Remember me
▼ Content

The Top 4


The Top 409-11-2015 21:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
The biggest problem with "the greenhouse effect" is the word "the"...as if there is only one. There are, in fact, many, to include some that don't involve any increase in the average global atmospheric temperature. I will review here the Big 4 "greenhouse effect" models with explanations as to why they violate science.

One note first on semantics. It should be mentioned that quite a few "greenhouse effect" models don't depict anything beyond the sun simply warming the earth via solar electromagnetic energy. These particular models try to credit atmospheric substances, e.g. CO2, "greenhouse gases," etc., with performing the sun's job. However, when the sun radiates energy to the earth, if that energy changes form due to absorption and/or thermal emission by some substance, the substance does not somehow become the source of that energy nor does the substance become responsible for "warming" anything with that energy. These particular models don't involve any increase in the average temperature of the earth or earth's surface, and are not considered for this list.

1. Greenhouse Gases Create Heat (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (1st LoT): This is the most common model type. A believer in this model will tell you that if you were to swap out a certain quantity of the earth's atmospheric nitrogen and were to replace it with an equivalent mass of his/her favorite "greenhouse gas", that the earth's atmosphere would increase in temperature. This necessarily implies that total energy would increase due to that quantity of the "greenhouse gas." That necessarily implies that that quantity of "greenhouse gas" caused the creation of the additional energy, which is a flagrant violation of the 1st LoT. There is no need to analyze any further. If the average global atmospheric temperature will increase because of a change in atmospheric composition, then the compositional change is creating energy and the model is violating the 1st LoT. (Note: believers are quick to claim that the earth is not a closed system, but the sun and the earth both are part of the system in question).

2. Temperature as the Dependent Variable (in violation of Planck's Law). This model usually gains believers from the crowd that previously believed in the model described above but who eventually learned how it violates the 1st LoT and are thus looking to "relocate" their beliefs. This model works in two parts. First, the believer swaps the dependent variable of Planck's Law (radiation) with the independent variable (temperature), i.e. making temperature a resulting function of changes in thermal radiation (the first major error) and then secondly, the believer conflates thermal convection with thermal radiation and presumes that "greenhouse gases" can somehow regulate/insulate thermal radiation (second major error).

3. The Convoluted Invisible Mirror Layer (unfalsifiable). Yes, the sun's energy warms the surface of the earth. The earth's surface then radiates this energy away as thermal radiation which radiates off into space. After all, the thermal radiation originating from the surface has only one way to go, into the atmosphere and out into space. However some Global Warming believers have constructed a model that depicts a layer of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere that absorbs this "escaping" terrestrial thermal radiation and radiates about half of it back down to earth, acting like half a mirror that pumps 50% of the surface's thermal energy back into the surface. The problem with the depiction is that it cannot be analyzed and the conjecture that it results in an average atmospheric temperature increase is not testable. Any discussion of this model results in the claim that there isn't only one single-molecule layer of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere but rather that every single "greenhouse gas" molecule in the atmosphere acts this way, creating a virtually unlimited of number of nested infinite "feedback loops," i.e. escaping terrestrial thermal radiation actually shoots up one molecule distance from the earth to the first "greenhouse gas" molecule and half gets bounced back down to the surface which bounces back up one molecule and half again gets bounced back down ad infinitum...then this same infinite feedback loop exists between molecules two and three, except now molecule two acts as a "pass through" conduit for 50% of whatever thermal radiation it receives, complicating the feedback loops both above and below, ad infinitum, ...and this occurs up through every molecule-thick layer of the atmosphere, across the entirety of the atmosphere over the entire surface of the earth. Ergo, the claim is completely unfalsifiable that all these limitless nested infinite "feedback loops" combined somehow result in an increase in average atmospheric temperature.

4. Thermal Forcing (in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics). This model simply claims that "climate" uses its magic superpowers to "force" heat to flow from a cooler upper atmosphere to a warmer lower atmosphere in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2nd LoT). Any such miracle performed by "climate" is called a "forcing."
The vast majority of remaining "greenhouse effect" models involve varying combinations of these models.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-11-2015 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Beautiful summary of the various arguments! Also a nice depiction of exactly what is wrong with each one.
09-11-2015 23:28
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Beautiful example of how Sky Dragon Slayers are battling against their own made-up ridiculously ignorant straw man arguments and 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.



Edited on 09-11-2015 23:38
10-11-2015 04:28
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Interesting. I didn't get the second one though.
10-11-2015 11:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBda-science-and-reality-denier,

Here is a link to K-glass. It works by letting IR light through one way and not letting the lower frequency light back out.


https://www.pilkington.com/en-gb/uk/products/product-categories/thermal-insulation/pilkington-k-glass-range/pilkington-k-glass

It works. It makes the room hold onto heat better than normal glass.

Your idea that there cannot possibly be a greenhouse effect is driven by your private religion.

Edited on 10-11-2015 11:54
10-11-2015 16:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Tim the plumber wrote: IBda-science-and-reality-denier,

Tim, I realize that you're still upset that I pointed out that your faith is not science, and I also realize that you're a "shoot the messenger" kind of guy, but you need to let it go and move on. It's not like your continued denial is going to somehow make things better for you (although it might make you feel better, only you know for sure).

Tim the plumber wrote: Your idea that there cannot possibly be a greenhouse effect is driven by your private religion.

Tim, you are now reducing yourself to assigning to me positions I do not have, and then attacking me for those positions I do not have.

When have I ever said that there are no such things as greenhouses?

What I have said is that warmizombies and climate lemmings are typically so stupid that they do what you are doing now, i.e. confusing thermal convection with thermal radiation. Until you learn the difference between the two, you will remain an utter moron. Greenhouses use glass (or plastic) to block air from circulating. Air can be trapped, thermal radiation cannot.

So...stop being a religious coward and simply state your version of the "greenhouse effect", i.e. the reality that I am supposedly denying.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-11-2015 20:43
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
The biggest problem with "the greenhouse effect" is the word "the"...as if there is only one. There are, in fact, many, to include some that don't involve any increase in the average global atmospheric temperature. I will review here the Big 4 "greenhouse effect" models with explanations as to why they violate science.


That's great. Breaking things down into manageable chunks is a great way to promote understanding. However, I do need to point out, there is only one model of the greenhouse effect. Splitting it into four is your own invention. The Big 4 is a good name though. It does make it seem like you're reviewing an established position.

IBdaMann wrote:
One note first on semantics. It should be mentioned that quite a few "greenhouse effect" models don't depict anything beyond the sun simply warming the earth via solar electromagnetic energy. These particular models try to credit atmospheric substances, e.g. CO2, "greenhouse gases," etc., with performing the sun's job. However, when the sun radiates energy to the earth, if that energy changes form due to absorption and/or thermal emission by some substance, the substance does not somehow become the source of that energy nor does the substance become responsible for "warming" anything with that energy. These particular models don't involve any increase in the average temperature of the earth or earth's surface, and are not considered for this list.


