaMann has made it his life's work to zealously follow the command of IBAwesome! to hunt down blasphemers. If he doesn't, he will not get his reward of having sex with 72 eternally virgin sheep in the afterlife (called WattsUpWithThat).

Can you see now why he is so pugnaciously vehement? And why there is no hope of ever trying to discuss science with him without him reacting like a religious zealot on crack?



Edited on 04-11-2015 17:18
04-11-2015 17:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote: You can't back up your ridiculous notion that the greenhouse effect somehow violates the laws of physics with any evidence from scientific literature.
There's no scientific literature on how Christian miracle myths violate the laws of physics.

Different religious denominations have differing versions of their dogma. Your version of "greenhouse effect" violates the 1st LoT, and no one expects to find a treatise of your version of your religious dogma in any scientific literature.

[quote]climate scientist wrote: No they are not! The measurements that I make are based on technology that proves that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.

...but you originally said that the "greenhouse effect is inherent in the technology that we use in our lab to measure atmospheric CO2." If we go by your past posts (so you don't have to repeat yourself) in which your version of the "greenhouse effect" is nothing but a violation of the 1st LoT then you are affirming that your lab's equipment is defective, which would speak volumes about any measurements thusly taken and about your resultant reports/studies/papers.

climate scientist wrote: NDIR analysers absorb CO2 in the air using an IR source and detector. We put air from the atmosphere into the NDIR analyser. We get a CO2 measurement.

So your equipment doesn't support your "greenhouse effect" in any way, right?

climate scientist wrote:I am not preaching about anything.

Bullshit.

Is "climate" well defined in science? (preach away, minister).

What science model defines "climate." Oh yeah, you don't want to "repeat yourself."

Well, there you have it.

Climate changes in mysterious ways.


climate scientist wrote:I have quoted directly from scientific sources.

You have, but only insofar as to reveal the violation of the 1st LoT.

You have never identified any science model that defines "climate."

climate scientist wrote: It can. That does not mean it is tangible.

You're now quibbling again over whether or not a better label could have been chosen. Fine, tip your king.

climate scientist wrote: No I will not. Climate is a well defined concept.

Game over. Time for you to hang it up.


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
04-11-2015 18:14
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@IBdaMann - Can you explain why you consider the "greenhouse effect" violates the first LoT?
04-11-2015 19:17
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
...but you originally said that the "greenhouse effect is inherent in the technology that we use in our lab to measure atmospheric CO2." If we go by your past posts (so you don't have to repeat yourself) in which your version of the "greenhouse effect" is nothing but a violation of the 1st LoT then you are affirming that your lab's equipment is defective, which would speak volumes about any measurements thusly taken and about your resultant reports/studies/papers.


Haha! You are free to call up Licor yourself and ask them about their supposedly defective equipment! Or any other company that sells NDIR analysers for that matter. There is nothing wrong with the CO2 analysers we use. The basic principle of the greenhouse effect is inherent in our analysers. But this does not mean that any of our data is somehow biased by any assumptions we are making relating to the greenhouse effect. Unless you think that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation. But this is a fact, not an assumption.

Bullshit.


You can throw your toys out of the pram as much as you want, but it doesn't make you any less wrong! And your bad language is not appreciated here.

You have, but only insofar as to reveal the violation of the 1st LoT.


So everyone, IBdaMann is claiming that physics textbook are wrong, and he is right. Hmm...

Game over. Time for you to hang it up.


This is not a competition. The winner doesn't get to re-write physics. What do you think you are trying to achieve? You can say what you want, but until you show evidence of how the greenhouse effect violates any of the laws of physics, you are not convincing anyone.
04-11-2015 19:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Totototo wrote: @IBdaMann - Can you explain why you consider the "greenhouse effect" violates the first LoT?


Sure. Remember, this is Climate Scientist's version of "greenhouse effect" so my explanation applies to any version that paralles his.

Given: Energy from the sun strikes the earth in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Climate Scientist claims that the earth's atmosphere contains magical "greenhouse gases" that somehow create thermal energy that results in an increase in the earth's temperature. This is a violation of the 1st LoT, i.e. energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Obviously the details about how the magical "greenhouse gases" create this additional thermal energy is unimportant. Sometimes the claim is that the "greenhouse gases" radiate more energy than they absorb. Sometimes the claim is that the direction of the thermal emission is somehow important because it goes "back towards the earth" and creates a "feedback loop" or some other lame nonsense. The specific magic that creates this increase in thermal energy, and thus increases the earth's temperature, is irrelevant. The earth's temperature is increased; ergo thermal energy is increased; ergo the 1st LoT is violated.

