Remember me
▼ Content

Tipping point



Page 3 of 5<12345>
03-11-2015 05:28
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you wrote What should I ask?

No what.

Where.


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 05:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - you wrote What should I ask?

No what. Where.


Well, if you're not going to help me out some, I'm going to have to wait until you do.


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
03-11-2015 06:04
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - ok
04-11-2015 04:27
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
trafn wrote: You are the only one who can prove me wrong.

Why would I want to do that? I insist, from this point forward, I have no credentials, only science. You will have all the credentials and no science.

Let's play it like that.


I tentatively agree that having science on your side is more important than all the credentials in the world. The problem is science isn't on your side either. The crux of your position seems to be that the Greenhouse Effect violates basic laws of physics, and therefore climate science is a religion, and thus a hoax. Correct me if I've misunderstood you.

Let's go back to the beginning. John Tyndall's original paper demonstrating the Greenhouse Effect, published 1861, is available here. Can you cite subsequent research that refutes his findings? Not your opinion, or a blog article, but an actual peer reviewed publication?
04-11-2015 04:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Greg wrote:Correct me if I've misunderstood you.

OK, corrections:

1. I said Climate Scientist's version of "greenhouse effect" violated the 1st LoT,

2. I have no "side". I just say what the science says.

So, do you have a "greenhouse effect" that doesn't violate physics?


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
04-11-2015 08:43
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
I don't, in fact, have a such greenhouse effect, but John Tyndall did and published his findings in the link I gave above. Tyndall was a physicist, but there's no substantive difference I know of between how Tyndall described the greenhouse effect and how climate scientists define it today. If you are saying what the science says, show me a cite in the scientific literature that refutes Tyndall's findings.

Also, are you sure about the 1st LoT? The more common myth out there is that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd LoT. Do you think it violates both, or do you agree that myth really is a myth?
04-11-2015 09:47
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Greg wrote:
I don't, in fact, have a such greenhouse effect, but John Tyndall did and published his findings in the link I gave above. Tyndall was a physicist, but there's no substantive difference I know of between how Tyndall described the greenhouse effect and how climate scientists define it today. If you are saying what the science says, show me a cite in the scientific literature that refutes Tyndall's findings.

Also, are you sure about the 1st LoT? The more common myth out there is that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd LoT. Do you think it violates both, or do you agree that myth really is a myth?


IBdaMann somehow believes he speaks for the 'body of science'.


He somehow isn't even aware that his claims are not only not correct, they are Not Even Wrong*. They aren't even from the long decayed corpses of science that have been autopsied many times over.


*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.


04-11-2015 09:57
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Greg wrote:
I don't, in fact, have a such greenhouse effect, but John Tyndall did and published his findings in the link I gave above. Tyndall was a physicist, but there's no substantive difference I know of between how Tyndall described the greenhouse effect and how climate scientists define it today. If you are saying what the science says, show me a cite in the scientific literature that refutes Tyndall's findings.

Also, are you sure about the 1st LoT? The more common myth out there is that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd LoT. Do you think it violates both, or do you agree that myth really is a myth?


For posters who are actually interested in evidence-based science rather than crank pseudoscience myths:

"The application of gaseous spectroscopy to atmospheric constituents began with John Tyndall, who discovered in 1863 that most of the IR opacity of Earth's atmosphere was attributable to two minor constituents—CO2 and water vapor."

"Databases of spectral-line properties lie at the foundations of all calculations of IR radiative transfer in gases. The HITRAN database, culled from thousands of meticulously cross-validated, published spectroscopic studies, provides line properties for 39 molecules; it has been extensively used for applications across engineering and atmospheric sciences. The database is freely available at http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/."

The earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect has long been confirmed by observed spectra. It's textbook physics.

Source:
Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperatures



Edited on 04-11-2015 10:02
04-11-2015 11:10
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
OK, corrections:

1. I said Climate Scientist's version of "greenhouse effect" violated the 1st LoT,

2. I have no "side". I just say what the science says.

So, do you have a "greenhouse effect" that doesn't violate physics?


It is not my version! I have directed you to the IPCC pages that explain the greenhouse effect. I could direct you to many other links, if you would prefer? How about this, from the NASA climate kids site:

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

The science is available for you to read here:

http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

You refuse to read it.
04-11-2015 11:36
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - circular conversations like these no longer interest me.


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!
04-11-2015 14:14
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
OK, corrections:

1. I said Climate Scientist's version of "greenhouse effect" violated the 1st LoT,

2. I have no "side". I just say what the science says.

So, do you have a "greenhouse effect" that doesn't violate physics?