I'm not seeing a semantic point there. However, I can't imagine any model of the greenhouse effect which, when applied to the earth and its atmosphere, wouldn't involve warming the earth's surface, so I'm fine with excluding these putative models from this discussion.

Off we go!

IBdaMann wrote:
1. Greenhouse Gases Create Heat (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (1st LoT): This is the most common model type.


Good start. I completely agree that if the greenhouse effect relies on the greenhouse gasses create heat from nothing, that's a clear violation of the 1st LoT.

IBdaMann wrote:
A believer in this model will tell you that if you were to swap out a certain quantity of the earth's atmospheric nitrogen and were to replace it with an equivalent mass of his/her favorite "greenhouse gas", that the earth's atmosphere would increase in temperature.


Hmm, I'm not sure why swapping with the equivalent mass is part of your argument here, vs. just adding some my favorite greenhouse gas (which is water vapor by the way in case anyone has started Christmas shopping yet, hint hint). It's not that this weakens your argument. I just don't see why it's relevant. Also, it's the surface of the earth that would warm. The lower atmosphere would also warm, but the immediate effect on the upper atmosphere would be cooling as less heat would reach it. That's in fact what we're seeing now: a warming trend at or near the earth's surface, and a cooling trend in the upper atmosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:
This necessarily implies that total energy would increase due to that quantity of the "greenhouse gas."


Yes, that's true. The total energy at the earth's surface, and eventually throughout the atmosphere would increase. Of course, the total energy in the universe doesn't increase by this effect. It's just less escapes into space.

IBdaMann wrote:
That necessarily implies that that quantity of "greenhouse gas" caused the creation of the additional energy, ...


What? No. Redistribution of energy doesn't imply creation of it. This is where your argument jumps the rails.

IBdaMann wrote:
... which is a flagrant violation of the 1st LoT.


A valiant attempt to get back on track, but the train of your logic is now lying on its side. Yes, creating energy would violate the 1st LoT, but that's not what the model says is happening. It says the greenhouse gasses are absorbing energy and then re-emitting back towards earth. Maybe you'll say that's a different model, but really that's the only model.

In fact, you've stated elsewhere that you do believe that greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation. That's really a tacit affirmation of your belief in the greenhouse effect ... that is unless you believe that the energy once absorbed would remain in the gas molecule forever, or that the photon when re-emitted would necessarily go in the same direction the original photon was going (away from earth), or that the photons re-emitted from the gas molecules that do get redirected back to the earth's surface somehow don't add energy to it. You don't believe any of those things, do you?

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no need to analyze any further.


Agreed.

IBdaMann wrote:
2. Temperature as the Dependent Variable (in violation of Planck's Law). This model usually gains believers from the crowd that previously believed in the model described above but who eventually learned how it violates the 1st LoT and are thus looking to "relocate" their beliefs.


I don't really follow this one. However, the crowd of people who think that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT is vanishingly small. Seriously, it barely registers even in fringe denial sites. Of the few that do think that, I doubt you could find a single one looking to "relocate their beliefs" in the greenhouse, much less a crowd. You believe it because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect. If this crowd of believers is fictional, then I don't see any point discussing what they believe.

One pipe dream ... can you show where Planck concluded that his law contradicted the greenhouse effect. In fact, it was Fourier's earlier work with blackbody radiation that led him to realize that the earth's surface was warmer than could be explained by solar irradiation alone.

IBdaMann wrote:
3. The Convoluted Invisible Mirror Layer (unfalsifiable).


Your analogy of a mirror breaks down on a couple of points. First, mirrors reflect light. Greenhouse gasses absorb light (in the infrared band), then re-emit it in a random direction. Still, that's not so different from partial reflection. The big problem with your analogy is that a mirror is a continuous surface reflecting all light that hits it. The atmosphere is mostly empty space. It's easy for a photon to travel all the way from the earth's surface into space without hitting a single molecule in the atmosphere, much less one that will absorb it. Your idea that greenhouse gasses form a kind of lattice, and every escaping photon must necessary be absorbed and re-emitted at each level is nonsensical. It also ignores that photons re-emitted towards earth can also be absorbed on the way down and then re-emitted back up.

Calling this mirror (that's not a mirror) invisible also misses the mark somewhat. Yes, it's invisible in the sense that it doesn't reflect or emit visible light. However, we do have instruments that can see infrared light, and yes they do detect infrared radiation from the atmosphere, and not just from the direction of the sun.

In regards to this effect being unfalsfiable, I agree it would be difficult to track one photon's tortuous route through the atmosphere. However, if there were measurements showing that greenhouse gasses were increasing in the atmosphere, and also measurements showed that incoming energy was equal to outgoing radiation, then I would take that to falsify the greenhouse effect. However, measurements currently show more radiation coming into the system than is going out, which is why the earth's surface is warming. This tends confirms the greenhouse effect, although it doesn't definitively prove that greenhouse gasses are causing the imbalance.

IBdaMann wrote:
4. Thermal Forcing (in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics). This model simply claims that "climate" uses its magic superpowers to "force" heat to flow from a cooler upper atmosphere to a warmer lower atmosphere in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2nd LoT). Any such miracle performed by "climate" is called a "forcing."


I've been wondering what you thought of the myth that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd LoT. This one seems much more widespread. That is, I can find several references to it online. The 1st LoT one, well, that seems to be just you, and maybe two or three other people.

First, the definition of a forcing isn't "magic superpower". It's just something that tends to push a system in a particular direction. For example, a change in the sun's output would be a forcing on temperature. You don't consider that to be "magic", right?

I agree that the 2nd LoT says heat can't flow from a cool area to a warm area, and that seems like what the greenhouse effect says must be happening. However, really the 2nd LoT just says that the net flow of energy from warm to cool must always be positive. It doesn't say that no energy at all can travel from a cool area to a warm. The greenhouse effect doesn't say that more energy flows from the atmosphere to the earth's surface than the other way around, just that some does, and that less energy escapes into space than would if the greenhouse gasses weren't there.


Wow, that was a slog! I hope (but doubt) that it helped you. It's not that I don't respect you. You're playing your hand very well. It's just that it's an extremely weak hand, and a couple of your cards are on fire.
10-11-2015 21:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Greg wrote:
However, I do need to point out, there is only one model of the greenhouse effect. Splitting it into four is your own invention.

Nope. Your personal version of the "greenhouse effect" might be that way but countless other versions vary from yours. I know you need to insist that your version is the only version because you wouldn't be able to otherwsie claim that it is based on the single solitary science model.

Greg wrote: The lower atmosphere would also warm, but the immediate effect on the upper atmosphere would be cooling as less heat would reach it. That's in fact what we're seeing now: a warming trend at or near the earth's surface, and a cooling trend in the upper atmosphere.