While we're talking about this, a common occurrence at this point is for the climate lemming to realize his error and to try a different argument, i.e. "No, no, no,...that's not what I meant! I, uh, meant something else entirely..." The argument then changes to: "The magical 'greenhouse gases' trap the thermal energy and slow the thermal radiation into space."

Unfortunately there are two physics violations in this new argument.

1. First, no substance can trap thermal energy or somehow hinder/slow its rate of thermal emission. Thermal radiation is solely a function of temperature. Temperature determines the rate of thermal emission, not the other way around. The rate of thermal emission does not determine the temperature.

2. Following from point one, if the earth's temperature is increasing then the earth's thermal emission into space is increasing. If earth's thermal emission is slowing then earth's temperature is cooling.

The majority of "greenhouse effect" arguments follow this path that ends in the model being FALSE.

This is why no one is willing to define "greenhouse effect" in a manner that doesn't violate the laws of physics...they just cannot.


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
04-11-2015 19:29
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Given: Energy from the sun strikes the earth in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Climate Scientist claims that the earth's atmosphere contains magical "greenhouse gases" that somehow create thermal energy that results in an increase in the earth's temperature. This is a violation of the 1st LoT, i.e. energy can neither be created nor destroyed.


Please don't mis-quote me. I never said that thermal energy is created, in fact I have specifically said that there is no creation of energy, since this would be a violation of the Law of Conservation of energy.

2. Following from point one, if the earth's temperature is increasing then the earth's thermal emission into space is increasing. If earth's thermal emission is slowing then earth's temperature is cooling.


Haha! Oh dear... you really don't understand anything do you!
04-11-2015 19:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote: Please don't mis-quote me.

I didn't even quote you.

Are you no longer claiming that "greenhouse gases" increase the earth's temperature?

climate scientist wrote: Haha! Oh dear... you really don't understand anything do you!

You're the fraud who is only here to play "pretend scientist." Any background you might have in science is so poor that you cannot even discuss the fundamentals. Your English comprehension is so poor that you cannot discuss pertinent documents. Your devotion to your faith has such a control over you that you cannot even be honest with yourself, much less with others.

Conversations with you about Global Warming come with the disclaimer "For Entertainment Purposes Only."


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
04-11-2015 20:08
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I didn't even quote you.


Now who is being picky. You said it was my claim. I never claimed that the greenhouse effect creates energy. In fact, I have said the opposite several times.

Are you no longer claiming that "greenhouse gases" increase the earth's temperature?


Um... no!? I said that the greenhouse effect does not create energy. I never said that increasing GHGs do not cause Earth's temperature to increase.

You're the fraud who is only here to play "pretend scientist." Any background you might have in science is so poor that you cannot even discuss the fundamentals. Your English comprehension is so poor that you cannot discuss pertinent documents. Your devotion to your faith has such a control over you that you cannot even be honest with yourself, much less with others.


You can insult me all you want, but I only see it as an evasion from the topic at hand. We are still waiting for you to provide evidence, proof even, that the greenhouse effect supposedly violates the laws of physics. The greenhouse effect is well established science. You will not find a scientific textbook written in the last 50 years that states that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. Therefore, it is on you to provide evidence that the greenhouse effect somehow violates any physical laws.

How many times do I need to ask, before you admit that you cannot provide any evidence.
04-11-2015 20:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Why is there such certainty that the mid infrared that carbon dioxide absorbs must be coming from the Earth and only the Earth? The Earth isn't anywhere near that cold. Not even the troposphere is that cold.

The great bulk of mid infrared energy is incoming energy from the sun. Any absorption from the miniscule amount of carbon dioxide there is, is going to be from that incoming energy, effectively cooling the surface of the Earth during the day.



This 2011 article from Physics Today (published by the American Institute of Physics) is a good summary of what you would find in any current atmospheric physics and chemistry textbook.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Has it ever crossed your mind ITN, to do something really far out, crazy and wild like.... read an undergrad textbook on atmospheric physics and chemistry?