It is not my version! I have directed you to the IPCC pages that explain the greenhouse effect. I could direct you to many other links, if you would prefer? How about this, from the NASA climate kids site:

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

The science is available for you to read here:

http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

You refuse to read it.


I think even the kiddie's version at NASA Climate Kids is too much for him to handle. Any evidence, science or logic you throw at him will hit his ideological teflon-coated science denier shield and slide right off.

While it may seem like a complete waste of your time, other people will read your informative intelligent posts and compare them to his argumentative science-free logic-free ranting.



Edited on 04-11-2015 14:15
04-11-2015 14:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
trafn wrote:@IBdaMann - circular conversations like these no longer interest me.

That's an interesting name for your spamming, but if you're telling me that you're going to tone down the spam, then I wish you would have become disinterested sooner.


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
04-11-2015 14:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - I will clarify: circular conversations like yours are no longer of interest to me.


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!
04-11-2015 14:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
trafn wrote: @IBdaMann - I will clarify: circular conversations like yours are no longer of interest to me.

So that's the interesting name you give to all your spamming (of this same board) that begins with "@IBdaMann".

Thank you for clarifying. Again, I wish you would have become disinterested in all of it long ago.


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
04-11-2015 22:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Ceist wrote:
Greg wrote:
I don't, in fact, have a such greenhouse effect, but John Tyndall did and published his findings in the link I gave above. Tyndall was a physicist, but there's no substantive difference I know of between how Tyndall described the greenhouse effect and how climate scientists define it today. If you are saying what the science says, show me a cite in the scientific literature that refutes Tyndall's findings.

Also, are you sure about the 1st LoT? The more common myth out there is that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd LoT. Do you think it violates both, or do you agree that myth really is a myth?


For posters who are actually interested in evidence-based science rather than crank pseudoscience myths:

"The application of gaseous spectroscopy to atmospheric constituents began with John Tyndall, who discovered in 1863 that most of the IR opacity of Earth's atmosphere was attributable to two minor constituents—CO2 and water vapor."

"Databases of spectral-line properties lie at the foundations of all calculations of IR radiative transfer in gases. The HITRAN database, culled from thousands of meticulously cross-validated, published spectroscopic studies, provides line properties for 39 molecules; it has been extensively used for applications across engineering and atmospheric sciences. The database is freely available at http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/."

The earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect has long been confirmed by observed spectra. It's textbook physics.

Source:
Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperatures

The absorption spectra of carbon dioxide and water has been available long before this. It also makes little difference. ANY mechanism that 'traps' energy by whatever mechanism forms a positive feedback loop that would have already incinerated the Earth. Any positive value of energy trapped would do this. This is creating energy out of nothing. This is true regardless of some collection of data you quote on absorption spectra.
04-11-2015 22:30
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
The absorption spectra of carbon dioxide and water has been available long before this. It also makes little difference. ANY mechanism that 'traps' energy by whatever mechanism forms a positive feedback loop that would have already incinerated the Earth. Any positive value of energy trapped would do this. This is creating energy out of nothing. This is true regardless of some collection of data you quote on absorption spectra.


You are wrong. Do we boil in our houses, just because we have insulation in the roof? No, we do not. A warmer body will emit more radiation. As the temperature increases, the outgoing radiation increases, and a new equilibrium temperature is reached. Energy is not trapped by GHGs, it is absorbed and re-emitted in all directions, including downwards There is no creation of energy. It is transformed from one form to another.
05-11-2015 00:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
climate scientist wrote:
The absorption spectra of carbon dioxide and water has been available long before this. It also makes little difference. ANY mechanism that 'traps' energy by whatever mechanism forms a positive feedback loop that would have already incinerated the Earth. Any positive value of energy trapped would do this. This is creating energy out of nothing. This is true regardless of some collection of data you quote on absorption spectra.


You are wrong. Do we boil in our houses, just because we have insulation in the roof? No, we do not. A warmer body will emit more radiation. As the temperature increases, the outgoing radiation increases, and a new equilibrium temperature is reached. Energy is not trapped by GHGs, it is absorbed and re-emitted in all directions, including downwards There is no creation of energy. It is transformed from one form to another.


Again, the misunderstanding of how insulation works.

Again, I will explain to you how it works.

Insulation works by trapping air, preventing convection. Conduction is still possible. A hot building still loses heat more rapidly than a cool one.