No, that's not what we're seeing now, at least not some new "trend."

Greg wrote: Yes, that's true. The total energy at the earth's surface, and eventually throughout the atmosphere would increase. Of course, the total energy in the universe doesn't increase by this effect. It's just less escapes into space.

This is a violation of Planck's Law.

Total energy increasing necessarily implies an increase in temperature. An increase in temperature necessarily implies a greater amount of energy radiating off into space.

Do yourself a favor and read a little.


Greg wrote: What? No. Redistribution of energy doesn't imply creation of it. This is where your argument jumps the rails.

We have already seen how your version jumps the rails by violating Planck's Law.

Just for completeness, in your version of the "greenhouse effect" is atmospheric convection considered to be "greenhouse effect" ?

Greg wrote:Yes, creating energy would violate the 1st LoT, but that's not what the model says is happening. It says the greenhouse gasses are absorbing energy and then re-emitting back towards earth. Maybe you'll say that's a different model, but really that's the only model.

In your version of the "greenhouse effect" the atmosphere's total energy increases. That can only happen by additional energy being created. You claim that "greenhouse gases" are responsible for this increase and you acknowledged how this violates the 1st LoT.

Thank you for proving my point, and perhaps now you see that the version of the "greenhouse effect" that violates the 1st LoT is more popular than you first imagined.

Greg wrote: In fact, you've stated elsewhere that you do believe that greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation. That's really a tacit affirmation of your belief in the greenhouse effect

So you believe that absorbing IR is, itself, another "greenhouse effect"? Why? Do you think energy is somehow created by doing so?

You made a big deal about not understanding why I made my semantic clarification note, yet here you are being confused over what I endeavored to clarify.

Greg wrote: One pipe dream ... can you show where Planck concluded that his law contradicted the greenhouse effect.

Planck never wrote about religious miracles or how they violated his law.

Greg wrote: it was Fourier's earlier work with blackbody radiation that led him to realize that the earth's surface was warmer than could be explained by solar irradiation alone.

He did not "realize" this. You have been duped.


Greg wrote: Yur analogy of a mirror breaks down on a couple of points. First, mirrors reflect light. Greenhouse gasses absorb light (in the infrared band), then re-emit it in a random direction.

You should create a separate thread for quibbling over wording preferences.

Greg wrote:However, if there were measurements showing that greenhouse gasses were increasing in the atmosphere, and also measurements showed that incoming energy was equal to outgoing radiation, then I would take that to falsify the greenhouse effect.

Two problems here:

1) What do you have, besides your religious belief, that outgoing thermal radiation differs from the incoming solar radiation?

2) It doesn't matter what you would take as falsifying the "greenhouse effect." Until there is a falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model, the "greenhouse effect" remains unfalsifiable conjecture, i.e. it can't be proven false any more than the existence of God can be proven false, and it cannot be science any more than the existence of God can be science.


Greg wrote: However, measurements currently show more radiation coming into the system than is going out, which is why the earth's surface is warming.

There are no valid measurements showing this.


Greg wrote: First, the definition of a forcing isn't "magic superpower".

The term "forcing" is just the Global Warming equivalent of "miracle" in Christianity. The ability to perform miracles is definitely a magic superpower.

Greg wrote: However, really the 2nd LoT just says that the net flow of energy from warm to cool must always be positive.

Before you try to go down the convolution rabbit hole, I'll clarify that we're talking about the net of the entire upper and lower atmosphere so we don't need to discuss the irrelevant insignificance of a negligible number of individual particles.

We'll stick with the net.


Greg wrote:The greenhouse effect doesn't say that more energy flows from the atmosphere to the earth's surface than the other way around, just that some does, and that less energy escapes into space than would if the greenhouse gasses weren't there.

You are violating Planck's Law again. You are making "temperature" the dependent variable.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-11-2015 04:17
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
IBdaMann wrote:
In your version of the "greenhouse effect" the atmosphere's total energy increases. That can only happen by additional energy being created.

Wait, so it can't happen because of energy re-emition?

Greg wrote: However, measurements currently show more radiation coming into the system than is going out, which is why the earth's surface is warming.

There are no valid measurements showing this.

Yep, would like to see them too.
11-11-2015 04:18
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
IBdaMann wrote:
In your version of the "greenhouse effect" the atmosphere's total energy increases. That can only happen by additional energy being created.

Wait, so it can't happen because of energy re-emition?

Greg wrote: However, measurements currently show more radiation coming into the system than is going out, which is why the earth's surface is warming.

There are no valid measurements showing this.

Yep, would like to see them too.
11-11-2015 05:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Totototo wrote: Wait, so it can't happen because of energy re-emition?

"emission"

To4, no. Energy cannot be created by absorption/emission because that would violate the 1st LoT (Law of Conservation of Energy). Energy can change form but energy cannot be created or destroyed.

...and don't write "re-emission" because that implies the same frequency is "re-emitted." It is best to write "Energy is absorbed and emitted."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-11-2015 06:54
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. Your personal version of the "greenhouse effect" might be that way but countless other versions vary from yours. I know you need to insist that your version is the only version because you wouldn't be able to otherwsie claim that it is based on the single solitary science model.


I don't need to insist there aren't multiple versions of the greenhouse effect, and if I did that wouldn't be the reason. I don't know what the single solitary science model is. No Google hits either. Is it your own term for something?

In any case, your "Big 4" represented four arguments you have against the greenhouse effect, not different models of it.

IBdaMann wrote:
No, that's not what we're seeing now, at least not some new "trend."


We're not seeing stratospheric cooling? I could cite evidence, but you don't accept evidence so that would be futile I guess. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

IBdaMann wrote:
This is a violation of Planck's Law.

Total energy increasing necessarily implies an increase in temperature. An increase in temperature necessarily implies a greater amount of energy radiating off into space.


Planck's Law says that blackbody radiation increases with temperature. However it doesn't say that radiation has to go into space. Earth is radiating more energy now than it did than it was cooler, but less of that radiation makes it into space and so the earth's surface is still warming.

IBdaMann wrote:
Do yourself a favor and read a little.


Ha ha! Jerk.


IBdaMann wrote:
Just for completeness, in your version of the "greenhouse effect" is atmospheric convection considered to be "greenhouse effect" ?


That's an interesting question. No, blocking convection is how an actual greenhouse works, but it's not part of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, so far as I know. It does seem like convection would affect the heat retention of the atmosphere, but I'm not sure.

IBdaMann wrote:
In your version of the "greenhouse effect" the atmosphere's total energy increases. That can only happen by additional energy being created. You claim that "greenhouse gases" are responsible for this increase and you acknowledged how this violates the 1st LoT.