Just because it's in a book does not make it right. Just because some U makes it a textbook does not make it right either.

Yes...I have read them. Like a lot textbooks today, I don't think they tell the truth. They propagate an agenda. I think what's happened to the University system and the K12 system is a crime. It is illiteracy being taught as the truth. It is worse than the biased media (many of which were 'educated' by these systems.

Fortunately, there are still enough courses being taught that are not bent up in this way. They are getting fewer and fewer, though.
04-11-2015 20:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
climate scientist wrote:
I didn't even quote you.


Now who is being picky. You said it was my claim. I never claimed that the greenhouse effect creates energy. In fact, I have said the opposite several times.

Are you no longer claiming that "greenhouse gases" increase the earth's temperature?


Um... no!? I said that the greenhouse effect does not create energy. I never said that increasing GHGs do not cause Earth's temperature to increase.

You are denying your own argument. First you say GHG's do not create energy. Then you say GHG's raise the Earth's temperature to increase (which is creating energy). Which is it?

climate scientist wrote:
You're the fraud who is only here to play "pretend scientist." Any background you might have in science is so poor that you cannot even discuss the fundamentals. Your English comprehension is so poor that you cannot discuss pertinent documents. Your devotion to your faith has such a control over you that you cannot even be honest with yourself, much less with others.


You can insult me all you want, but I only see it as an evasion from the topic at hand. We are still waiting for you to provide evidence, proof even, that the greenhouse effect supposedly violates the laws of physics. The greenhouse effect is well established science.

I'm still waiting for you to show us how greenhouse gases raising the surface temperature conforms to the laws of physics. All you've done is make vague references to textbooks.
climate scientist wrote:
You will not find a scientific textbook written in the last 50 years that states that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect.

It is getting pretty to find a textbook on anything that isn't screwed up in some major way since 50 years ago. Even the math and computer textbooks are getting pretty inane.
climate scientist wrote:
Therefore, it is on you to provide evidence that the greenhouse effect somehow violates any physical laws.

No, it is not. It is on you to justify the positive argument being made concerning GHG. You cannot pass the burden of proof to another that way.
climate scientist wrote:
How many times do I need to ask, before you admit that you cannot provide any evidence.

He doesn't need to. It is your burden of proof. It is you making the positive statement. He is only denying the validity of your positive statement by means of the incomplete proof.
04-11-2015 20:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote: Now who is being picky. You said it was my claim. I never claimed that the greenhouse effect creates energy. In fact, I have said the opposite several times.

Yes, you contradicted yourself repeatedly as you kept changing your position. All that matters is your claim that the magical "greenhouse gases" warm the earth, which necessarily means the earth increases in temperature, which necessarily means that thermal energy was increased. What does not matter is that you don't know enough basic science to know the meaning of what you say.

Warming the earth means an increase in thermal energy.

You also specify that no other souce of energy is involved; that your magical "greenhouse gases" do it all.

Ergo, you claim that your magical "greenhouse gases" somehow create the additional thermal energy that increase the earth's temperature, thus warming it. It does not matter if you used these words or if you even realize the implications of what you assert. Your English comprehension isn't very good anyway.

This is where we finished the last time, just after you panicked and started quibbling about variable names.

climate scientist wrote: You can insult me all you want, but I only see it as an evasion from the topic at hand.

Don't think of it as an insult so much as an observation of your weak points. Your only intention is to EVADE the main point which is that you cannot explain how you claim greenhouse gases "warm the earth" without violating the laws of physics.

Shall we just jump to the quibbling over some words?


climate scientist wrote: We are still waiting for you to provide evidence, proof even, that the greenhouse effect supposedly violates the laws of physics.

Stupid attempt to shift your burden of proof. However, that's a logical fallacy and logic has already been crossed off your skill sheet.

Let me know if I'm going to quickly for you. You need to provide a "greenhouse effect" that doesn't violate the laws of physics before I can say "You're right, this model doesn't violate the laws of physics."

It is invalid for you to say that I somehow need to prove what science says. I have explained repeatedly how your version of the "greenhouse effect" violates the laws of physics. The ball is in your court. You need to either find fault with the science I am citing or present a model that doesn't violate the science I am citing.

climate scientist wrote: The greenhouse effect is well established science.