The atmosphere is open. Most of the energy is transported upward by convection and conduction. Only when you get well above the troposphere does radiation of energy have a significant role over other methods of venting heat.

Your model only traps energy from the surface of the Earth. Caught between the surface and the GHG, the energy, however small, must build in a positive feedback loop. The only event that would break this loop is the incineration of the Earth itself.

Your model completely fails to account for the loss of energy reaching the surface in the first place by absorption of incoming energy, which IS in a wide band, including the mid infrared, which happens to be the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide. Outgoing energy is in a comparatively narrow band that is determined only by the temperature of the material. This outgoing energy is also much weaker, since most of the absorbed energy is converted to mechanical energy. The outgoing infrared is in the near infrared and not anywhere near the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide.
Edited on 05-11-2015 00:22
05-11-2015 01:08
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
It's not difficult to do a search on the internet for posts on a number of public forums by both Into the Night and IbDaMann. It appears they've both been posting their scientifically uneducated personal opinions that even the natural 'greenhouse' effect can't possibly exist, for quite a few years now. The same thing over and over and over and over and over again, ad nauseum.

As it's the equivalent of claiming the earth is flat or gravity doesn't exist, or the earth is only 6000 years old, they must be very used to being ridiculed and mocked after so many people have patiently tried to explain basic textbook physics to them both over and over and over again, provided links to valid science sources, textbooks, videos, lectures and even children's educational websites which dumb it down so even a 3rd grader can understand it, that they get frustrated and just tell them to 'read a goddamned science textbook you moron'. To which they probably replied that all the textbooks are wrong, scientists are all stupid religious freaks, and they are right.
.

Over the years, their 'skin' must have become so thick that it's become like a Teflon-coated science-denying shield, impervious not only to science, facts, evidence, and logic, but to insults as well.


Instead of a 'flat earther' or 'young earther', posters like Into The Night and IBdaMann now have their own label on internet blogs and forums: "Sky Dragon Slayer".

I understand why they would want an open public forum to proclaim their er... 'different' views. They must be so important to them, that they need to disrupt and shut down any rational adult discussion of science so that they can delude themselves into believing they are 'right' and everyone else in the world, including millions of scientists, every science institution, every university, all the textbooks, and even the laws of physics themselves, are all 'wrong'.

But, much like an angry child screaming, throwing a tantrum, and wrecking everything they can in a supermarket because they have been asked not to take the sweets from the bottom shelf, other grown-ups get rather irritated and often ask the parent to take their child outside.

Anyone remember seeing this banned Dutch commerical?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSU6q6eD34



Edited on 05-11-2015 01:09
05-11-2015 01:29
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Insulation works by trapping air, preventing convection. Conduction is still possible. A hot building still loses heat more rapidly than a cool one.


I am well aware of how insulation works. It was supposed to be an analogy.

The atmosphere is open. Most of the energy is transported upward by convection and conduction. Only when you get well above the troposphere does radiation of energy have a significant role over other methods of venting heat.


This is where you are wrong. As shown in this diagram...

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html

... long-wave radiation from the planet's surface by far exceeds conduction and convection, even at low altitudes.

Your model only traps energy from the surface of the Earth. Caught between the surface and the GHG, the energy, however small, must build in a positive feedback loop. The only event that would break this loop is the incineration of the Earth itself.


I will say it again - it is not my model! I take no credit whatsoever for the greenhouse effect! It is a scientific fact. As shown in the diagram, GHGs do not absorb and re-emit all long-wave radiation, due to the atmospheric window. The atmosphere itself also emits long-wave radiation. You can see by adding up the numbers in the diagram, that the energy entering and leaving Earth's atmosphere are in balance. That is because this diagram is not accounting for an increase in GHGs, which is what we are experiencing today. The slight imbalance in energy caused by additional GHGs in the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm. But the imbalance is very small, and at a higher temperature, Earth will radiate more energy, so once atmospheric GHG concentrations stabilise the energy balance of the planet will again stabilise, because the outgoing long-wave radiation emitted by the surface and by the clouds to space will increase slightly.

Your model completely fails to account for the loss of energy reaching the surface in the first place by absorption of incoming energy, which IS in a wide band, including the mid infrared, which happens to be the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide. Outgoing energy is in a comparatively narrow band that is determined only by the temperature of the material. This outgoing energy is also much weaker, since most of the absorbed energy is converted to mechanical energy. The outgoing infrared is in the near infrared and not anywhere near the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide.