Energy can only increase in a system if it's created? How about if it's added? The sun adds energy constantly and the earth radiates it away into space. As greenhouse gasses increase, less energy radiates into space and the earth warms, until as predicted by Planck's Law, the higher temperature causes radiation to increase to the point where a new equilibrium is reached. I can see how you think that might not happen, but not why you think that the explanation involves the creation of energy.

IBdaMann wrote:
Thank you for proving my point, and perhaps now you see that the version of the "greenhouse effect" that violates the 1st LoT is more popular than you first imagined.


Not really. You believed it before, so you still believing leaves its popularity unchanged.

IBdaMann wrote:
So you believe that absorbing IR is, itself, another "greenhouse effect"? Why? Do you think energy is somehow created by doing so?

You made a big deal about not understanding why I made my semantic clarification note, yet here you are being confused over what I endeavored to clarify.


Greenhouse gasses absorbing IR and re-emitting it in all directions is the one and only atmospheric greenhouse effect. It doesn't create energy, and my confusion over your semantic point was why you called it semantic.

In any case, I am confused by your non-response here. You acknowledge that greenhouse gasses absorb IR energy, and haven't said you don't believe they re-emit that energy, or that some of the re-emitted energy returns to earth. What do you think happens to it? Why wouldn't that cause the earth's surface to warm?

IBdaMann wrote:
Planck never wrote about religious miracles or how they violated his law.


Did he criticize Tyndall's work as religious miracles, or did he just assume everyone knew that?

IBdaMann wrote:
He did not "realize" this. You have been duped.


I went back and read his 1824 paper (well, a translation of it). He makes it pretty clear that the temperature of the earth's surface isn't consistent with solar radiation alone, and that earth's internal heat is not much of a factor for surface temperatures. He postulated the stars might add energy, and also talked about a glass box retaining heat, and thought the atmosphere might be acting as the same kind of insulator. He was wrong in that regard ... the atmospheric greenhouse effect is different from an actual greenhouse ... but it was a good start.

IBdaMann wrote:
1) What do you have, besides your religious belief, that outgoing thermal radiation differs from the incoming solar radiation?

2) It doesn't matter what you would take as falsifying the "greenhouse effect." Until there is a falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model, the "greenhouse effect" remains unfalsifiable conjecture, i.e. it can't be proven false any more than the existence of God can be proven false, and it cannot be science any more than the existence of God can be science.


Again, just because I don't agree with your arguments, doesn't mean my arguments are religious beliefs. Attack my arguments with logic, not with insults.

Incoming solar radiation is full spectrum. Outgoing radiation has a larger percentage of IR, which is the band greenhouse gasses absorb. This can be measured of course. Also, dark things get hot. Pictures of earth from space aren't white. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

IBdaMann wrote:
There are no valid measurements showing this.


It's true that you can deny the validity or even the existence of measurements showing the imbalance of energy coming to earth from the sun and energy radiated by the earth into space. However, that's not the point I was making. My point was that if there were such measurements and they showed no energy imbalance, despite the increase in greenhouse gasses, that would falsify the greenhouse theory. Is it your position that making measurements of this kind also violates laws of physics?

IBdaMann wrote:
The term "forcing" is just the Global Warming equivalent of "miracle" in Christianity. The ability to perform miracles is definitely a magic superpower.


Oh, pshaw. Yes, that's right, pshaw! A forcing is just something that tends to produce an effect over time, as I said before. In climate science, a forcing is something that changes how much radiation is received by the earth, or how much is radiated away. Changes to solar output are a forcing. Changes to cloud cover are a forcing. Changes to the earth's albedo are a forcing. Changes to greenhouse gas levels are a forcing. The last one is the only one you call a magic superpower.

IBdaMann wrote:
We'll stick with the net.

You are violating Planck's Law again. You are making "temperature" the dependent variable.


I see you're getting tired, and I am too. I've learned some things, mainly by rereading Fourier's paper, but also seeing how you think. As I've said, I'm impressed by the way you present your arguments, even if though they break down in several places. The places where they don't break down as transparently make me think, and that's something I always enjoy.
11-11-2015 08:41
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
My point was that if there were such measurements and they showed no energy imbalance, despite the increase in greenhouse gasses, that would falsify the greenhouse theory.

IF there were such measurements. But there aren't so it's still unfalsifiable right?
11-11-2015 08:49
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Greg wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The biggest problem with "the greenhouse effect" is the word "the"...as if there is only one. There are, in fact, many, to include some that don't involve any increase in the average global atmospheric temperature. I will review here the Big 4 "greenhouse effect" models with explanations as to why they violate science.


That's great. Breaking things down into manageable chunks is a great way to promote understanding. However, I do need to point out, there is only one model of the greenhouse effect. Splitting it into four is your own invention. The Big 4 is a good name though. It does make it seem like you're reviewing an established position.

IBdaMann wrote:
One note first on semantics. It should be mentioned that quite a few "greenhouse effect" models don't depict anything beyond the sun simply warming the earth via solar electromagnetic energy. These particular models try to credit atmospheric substances, e.g. CO2, "greenhouse gases," etc., with performing the sun's job. However, when the sun radiates energy to the earth, if that energy changes form due to absorption and/or thermal emission by some substance, the substance does not somehow become the source of that energy nor does the substance become responsible for "warming" anything with that energy. These particular models don't involve any increase in the average temperature of the earth or earth's surface, and are not considered for this list.


I'm not seeing a semantic point there. However, I can't imagine any model of the greenhouse effect which, when applied to the earth and its atmosphere, wouldn't involve warming the earth's surface, so I'm fine with excluding these putative models from this discussion.

Off we go!

IBdaMann wrote:
1. Greenhouse Gases Create Heat (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (1st LoT): This is the most common model type.


Good start. I completely agree that if the greenhouse effect relies on the greenhouse gasses create heat from nothing, that's a clear violation of the 1st LoT.

IBdaMann wrote:
A believer in this model will tell you that if you were to swap out a certain quantity of the earth's atmospheric nitrogen and were to replace it with an equivalent mass of his/her favorite "greenhouse gas", that the earth's atmosphere would increase in temperature.


Hmm, I'm not sure why swapping with the equivalent mass is part of your argument here, vs. just adding some my favorite greenhouse gas (which is water vapor by the way in case anyone has started Christmas shopping yet, hint hint). It's not that this weakens your argument. I just don't see why it's relevant. Also, it's the surface of the earth that would warm. The lower atmosphere would also warm, but the immediate effect on the upper atmosphere would be cooling as less heat would reach it. That's in fact what we're seeing now: a warming trend at or near the earth's surface, and a cooling trend in the upper atmosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:
This necessarily implies that total energy would increase due to that quantity of the "greenhouse gas."


Yes, that's true. The total energy at the earth's surface, and eventually throughout the atmosphere would increase. Of course, the total energy in the universe doesn't increase by this effect. It's just less escapes into space.

IBdaMann wrote:
That necessarily implies that that quantity of "greenhouse gas" caused the creation of the additional energy, ...