Tom Cruise is more famous than you and he says Scientology is well established science.

You're both dupes. Global Warming is a well-established religion, and you and your dupe brethren cannot discern religion from science, thus you mistakenly believe Global Warming is well-established science.

Do you know why everything about your "The Science" either is completely unfalsifiable or is a violation of physics? (Hint: It's a religion, not well-established science).

climate scientist wrote: You will not find a scientific textbook written in the last 50 years that states that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect.

You will not find a scientific textbook written in the last 50 years that states there is no such thing as the human soul either. Science textbooks aren't supposed to be discussing religion.


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
04-11-2015 22:04
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
For goodness sake, I feel like I am trying to teach cats french!

You are denying your own argument. First you say GHG's do not create energy. Then you say GHG's raise the Earth's temperature to increase (which is creating energy). Which is it?


Energy and temperature are not the same thing. Anyone who knows anything about energy would know that energy is never created. It is only transformed from one form to another.

It is getting pretty to find a textbook on anything that isn't screwed up in some major way since 50 years ago. Even the math and computer textbooks are getting pretty inane.


Do you have any evidence for this statement? Are you referring to textbooks in the education system of your country only, or textbooks globally? Do you disbelieve other science in these textbooks? Such as the existence of cancer? How about the periodic table, is that a myth too?

I'm still waiting for you to show us how greenhouse gases raising the surface temperature conforms to the laws of physics. All you've done is make vague references to textbooks.


I already did this weeks ago when IBdaMann first arrived on the scene. I am not going to waste my time repeating myself. You can either go and find my old posts, or you can read this document: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

He doesn't need to. It is your burden of proof. It is you making the positive statement. He is only denying the validity of your positive statement by means of the incomplete proof.


I have not made any positive statement. I have quoted the status quo from scientific literature. If IBdaMann and yourself disagree with the scientific consensus, then you need to say why, and provide evidence and reasoning, not throw insults around and whinge like children.

Yes, you contradicted yourself repeatedly as you kept changing your position. All that matters is your claim that the magical "greenhouse gases" warm the earth, which necessarily means the earth increases in temperature, which necessarily means that thermal energy was increased. What does not matter is that you don't know enough basic science to know the meaning of what you say.

Warming the earth means an increase in thermal energy.


Haha! You can talk! Energy in the form of long-wave radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by GHGs in the atmosphere in all directions. The downwards radiation warms the surface of the Earth. No energy is created. It is just transferred from one form to another.

You also specify that no other souce of energy is involved; that your magical "greenhouse gases" do it all.

Ergo, you claim that your magical "greenhouse gases" somehow create the additional thermal energy that increase the earth's temperature, thus warming it. It does not matter if you used these words or if you even realize the implications of what you assert. Your English comprehension isn't very good anyway.


You are a liar! You keep posting things that I have supposedly claimed, which I have never claimed. And your posts are littered with grammatical errors, so you are also a hypocrite.

Don't think of it as an insult so much as an observation of your weak points. Your only intention is to EVADE the main point which is that you cannot explain how you claim greenhouse gases "warm the earth" without violating the laws of physics.


I did explain it. Weeks ago. I am still waiting for your explanation and evidence.

Tom Cruise is more famous than you and he says Scientology is well established science.


Since when did fame correlate with credibility, eh?

You're both dupes. Global Warming is a well-established religion, and you and your dupe brethren cannot discern religion from science, thus you mistakenly believe Global Warming is well-established science.


Translation: evade, evade, evade...

You will not find a scientific textbook written in the last 50 years that states there is no such thing as the human soul either. Science textbooks aren't supposed to be discussing religion.


Your logic is flawed. Scientific textbooks do not explain the existence or lack of existence of the human soul, because there is no scientific consensus about whether there is such a thing. But they do explain the greenhouse effect, because it is a fact that the greenhouse effect exists. Perhaps you should read a few textbooks...
05-11-2015 01:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
For goodness sake, I feel like I am trying to teach cats french!

You're dealing with 'Sky Dragon Slayers'.

Like 'flat earthers' and 'young earthers', they are impervious to science, facts, evidence and logic.