Only about 50% of incoming solar radiation is infrared at the top of the atmosphere. The other 50% is visible and UV:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Sunlight

The diagram I linked to above clearly shows that the energy emitted by Earth's surface as long-wave radiation is not weaker than the incoming solar radiation. This fact is also noted in Wikipedia here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation

The wikipedia article also states that outgoing long-wave radiation is the primary way that the Earth loses energy, and that most of this energy is in the 4 to 40 micron wavelength band. As is shown here:

http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

the CO2 atmospheric transmittance band is 0 at around 15 microns, and is less than 50% between about 12 and 20 microns. This directly coincides with the wavelength band of the out going long-wave radiation from Earth.
05-11-2015 02:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
@climate scientist, in his Data Mine thread (aka The Rabbit Hole), I even provided Into The Night with links to 6378 datasets from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) of surface radiation measurements from all over the world. They were the Surface Radiation measurements used in the Wild et al (2013) paper which was used in the IPCC's energy balance figures in AR5 WG1 diagram in Chapter 2, pg 181.

But he rejected them because he didn't have the time to visit each of the 6378 sites to check that the evil scientists weren't carrying erasers in their pockets to 'fudge the data'.


http://www.bsrn.awi.de/en/data/conditions_of_data_release

"The data collection contains 6378 links to basic measurements of radiation from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN). It covers all available measurements from the time period between 1992-01 and 2012-05 taken at BSRN stations all over the world."



Edited on 05-11-2015 02:47
05-11-2015 04:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Ceist wrote:
@climate scientist, in his Data Mine thread (aka The Rabbit Hole), I even provided Into The Night with links to 6378 datasets from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) of surface radiation measurements from all over the world. They were the Surface Radiation measurements used in the Wild et al (2013) paper which was used in the IPCC's energy balance figures in AR5 WG1 diagram in Chapter 2, pg 181.

But he rejected them because he didn't have the time to visit each of the 6378 sites to check that the evil scientists weren't carrying erasers in their pockets to 'fudge the data'.


http://www.bsrn.awi.de/en/data/conditions_of_data_release

"The data collection contains 6378 links to basic measurements of radiation from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN). It covers all available measurements from the time period between 1992-01 and 2012-05 taken at BSRN stations all over the world."


I did not reject the data per se. I rejected the use of composite and fudged data in the paper you quoted. The data you provided was quite bulky and you didn't explain any of it, neither did you provide the methodology or instrumentation information of how it was collected. Without knowing where the numbers come from and how, they are only random numbers. I explained all this in the Data Mine (Rabbit Hole to you).
05-11-2015 05:07
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
@IntoTheNight -- you are right that insulation mainly stops heat loss through convection, and in fact so do greenhouses, so the greenhouse effect is badly named. However, you then made several claims without citation. Radiated energy isn't significant until the upper atmosphere, the greenhouse effect would never reach equilibrium, the radiated energy isn't even in the right band for CO2 to absorb it. You believe these things to be true ... fine, but why? Can you cite any scientific study to support any of them?

While you're at it, you could help IBdaMann find a refutation of Tyndall's original work on this issue. He seems to have bowed out of this thread, implicitly (to use his turn of phrase) tipping his king.
05-11-2015 05:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Greg wrote:While you're at it, you could help IBdaMann find a refutation of Tyndall's original work on this issue.

Greg, I'm not going to chase down Tyndall's work. Tyndall isn't even here in this discussion.

If you have a point, then write your point here in this thread. Then I'll tell you if you are correct or if you are mistaken.


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
05-11-2015 05:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
climate scientist wrote:
Insulation works by trapping air, preventing convection. Conduction is still possible. A hot building still loses heat more rapidly than a cool one.


I am well aware of how insulation works. It was supposed to be an analogy.

Poor analogy.

climate scientist wrote:
The atmosphere is open. Most of the energy is transported upward by convection and conduction. Only when you get well above the troposphere does radiation of energy have a significant role over other methods of venting heat.


This is where you are wrong. As shown in this diagram...

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html

... long-wave radiation from the planet's surface by far exceeds conduction and convection, even at low altitudes.

No, it doesn't. The IPCC is wrong (again). It would be better if you stop quoting from questionable sources like this.

climate scientist wrote:
Your model only traps energy from the surface of the Earth. Caught between the surface and the GHG, the energy, however small, must build in a positive feedback loop. The only event that would break this loop is the incineration of the Earth itself.


I will say it again - it is not my model! I take no credit whatsoever for the greenhouse effect!

But you are claiming it's truthfulness.

climate scientist wrote:
It is a scientific fact.