What? No. Redistribution of energy doesn't imply creation of it. This is where your argument jumps the rails.

IBdaMann wrote:
... which is a flagrant violation of the 1st LoT.


A valiant attempt to get back on track, but the train of your logic is now lying on its side. Yes, creating energy would violate the 1st LoT, but that's not what the model says is happening. It says the greenhouse gasses are absorbing energy and then re-emitting back towards earth. Maybe you'll say that's a different model, but really that's the only model.

In fact, you've stated elsewhere that you do believe that greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation. That's really a tacit affirmation of your belief in the greenhouse effect ... that is unless you believe that the energy once absorbed would remain in the gas molecule forever, or that the photon when re-emitted would necessarily go in the same direction the original photon was going (away from earth), or that the photons re-emitted from the gas molecules that do get redirected back to the earth's surface somehow don't add energy to it. You don't believe any of those things, do you?

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no need to analyze any further.


Agreed.

IBdaMann wrote:
2. Temperature as the Dependent Variable (in violation of Planck's Law). This model usually gains believers from the crowd that previously believed in the model described above but who eventually learned how it violates the 1st LoT and are thus looking to "relocate" their beliefs.


I don't really follow this one. However, the crowd of people who think that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT is vanishingly small. Seriously, it barely registers even in fringe denial sites. Of the few that do think that, I doubt you could find a single one looking to "relocate their beliefs" in the greenhouse, much less a crowd. You believe it because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect. If this crowd of believers is fictional, then I don't see any point discussing what they believe.

One pipe dream ... can you show where Planck concluded that his law contradicted the greenhouse effect. In fact, it was Fourier's earlier work with blackbody radiation that led him to realize that the earth's surface was warmer than could be explained by solar irradiation alone.

IBdaMann wrote:
3. The Convoluted Invisible Mirror Layer (unfalsifiable).


Your analogy of a mirror breaks down on a couple of points. First, mirrors reflect light. Greenhouse gasses absorb light (in the infrared band), then re-emit it in a random direction. Still, that's not so different from partial reflection. The big problem with your analogy is that a mirror is a continuous surface reflecting all light that hits it. The atmosphere is mostly empty space. It's easy for a photon to travel all the way from the earth's surface into space without hitting a single molecule in the atmosphere, much less one that will absorb it. Your idea that greenhouse gasses form a kind of lattice, and every escaping photon must necessary be absorbed and re-emitted at each level is nonsensical. It also ignores that photons re-emitted towards earth can also be absorbed on the way down and then re-emitted back up.

Calling this mirror (that's not a mirror) invisible also misses the mark somewhat. Yes, it's invisible in the sense that it doesn't reflect or emit visible light. However, we do have instruments that can see infrared light, and yes they do detect infrared radiation from the atmosphere, and not just from the direction of the sun.

In regards to this effect being unfalsfiable, I agree it would be difficult to track one photon's tortuous route through the atmosphere. However, if there were measurements showing that greenhouse gasses were increasing in the atmosphere, and also measurements showed that incoming energy was equal to outgoing radiation, then I would take that to falsify the greenhouse effect. However, measurements currently show more radiation coming into the system than is going out, which is why the earth's surface is warming. This tends confirms the greenhouse effect, although it doesn't definitively prove that greenhouse gasses are causing the imbalance.

IBdaMann wrote:
4. Thermal Forcing (in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics). This model simply claims that "climate" uses its magic superpowers to "force" heat to flow from a cooler upper atmosphere to a warmer lower atmosphere in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2nd LoT). Any such miracle performed by "climate" is called a "forcing."


I've been wondering what you thought of the myth that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd LoT. This one seems much more widespread. That is, I can find several references to it online. The 1st LoT one, well, that seems to be just you, and maybe two or three other people.

First, the definition of a forcing isn't "magic superpower". It's just something that tends to push a system in a particular direction. For example, a change in the sun's output would be a forcing on temperature. You don't consider that to be "magic", right?

I agree that the 2nd LoT says heat can't flow from a cool area to a warm area, and that seems like what the greenhouse effect says must be happening. However, really the 2nd LoT just says that the net flow of energy from warm to cool must always be positive. It doesn't say that no energy at all can travel from a cool area to a warm. The greenhouse effect doesn't say that more energy flows from the atmosphere to the earth's surface than the other way around, just that some does, and that less energy escapes into space than would if the greenhouse gasses weren't there.


Wow, that was a slog! I hope (but doubt) that it helped you. It's not that I don't respect you. You're playing your hand very well. It's just that it's an extremely weak hand, and a couple of your cards are on fire.

Greg, didn't you know that Sky Dragon Slayers have 'magick superpowers'? They can make the Sun and Space disappear and reappear whenever they need them to.


11-11-2015 09:34
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Totototo wrote:
My point was that if there were such measurements and they showed no energy imbalance, despite the increase in greenhouse gasses, that would falsify the greenhouse theory.

IF there were such measurements. But there aren't so it's still unfalsifiable right?
There are such measurements. The natural 'greenhouse' effect has always been falsifiable (contrary to the squawks of Sky Dragon Slayer zealots). But it hasn't been falsified (especially not by the special 'magick phyzicks' of Slayers), it's been verified by the laws of physics and measured observations.

Here are just some of the data sources:

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/
http://hitran.org/
http://www.bsrn.awi.de/
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/
http://www.exomol.com/
http://www.astro.uni-koeln.de/cdms/

There are thousands and thousands of research papers going back decades about the effects of 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere.

Try telling the US Airforce why their heat seeking missiles, first developed during the Cold War, couldn't possibly have worked


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_homing
How to Talk to an Ostrich: "Who says CO2 heats things up?"



Edited on 11-11-2015 10:11
11-11-2015 14:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote: There are such measurements. The natural 'greenhouse' effect has always been falsifiable ....

Here are just some of the data sources:

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/
http://hitran.org/
http://www.bsrn.awi.de/
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/
http://www.exomol.com/
http://www.astro.uni-koeln.de/cdms/

@ To4, Did you notice how Ceist first assured you that there were valid measurements, but then shifted to semantics about falsifiability, and then provided a barrage of links to....

...nothing.

You're supposed to think there are many datasets of the valid measurements you seek, just one click away!...it's just that you aren't supposed to actually check the links.

There's nothing there. There are no complete datasets of valid measurements. Ceist is living one huge religious delusion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-11-2015 15:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: There are such measurements. The natural 'greenhouse' effect has always been falsifiable ....

Here are just some of the data sources:

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/
http://hitran.org/
http://www.bsrn.awi.de/
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/
http://www.exomol.com/
http://www.astro.uni-koeln.de/cdms/

@ To4, Did you notice how Ceist first assured you that there were valid measurements, but then shifted to semantics about falsifiability, and then provided a barrage of links to....