There are some interesting threads on Judith Curry's blog about Sky Dragon Slayers:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/10/greenhouse-dragon-technical-discussion-thread/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/

Even she is getting really tired of them clogging up her blog with their inanity. Considering she allows all sorts of anti-science scientist-bashing blowhards to post on her blog, that's saying something.




Edited on 05-11-2015 01:57
05-11-2015 04:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
climate scientist wrote:
For goodness sake, I feel like I am trying to teach cats french!

You are denying your own argument. First you say GHG's do not create energy. Then you say GHG's raise the Earth's temperature to increase (which is creating energy). Which is it?


Energy and temperature are not the same thing. Anyone who knows anything about energy would know that energy is never created. It is only transformed from one form to another.

Agreed.

climate scientist wrote:
It is getting pretty to find a textbook on anything that isn't screwed up in some major way since 50 years ago. Even the math and computer textbooks are getting pretty inane.


Do you have any evidence for this statement? Are you referring to textbooks in the education system of your country only, or textbooks globally? Do you disbelieve other science in these textbooks? Such as the existence of cancer? How about the periodic table, is that a myth too?

Compositional fallacy. Many nations are affected by these textbooks. Not everything in these textbooks is wrong. They are actually mostly right. They do contain material that is flat wrong. Courses taught from these textbooks echo the wrong material along with the useful stuff.

climate scientist wrote:
I'm still waiting for you to show us how greenhouse gases raising the surface temperature conforms to the laws of physics. All you've done is make vague references to textbooks.


I already did this weeks ago when IBdaMann first arrived on the scene. I am not going to waste my time repeating myself. You can either go and find my old posts, or you can read this document: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/


You have quoted this document numerous times. I believe it no more now than when you first did it. The IPCC is no valid source of anything.


climate scientist wrote:
He doesn't need to. It is your burden of proof. It is you making the positive statement. He is only denying the validity of your positive statement by means of the incomplete proof.


I have not made any positive statement. I have quoted the status quo from scientific literature. If IBdaMann and yourself disagree with the scientific consensus, then you need to say why, and provide evidence and reasoning, not throw insults around and whinge like children.

Yes you have. You are claiming the greenhouse gas trapping energy model. It does not matter if anyone else is claiming it or if it is established anything. Your claim is a positive statement. The burden of proof lies with you.


climate scientist wrote:
Yes, you contradicted yourself repeatedly as you kept changing your position. All that matters is your claim that the magical "greenhouse gases" warm the earth, which necessarily means the earth increases in temperature, which necessarily means that thermal energy was increased. What does not matter is that you don't know enough basic science to know the meaning of what you say.

Warming the earth means an increase in thermal energy.


Haha! You can talk! Energy in the form of long-wave radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by GHGs in the atmosphere in all directions. The downwards radiation warms the surface of the Earth. No energy is created. It is just transferred from one form to another.

You are creating energy out of nothing at the point you claim downwards radiation warms the surface of the Earth. This forms an energy trap that must produce a feed forward loop until the destruction of the Earth, which should have already happened.

climate scientist wrote:
You're both dupes. Global Warming is a well-established religion, and you and your dupe brethren cannot discern religion from science, thus you mistakenly believe Global Warming is well-established science.


Translation: evade, evade, evade...

Inversion. It is you that is evading here by providing no answer to this claim.
05-11-2015 05:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote: For goodness sake, I feel like I am trying to teach cats french!

I recommend you cut the bulverism, quit trying to preach and instead take the opportunity to learn something. You're not fooling anyone. No one imagines that listening to your drivel will somehow make him/her smarter.

climate scientist wrote: I already did this weeks ago when IBdaMann first arrived on the scene.

You did nothing but weasel.

climate scientist wrote: I have not made any positive statement.

So you don't believe there is any such "greenhouse effect"?

climate scientist wrote: I have quoted the...

...and no one who is asking you to explain what you are preaching cares what anyone else has to say. You explain it in your own words.

What science have you reviewed and understand that convinced you the "greenhouse effect" is something more than religious mythology? None? Fine.


climate scientist wrote: You are a liar!

...and you're a fucking moron. We had the damn math up and you were quibbling over the variable names. That was when you specified nothing else was adding any energy, dumbass.


climate scientist wrote: I did explain it. Weeks ago. I am still waiting for your explanation and evidence.