It is not. It is not data, neither is it evidence. No theory of law of science is a fact.
climate scientist wrote:
As shown in the diagram, GHGs do not absorb and re-emit all long-wave radiation, due to the atmospheric window.

No, carbon dioxide does not absorb all infrared because it's absorption notches are quite narrow.
climate scientist wrote:
The atmosphere itself also emits long-wave radiation.

Agreed. This is strictly determined by it's temperature. Not the composition of any substance within it.

climate scientist wrote:
You can see by adding up the numbers in the diagram, that the energy entering and leaving Earth's atmosphere are in balance.

Circular argument. You are claiming the diagram to be correct by claiming the diagram being correct.
climate scientist wrote:
That is because this diagram is not accounting for an increase in GHGs, which is what we are experiencing today. The slight imbalance in energy caused by additional GHGs in the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm.

The diagram is already debunked at this point via your misuse of logic.
climate scientist wrote:
But the imbalance is very small, and at a higher temperature, Earth will radiate more energy, so once atmospheric GHG concentrations stabilise the energy balance of the planet will again stabilise, because the outgoing long-wave radiation emitted by the surface and by the clouds to space will increase slightly.

This is where your model creates energy out of nothing. This is not possible.
climate scientist wrote:

Your model completely fails to account for the loss of energy reaching the surface in the first place by absorption of incoming energy, which IS in a wide band, including the mid infrared, which happens to be the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide. Outgoing energy is in a comparatively narrow band that is determined only by the temperature of the material. This outgoing energy is also much weaker, since most of the absorbed energy is converted to mechanical energy. The outgoing infrared is in the near infrared and not anywhere near the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide.


Only about 50% of incoming solar radiation is infrared at the top of the atmosphere. The other 50% is visible and UV:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Sunlight

The diagram I linked to above clearly shows that the energy emitted by Earth's surface as long-wave radiation is not weaker than the incoming solar radiation. This fact is also noted in Wikipedia here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation

The wikipedia article also states that outgoing long-wave radiation is the primary way that the Earth loses energy, and that most of this energy is in the 4 to 40 micron wavelength band. As is shown here:

http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

the CO2 atmospheric transmittance band is 0 at around 15 microns, and is less than 50% between about 12 and 20 microns. This directly coincides with the wavelength band of the out going long-wave radiation from Earth.


Again you are quibbling about radiation going in one particular direction or another. You are ignoring the loss of incoming energy and using only outgoing energy to create your trap. You are also completely ignoring the effects of conduction and convection within the troposphere.
05-11-2015 06:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Greg wrote:
@IntoTheNight -- you are right that insulation mainly stops heat loss through convection, and in fact so do greenhouses, so the greenhouse effect is badly named. However, you then made several claims without citation. Radiated energy isn't significant until the upper atmosphere, the greenhouse effect would never reach equilibrium, the radiated energy isn't even in the right band for CO2 to absorb it. You believe these things to be true ... fine, but why? Can you cite any scientific study to support any of them?

While you're at it, you could help IBdaMann find a refutation of Tyndall's original work on this issue. He seems to have bowed out of this thread, implicitly (to use his turn of phrase) tipping his king.


Plancks Law describes the peak of radiated energy for a material at a given temperature. The absorption of carbon dioxide is available from many sources. So are descriptions and diagrams of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The surface of the Earth heats the air. If the surface is hot, the air is heated to a point that is well above the adiabatic rate of cooling. This creates vertical air movement that sends that energy aloft. This action generally stops at the tropopause, where the air starts increasing temperature with altitude. At this point, radiative methods of losing heat become more predominant. Radiated energy at lower altitudes is significant, but not nearly as significant as vertical air movement.

Birds, gliders, powered aircraft, balloons, and storms all depend on or are heavily affected by this vertical air movement.

To explain the trap problem in a basic form:
* Let us suppose the trap exists.
* A certain amount of energy is applied to the trap adding some amount of energy. We'll call this 1 unit. This unit of energy raises the temperature by X where X is proportional to the unit.
* From this position, we assume that X temperature stays (either as an average or as a peak measurement. It doesn't matter, so long as X is greater than zero.
* A certain amount of energy is applied to the trap again, adding 1 additional unit. Since we know the previous unit hasn't been lost (because the temperature is still X higher, we know this additional unit or partial unit must be added to the one already there.
* We have now 2 units total. This raises the temperature again by X.
* lather, rinse, repeat. End result, we are only adding units, which exist as evidenced by increased temperature X, even if X fades, but it still greater than zero. Thus, a forward feedback loop. X increases, therefore the number of units increase, therefore X increases, and so on.
* the only way to break the loop is the destruction of the trap (and, unfortunately, the Earth with it).
Edited on 05-11-2015 06:11
05-11-2015 09:30
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
@climate scientist, in his Data Mine thread (aka The Rabbit Hole), I even provided Into The Night with links to 6378 datasets from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) of surface radiation measurements from all over the world. They were the Surface Radiation measurements used in the Wild et al (2013) paper which was used in the IPCC's energy balance figures in AR5 WG1 diagram in Chapter 2, pg 181.