...nothing.

You're supposed to think there are many datasets of the valid measurements you seek, just one click away!...it's just that you aren't supposed to actually check the links.

There's nothing there. There are no complete datasets of valid measurements. Ceist is living one huge religious delusion.


.

The links work fine for me.

Try switching off the "Forums and batshit-crazy conspiracy websites only" option in your router settings.
11-11-2015 18:02
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:The links work fine for me.

Try switching off the "Forums and batshit-crazy conspiracy websites only" option in your router settings.
LOL! Or he could remove his Sky Dragon Slayer teflon-coated science denier shield, but I suspect he has worn it so long it's now grafted on to his skull.



Edited on 11-11-2015 18:02
11-11-2015 18:55
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@IBdaMann and Ceist - Thank you both for answering.
11-11-2015 22:39
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Totototo wrote:
@IBdaMann and Ceist - Thank you both for answering.

You are welcome totototo.



11-11-2015 22:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:The links work fine for me.

The links work fine for me as well. That wasn't the point.

They don't lead to what Ceist promised. They're completely bogus in that regard.

Both Ceist and yourself are playing semantics games to distract from the fact that you have neither the science nor the data you insist you have.

If I ever adopt your religion I'll say a Global Warming prayer for you both.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-11-2015 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The links work fine for me.

The links work fine for me as well. That wasn't the point.

They don't lead to what Ceist promised. They're completely bogus in that regard.

Both Ceist and yourself are playing semantics games to distract from the fact that you have neither the science nor the data you insist you have.

If I ever adopt your religion I'll say a Global Warming prayer for you both.



.


l know you won't because you know no one will answer such a prayer.
12-11-2015 01:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Greg wrote:I don't need to insist there aren't multiple versions of the greenhouse effect, and if I did that wouldn't be the reason.

The many versions exist; I listed several major versions that exist. You somehow believe that you get to speak for all the people of the world who have versions that differ from yours.

Btw, that makes you a "denier."

Greg wrote: I don't know what the single solitary science model is.

Excuse me? Are you now saying you really don't know what "The Science" tells you is the meaning of the "greenhouse effect"?

How are you able to claim that others don't interpret your dogma differently?

Greg wrote: In any case, your "Big 4" represented four arguments you have against the greenhouse effect, not different models of it.

I'm sorry, denier, but differing versions of the "greenhouse effect" do exist based on differing violations of science, as well as yet other versions, like yours, that are based on some combination of those violations.

Greg wrote: We're not seeing stratospheric cooling?

Until you define what you believe you mean by that, I'm going to say "no, we're not seeing some undefined and unfalsifiable special cooling trend." If you are simply saying that thermal energy leaves the stratosphere, just as it always has since the stratosphere came into existence, then I will say "Sure, the stratosphere cools, and warms, and it doesn't help your point any."

Greg wrote: I could cite evidence, but you don't accept evidence so that would be futile I guess.

Correct. You won't offer to cite any science (which I would gladly accept) because you don't have any.

Greg wrote: Planck's Law says that blackbody radiation increases with temperature.

Nope. Planck's Law is more general. A body's radiation is dependent upon it's temperature. You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable and the "radiation" being the dependent variable, lest you make that same mistake again of switching dependencies and blowing your own argument out of the water.

Greg wrote: However it doesn't say that radiation has to go into space.

Yes it does. All radiation in Planck's Law is leaving the body (i.e. out into space).

Read up a little.

Greg wrote: Earth is radiating more energy now than it did than it was cooler,...

Yes, because according to Planck's Law, temperature is the independent variable controlling radiation, so naturally the earth is radiating more energy into space now than when it was cooler, and it is now radiating less energy into space than it did when it was warmer.

You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable, and atmospheric composition (e.g. amount of CO2, amount of water vapor, amount of methane, et. al.) is not even a factor.

I'd like to see you get over that one.

Greg wrote: but less of that radiation makes it into space and so the earth's surface is still warming.

False. Violation of Planck's Law. Your version of "greenhouse effect" is summarily dismissed.


IBdaMann wrote:
Just for completeness, in your version of the "greenhouse effect" is atmospheric convection considered to be "greenhouse effect" ?


Greg wrote: Energy can only increase in a system if it's created? How about if it's added?

You didn't answer my question about your native language. You aren't reading and understanding my posts, apparently.

First, I clarified much of this in my semantic clarification in the OP that which you simply dismissed. I think you should go back and re-read that section and appreciate it before derailing the discussion into a semantics rabbit hole.

Secondly, there are no "greenhouse effect" versions that add energy outside the "greenhouse gases." In all cases the mere existence of "greenhouse gases" is credited with creating the increase in temperature. Yes? The "greenhouse gases" cause the "greenhouse effect," yes? This necessarily implies that the "greenhouse gases" are causing an increase in the amount of thermal energy. This necessarily implies that the "greenhouse gases" are creating that additional thermal energy.

Are you saying that your version of the "greenhouse effect" has "greenhouse gases" somehow adding thermal energy without creating it?

Greg wrote: Greenhouse gasses absorbing IR and re-emitting it in all directions

(fyi: "gases" is the correct spelling)

Warning: The following content may be considered insulting to some audiences.

Global Warming worshipers are intellectually lazy. They can't be bothered to actually exert the effort required to learn what they are talking about. They instead prefer to remain scientifically illiterate and simply regurgitate the religious warmizombie dogma, like the word "re-emission." When anyone sees the word "re-emission" in the context of a Global Warming discussion, it's an alert that religious dogma is being regurgitated.

No substance simply re-emits the frequency absorbed. The frequency of the thermal radiation is dependent upon the temperature. CO2 might absorb electromagnetic energy of a particular IR frequency band but that is not what is thermally radiated. Nothing is "re-emitted."

Warmizombies don't understand that IR is a very wide frequency band, not a particular individual frequency. They really have no business entering a science discussion.

Dollars to donuts says that you are going to invent some lame justification as to why your regurgitation actually meant something else.

Greg wrote: In any case, I am confused by your non-response here.

English comprehension is the key.

Greg wrote:Did he criticize Tyndall's work as religious miracles, or did he just assume everyone knew that?

Why do you care what any person's subjective opinion is? No subjective opinion has any bearing on science.

Btw, if you wish to paste into this thread an assertion, please do so. If it is an assertion from Tyndall and Tyndall was mistaken, then we can identify his error. Otherwise, you can stop mentioning Tyndall because no Tyndall-worship constitutes science.

Greg wrote: I went back and read his 1824 paper (well, a translation of it). He makes it pretty clear that the temperature of the earth's surface isn't consistent with solar radiation alone, and that earth's internal heat is not much of a factor for surface temperatures.