So you are going to hang your hat on a lame attempt to shift your burden of proof. Fine. We'll leave it at that.

climate scientist wrote: Your logic is flawed.

We have already established that you aren't the one to be commenting on logic.

You're done.


-------
By the way, in switching your entire argument to "greenhouse gases merely change the form of energy" you proved that "greenhouse gases" don't warm the earth (that only the sun does that) and that there is thus no "greenhouse effect." You slipped out of your violation of physics at the expense of your "greenhouse effect" conjecture. That's what happens when you are rash and don't think things through. Ergo, you still have not defined any "greenhouse effect" that does not violate the laws of physics.



.


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
05-11-2015 11:12
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Still no evidence or reasoning from either of you. Keep throwing those toys out of your pram IBdaMann. I'm not sure why the two of you expect me to explain the greenhouse effect to you in another other way than how it is explained in the literature? The greenhouse effect is the greenhouse effect, explaining it in one way or another will not change it, and does not make it more or less real.

Like I said before, climate science is about data and evidence. You don't get to vote about whether the greenhouse effect exists or not, in the same way you don't get to vote about whether gravity exists or not. It just does exist.

I'm not here to have a fight for the sake of it. But it is clear that the two of you are. You have no interest in discussing climate change. IBdaMann - you don't even think there is such a thing as climate! You both might as well have signed up to a forum that debates the ethics of assisted suicide, only to rant on about how there is no such thing as death anyway.

So post some evidence for your ridiculous claims or insult me again, and prove that I am right. You have no evidence and you are only here to pick a fight.
05-11-2015 13:08
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann stampedes around the internet ranting that climate science is a religious myth and that climate scientists and anyone else who doesn't accept his crank beliefs are morons, dumbasses, and marxist warmazombies following a religious cult ... blah blah blah.

He claims he is only saying what the 'body of science' says, despite never being able to provide any authoritative sources from the 'body of science' when challenged (because there aren't any that support his ridiculous pseudoscience Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense).

Then, when he finally provides a link, he uses Cliff Harris's website as an 'authoritative' source.

Cliff Harris claims he is one of the "top 10 climatologists in the last few decades" because he has kept some temperature 'scrapbooks' since he was a child.
Like IB, he also has no qualifications or background in any field of science, or any published research, but they both hold the delusional belief they are 'experts'.

But the real cracker, is that Cliff Harris is a devout Christian who believes that only God can change the earth's climate and believes he can predict the climate using the Bible.
THIS is what IB means by the 'body of science'?

IBdaMann: Hoisted with his own 'religious' petard*.


Incredibly funny.

*To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb".



Edited on 05-11-2015 13:23
05-11-2015 13:10
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
05-11-2015 17:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote:So post some evidence for your ridiculous claims or insult me again, and prove that I am right. You have no evidence and you are only here to pick a fight.

The only reason you are here is play "pretend scientist."




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
05-11-2015 17:46
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
The only reason you are here is play "pretend scientist."


I have no need to play pretend scientist. I get to play real scientist 5-6 days a week.

I am here because some people have genuine questions about climate change.
05-11-2015 18:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote:
I have no need to play pretend scientist. I get to play real scientist 5-6 days a week.

You hold Global Warming chapel services 5-6 days a week paying homage to the "greenhouse effect" and its "providence" (grant money).

climate scientist wrote: I am here because some people have genuine questions about climate change.

Just like people turn to their minsters for genuine questions about the afterlife and how they can save their soul.

Your abject need to refer to your unfalsifiable faith as "science" is reflective of just how confused your dogma has made you. Only people who are already committed to your faith will consider your violations of physics as "science."




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
05-11-2015 18:54
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Like I said, you can insult me all you want, but I have yet to see any scientific evidence from you IBdaMann!

Clearly, insulting me is the only thing you are capable of, because you are in fact a troll. But trying to dis-credit me has no bearing on the thousands of other scientists worldwide who study climate change. And, as I said before, Branner can vouch for my affiliation - why don't you go ahead and ask Branner if I am a fraud or not?
05-11-2015 20:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote: Like I said, you can insult me all you want, but I have yet to see any scientific evidence from you IBdaMann!