Fourier made some unsupported conjectures in that paper. For example:

From On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space by Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier

The movements of the air and the waters, the extent of the oceans, the elevation and form of the surface, the effects of human industry and all the accidental changes of the Earth's surface modify the temperature of each climate. The basic character of phenomena arising from fundamental causes survives, but the thermal effects observed at the surface are different from those which would be seen without the influence of these accessory causes.


Of course, Fourier followed up immediately with:

From On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space by Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier

It is difficult to know just to what extent the atmosphere affects the mean
temperature of the globe, and here the guidance of rigorous mathematical theory
ceases.


Something Fourier actually "realized" was



Greg wrote: Again, just because I don't agree with your arguments, doesn't mean my arguments are religious beliefs. Attack my arguments with logic, not with insults.

Why do you consider it an insult to point out that your religion is a religion? Is it because you have been duped into believing that your religion is actually science? If you have been so duped, why is that somehow my fault?

I promise, when your arguments begin to differ from classic Christian arguments for the existence of God, the Trinity, the human soul and other religious dogma, I'll modify my responses accordingly.

So keep in mind that as long as you treat your dogma as a religion and insist on maintaining complete unfalsifiability, and maintain a complete lack of scientific support for your dogmatic assertions, your religion will be appropriately identified for the religion it is.

Greg wrote: It's true that you can deny the validity or even the existence of measurements showing the imbalance of energy coming to earth

It's not denial if it doesn't exist...and you can't show they exist. At the moment, you simply appear to be lying about their existence.

Greg wrote:My point was that if there were such measurements and they showed no energy imbalance, despite the increase in greenhouse gasses, that would falsify the greenhouse theory.

You need to learn about falsifiability; it is an absolute requirement for science. You are demonstrating a high level of scientific illiteracy. The only possible response to the above is "No, you are just wrong."

1. A falsifiable model is absolutely required in order to then show the model is false.

2. There is no falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model; ergo there is no "greenhouse effect" theory/science.

3. The "greenhouse effect" remains completely unfalsifiable, akin to any religion, and thus cannot be proven false any more than the existence of the Christian "God" can be proven false.

4. Ergo, no one can arbitrarily determine what set of conditions "falsifies" an unfalsifiable model (as you have tried to do).

5. Falsifiable models inherently express the conditions which would render them false. This is why falsifiability is an absolute requirement for science. The scientific method only accepts falsifiable models. Christianity will never become science. Global Warming will never become science. Islam will never become science.

Greg wrote: Oh, pshaw. Yes, that's right, pshaw! A forcing is just something that tends to produce an effect over time, as I said before.

Are you saying that "forcing" is another word for "cause"?

Greg wrote: As I've said, I'm impressed by the way you present your arguments, even if though they break down in several places.

Science doesn't break down. You are the one asserting a "greenhouse effect." Yours is the full burden of proof. Your arguments break down before science, namely the laws of thermodynamics, Planck's Law, and the basic requirement of falsifiability.

The good news is that you can always modify your assertions to correct for errors. I hope you try again.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-11-2015 04:31
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
I'm going to have to end my point-by-point replies, because I just don't have enough time. Don't take this as a concession. Just kidding! You'll take it however you choose to take it, regardless of what I say.

Thank you for your correction on "gases". I was going back and forth on that, but was too lazy to look it up. My bad! I'll repay my debt by pointing out that "its" is the possessive pronoun; "it's" is a contraction of "it is" or "it has".

My native language is English. I assume you didn't really doubt that, and asking was just another attempt to belittle me, just like your assertions that everything I say is just religious dogma. In any case, what I meant about personal insults towards me (and, as far as I've seen, everyone who disagrees with you) is you don't need them. You're a capable debater, and you have a strong understanding of basic physics, though you do try to force the principles of physics to fit your ideology instead of the other way around. Yes, you've failed to convince me because the points you're making happen to be wrong, and I can see where they're wrong. Labeling my ability to see those flaws as magical thinking is your right, but it's even less likely to convince me than flawed arguments. Maybe you're hoping to convince other people?
12-11-2015 05:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Greg wrote: My native language is English. I assume you didn't really doubt that, and asking was just another attempt to belittle me,


No, I was seriously asking to see if perhaps your lack of English comprehension was due to English being a second language. Either you did not understand what I wrote, you were being deliberately obtuse or you were intentionally quibbling over wording just to derail a discussion that had you backed against the wall.

Greg wrote: .. just like your assertions that everything I say is just religious dogma.

Expect it to continue, not just from me.

As long as you deny the science presented to you because such denial is your only option in defense of your religious dogma, you make a strong statement about the depth of your religious faith.

As long as you continue to consider the science presented to you, that anyone can verify and validate, as somehow being nothing more than my subjective opinion, just because it falsifies your deeply held beliefs, you reveal your congnitive dissonance and its resulting bulverism.

Your religion is a religion. Take that any way you wish. If you consider it an insult, then so be it. If you take pride in your religion, then you're welcome. Either way, how you view your religion does not change your religion. You simply have no "greenhouse effect" science, and every version of the "greenhouse effect" that has "greenhouse gases" increasing earth's temperature in some way, including your version, violates science.

You nonetheless adhere to the belief that your science-violating dogma is science and you vociferously challenge the solid science that destroys your dogma.

Your religion has a firm hold on you. Try denying that as well as see how far it gets you.

Greg wrote: though you do try to force the principles of physics to fit your ideology instead of the other way around.

I have no ideology. I am an atheist. I make no assertions other than what science says, and science simply destroys your religious dogma. There is no "greenhouse effect" that adheres to science that has any atmospheric gases increasing earth's temperature.

Your dogma and your ideology are shit out of luck.

Just let me know when you want to have another scientific review of your version of the "greenhouse effect." You and I both know that you don't ever want that to happen again because science and your religion are incompatible and the only possible result is for your faith, into which you have invested so much of your self-identity, to go down in flames.

But please prove me utterly mistaken. Let's go another round. Explain to me a "greenhouse effect" (any version) caused by "greenhouse gases" that increases earth's temperature and adheres to science. It'll be glorious.

Greg wrote: Yes, you've failed to convince me because the points you're making happen to be wrong,

Your denial is obvious. I have only presented science. You are a science denier. Case closed.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-11-2015 15:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
I have only presented science.

You have presented no science at all, just rhetoric. A scientific discussion must be backed up by evidence. You have presented none.
12-11-2015 16:07
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I have only presented science.

You have presented no science at all, just rhetoric. A scientific discussion must be backed up by evidence. You have presented none.


My hypothesis is that the resident Sky Dragon Slayer IbdaMann can only make baseless assertions, waffle about pseudoscience not found in any of the science literature or textbooks, call people morons, warmazombies and religious freaks, post silly pictures of cartoon characters, and drooling babies, and NOT cite any scientific literature or textbooks. I predict he will continue in this pattern.

So far there is no evidence to falsify my hypothesis. To date, IBdaMann himself has provided us with 661 (and counting) of his posts as evidence to support the hypothesis and no evidence at all to falsify it. I thank him for his contributions.

IBdaMann also helpfully continues to go above and beyond to provide evidence to falsify his own assertion that he is 'citing science' on this forum. I particularly enjoyed the posts where he hoisted himself with his own 'religious' petard.

Providing evidence to falsify an assertion is very useful. I thank him for his efforts in providing so much evidence to falsify his own assertions.



Edited on 12-11-2015 16:10
12-11-2015 17:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote: You have presented no science at all, just rhetoric.

Again, you are among the warmizombies who cannot discern religion from science.

I presented Planck's Law, overview's of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and I have thoroughly discussed science's falsifiability requirement. You can be a denier and deny that I did. They are all posted for all to review and verify.

Surface Detail wrote: A scientific discussion must be backed up by evidence. You have presented none.

Once again we need to return to the point of your inability to discern religion from science (within the same post no less).

Supporting "evidence" is the stuff of religions like yours. I am not interested in discussing religious dogma-babble in a game of "pretend scientist" in which divine "signs from the heavens" (supporting "evidence") is the theological cornerstone.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 15:34
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@everyone - so IBdaMann has now posted over 667 posts (682 as of this post) and he's the petard?

Come on, who's acting like the real petard here? Is it IBdaMann for making 667 consistent petard posts, or is it everyone else who responds to him thinking he's ever going to say something different?

So, do you really enjoy wasting your time responding to denialist trolls?

If not, you can:

1. Ignore them and sooner or later they'll get tired of their own drivel.

2. Stop posting here.

3. Start posting somewhere else where there are no denialist trolls, just in time for the 2015 Paris UNCCC (PM me for info).


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!
13-11-2015 15:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
trafn,

I'd rather stay here and encourage IBdaMann to keep on posting. When someone with his good grammar and obvious dedication to the cause is reduced to posting stupid pictures, calling people names, conspiracy theorising and generally defining the English language to suit himself, then you know that the argument is pretty much won. The crumbling edifice of AGW denial sags a little more every time he declares that evidence has no place in science or that peer review is irrelevant.

So no, I'm staying here to encourage the deniers to keep digging!
13-11-2015 17:02
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Surface Detail wrote: I'd rather stay here and encourage IBdaMann to keep on posting.

I get it, but you are so well educated on this issue that it seems like a waste of your time and talent - kinda like baiting holocaust denialists or convincing hillbilly mothers to get their kids vaccinated.

Well, if you change your mind and want to get into some good discussions in time for the Paris UNCCC 2015, PM me.

You could even moderate your own sub-forum!


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!
13-11-2015 17:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
trafn wrote:
Well, if you change your mind and want to get into some good discussions in time for the Paris UNCCC 2015, PM me.

You could even moderate your own sub-forum!


@ Surface Detail - How can you pass up that opportunity? Look at the power trafn is offering you! He wants to enable you to control the ideas being expressed, in your own little "safe zone." That's got to be tempting, yes?

I'm hurt that trafn didn't make the same offer to me.
Maybe he can tell me where his new little kingdom is located so I can support it, you know, by making a token post or two for him to edit/delete.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-11-2015 08:22
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
trafn,

I'd rather stay here and encourage IBdaMann to keep on posting. When someone with his good grammar and obvious dedication to the cause is reduced to posting stupid pictures, calling people names, conspiracy theorising and generally defining the English language to suit himself, then you know that the argument is pretty much won. The crumbling edifice of AGW denial sags a little more every time he declares that evidence has no place in science or that peer review is irrelevant.

So no, I'm staying here to encourage the deniers to keep digging!

By keeping Sky Dragon Slayers IBdaMann and Into The Night engaged frantically writing so many science-denying comments and posting silly pictures on this tiny forum where there are only a handful of visitors, we are providing a public service. They have less time to spread their pseudoscience rubbish and pathological lies about science on much busier public forums annoying grown-ups who are trying to have rational discussions about climate change.

If I find any other Sky Dragon Slayers around the internet, I'll point them here where they can all post about how they believe that the laws of physics, all the science textbooks, all the science literature in Journals and all the science institutions around the world are all wrong. It could become a central place for them to have a mass debate together




Edited on 14-11-2015 09:06
14-11-2015 17:33
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Ceist wrote: By keeping Sky Dragon Slayers IBdaMann and Into The Night engaged frantically writing so many science-denying comments and posting silly pictures on this tiny forum where there are only a handful of visitors, we are providing a public service.

I guess. But that's kinda like engaging members of the Klu Klux Klan over civil rights. Sure, you're on the right side of the argument, but you're never going to convince them otherwise, and if they're just left alone to die off, then all the better. You only give them more attention by paying them attention. Don't forget, most of them have been here for a while:

Tim the plumber joined 2012
IBdaMann joined 2014
Into the Night joined 2015

So, when it comes to denialist trolls:

1. Ignore them - they'll get tired of repeatedly posting their own drivel.

2. PM them if you have to communicate with them - that way you don't give them a public forum to continue posting their spamming in.

3. Patronize forums that don't tolerate denialist trolls - join a free forum where you can post, create threads, create polls, and even moderate your own sub-forum (PM me for more info).

PARIS UNFCCC 2015 is almost here - let's get serious and TURN OFF THE TROLLS!


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

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

Edited on 14-11-2015 17:34
14-11-2015 17:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
trafn wrote:
Ceist wrote: By keeping Sky Dragon Slayers IBdaMann and Into The Night engaged frantically writing so many science-denying comments and posting silly pictures on this tiny forum where there are only a handful of visitors, we are providing a public service.

I guess. But that's kinda like engaging members of the Klu Klux Klan over civil rights. Sure, you're on the right side of the argument, but you're never going to convince them otherwise, and if they're just left alone to die off, then all the better. You only give them more attention by paying them attention. Don't forget, most of them have been here for a while:


The thing about being on the correct side of the argument is that it is easy to make your case.

You can enjoy the feeling of defeating the silly fools who wish to destroy the world and help spread the message that the enlightenment will not away because there are idiots who feel threatened.

To do this in private would not be as effective.

To not deal with those who have a different view to you is to accept that you will never change anybody's mind. You will just have an echo chamber.

Tens of millions of people die each year due to the mis-application of bad science causing food to be used as fuel. This is a serious subject. If you can't take the responsibility of having your views put to scrutinyy then find another subject where a nice coffee morning chat is the way forward.




Join the debate The Top 4:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Top Presidential Candidates, plans for combating 'climate change'405-09-2019 03:15
Climate change should be top issue for voters in October, advocates say024-04-2019 03:05
Canada not among top countries cutting CO2 emissions127-02-2019 21:01
Amy Kloubuchar uses snow to prove there is climate change. Now that's top level Marxism.613-02-2019 23:05
2017 is set to be in top three hottest years, with record-breaking extreme weather1720-11-2017 21:25
▲ 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