What is wrong with presenting science? We discussed the science you were violating...well after I had to teach it to you. Are you looking for "proof" that the laws of thermodynamics exist? Your request is stupid. If you could discern science from religion you wouldn't ask for supporting evidence for science. Supporting evidence is for religion. You claim that you have gone to school but no freshman physics student would look at the 1st LoT and demand proof.

You are the one claiming there is a "greenhouse effect" thing-a-ma-jig whatever. Someone convinced you that this imaginary dogma is science, and yet your inability to provide a falsifiable model somehow doesn't register with you as a red flag...you just bark orders for people to provide proof that it doesn't exist, just like a religious dupe.

You deserve all the mockery you get.

climate scientist wrote: Clearly, insulting me is the only thing you are capable of, because you are in fact a troll.

Warmizombies think the word "troll" means "any adult who invades my happy place and who threatens my imaginary reality."

You, on the other hand, are just a fucking idiot who doesn't know any science and who demands internet citations for science. Every educated person must appear to be a troll to you.



climate scientist wrote: But trying to dis-credit me has no bearing on the thousands of other scientists worldwide who study climate change.

Like all warmizombies, you somehow think you speak for countless, unnamed others. I'm about to burst your little bubble. You only get to speak for yourself. You don't get to speak for any "status quo." You don't get to speak for any "consensus." You don't get to speak for anyone for whom you don't have a published permission letter. That leaves you alone for whom you get to speak.

I'm sorry to break it to you.

If I ask branner if you can define the "greenhouse effect" without violating the the laws of physics, what will he tell me?


.


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
05-11-2015 21:04
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Oh dear, getting very worked up again, aren't you IBdaMann.

You are a troll because you subject me to personal abuse, not because you disagree with what I think. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I do not label people as trolls, just because they disagree with me, so long as they do not spew insults at me, like you do.

Well, I guess if you are not going to provide any evidence for your ridiculous claims, and show us all how you are right, and the rest of the scientific community is wrong, then that is fine by me!

If I ask branner if you can define the "greenhouse effect" without violating the the laws of physics, what will he tell me?


You are really getting desperate aren't you. It doesn't matter what Branner thinks about my abilities to define the greenhouse effect. You are claiming that I am not a scientist, and Branner is able to vouch for my affiliation, because Branner knows my identity. As I have said before, science is not based on peoples' opinions of facts. Branner might tell you that the greenhouse effect is caused by a giant glass box that surrounds the planet, but it wouldn't make it correct! You could ask everyone on the planet what their opinion of the greenhouse effect is, and it would have no bearing whatsoever on what the greenhouse effect actually is.
05-11-2015 21:42
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
Like I said, you can insult me all you want, but I have yet to see any scientific evidence from you IBdaMann!

Clearly, insulting me is the only thing you are capable of, because you are in fact a troll. But trying to dis-credit me has no bearing on the thousands of other scientists worldwide who study climate change. And, as I said before, Branner can vouch for my affiliation - why don't you go ahead and ask Branner if I am a fraud or not?


IB claims that "evidence plays no role in science" . That's very convenient because he has none.

When he claims to speak for the 'body of science', he isn't even speaking for the long-buried decayed corpses of science that have been autopsied a thousand times over.

He somehow isn't even aware that his pseudoscience claims are not only not correct, they are Not Even Wrong*.

*The phrase "not even wrong'" implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.




05-11-2015 21:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Ceist wrote:IB claims that "evidence plays no role in science" . That's very convenient because he has none.

I claim that "supporting evidence" has no role in science. Falsifying evidence is gold for the scientific method.

Ceist wrote:When he claims to speak for the 'body of science',

I cite science. I don't speak for the body of science; the body of science speaks for me.

Ceist drooled:



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
05-11-2015 23:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:IB claims that "evidence plays no role in science" . That's very convenient because he has none.

I claim that "supporting evidence" has no role in science. Falsifying evidence is gold for the scientific method.


In a way it does, but only when it is used to support a theory that is replacing another, due to the same evidence falsifying the old theory.

The only place where supporting evidence has a role is in rhetoric.
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate The failure of climate change theory:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Theory coming to fruition?1418-05-2019 22:43
An alternative theory from a non-scientist529-04-2019 18:28
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
Is Gore's theory CO2 causes warming false?2731-01-2019 00:19
Why I doubt the Climate Theory? Plant food causes climate change?315-12-2018 20:20
Articles
Theory
▲ 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