But he rejected them because he didn't have the time to visit each of the 6378 sites to check that the evil scientists weren't carrying erasers in their pockets to 'fudge the data'.


http://www.bsrn.awi.de/en/data/conditions_of_data_release

"The data collection contains 6378 links to basic measurements of radiation from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN). It covers all available measurements from the time period between 1992-01 and 2012-05 taken at BSRN stations all over the world."


I did not reject the data per se. I rejected the use of composite and fudged data in the paper you quoted. The data you provided was quite bulky and you didn't explain any of it, neither did you provide the methodology or instrumentation information of how it was collected. Without knowing where the numbers come from and how, they are only random numbers. I explained all this in the Data Mine (Rabbit Hole to you).


I posted 6378 links to 6378 different data sets, not the data itself. And that was JUST surface radiation data over a small period of time. One point I was making was that you believe you can post any actual meaningful 'data' in a single forum post.


In the main link I provided, you would have seen where you could have found the info you wanted if you had looked on the left hand side of the page and top of the page where there were links to 'measurement', 'quality checks', 'errata', 'software', 'tool-box' etc. Did you want me to copy and paste hundreds of pages from the website into a forum post? Or perhaps you need instructions how to use a mouse to click on a hyperlink?

You are so entrenched in your irrational paranoia that scientists all over the world must be "fudging data" because you don't like what the data says, that you can't see anything beyond that paranoia. Sad, but really funny at the same time.



05-11-2015 11:21
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
You know what everyone - I think it is clear that Into the night must be correct. There clearly is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, based on the evidence that Into the night has provided here. So I guess that all the physics textbooks need to be re-written. And we probably shouldn't send anyone else up to space. In fact, it is probably safest to ground all flights from now onwards. I mean, the physics of the atmosphere is clearly nothing like we thought, so I doubt it is safe to fly anymore - we might just fall out of the sky! I guess that the world's physicists and atmospheric chemists are just plain wrong! Oh well, thank goodness for Into the Night. You have saved us all!
05-11-2015 14:42
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Greg wrote:
@IntoTheNight -- you are right that insulation mainly stops heat loss through convection, and in fact so do greenhouses, so the greenhouse effect is badly named. However, you then made several claims without citation. Radiated energy isn't significant until the upper atmosphere, the greenhouse effect would never reach equilibrium, the radiated energy isn't even in the right band for CO2 to absorb it. You believe these things to be true ... fine, but why? Can you cite any scientific study to support any of them?

While you're at it, you could help IBdaMann find a refutation of Tyndall's original work on this issue. He seems to have bowed out of this thread, implicitly (to use his turn of phrase) tipping his king.


Plancks Law describes the peak of radiated energy for a material at a given temperature. The absorption of carbon dioxide is available from many sources. So are descriptions and diagrams of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The surface of the Earth heats the air. If the surface is hot, the air is heated to a point that is well above the adiabatic rate of cooling. This creates vertical air movement that sends that energy aloft. This action generally stops at the tropopause, where the air starts increasing temperature with altitude. At this point, radiative methods of losing heat become more predominant. Radiated energy at lower altitudes is significant, but not nearly as significant as vertical air movement.

Birds, gliders, powered aircraft, balloons, and storms all depend on or are heavily affected by this vertical air movement.

To explain the trap problem in a basic form:
* Let us suppose the trap exists.
* A certain amount of energy is applied to the trap adding some amount of energy. We'll call this 1 unit. This unit of energy raises the temperature by X where X is proportional to the unit.
* From this position, we assume that X temperature stays (either as an average or as a peak measurement. It doesn't matter, so long as X is greater than zero.
* A certain amount of energy is applied to the trap again, adding 1 additional unit. Since we know the previous unit hasn't been lost (because the temperature is still X higher, we know this additional unit or partial unit must be added to the one already there.
* We have now 2 units total. This raises the temperature again by X.
* lather, rinse, repeat. End result, we are only adding units, which exist as evidenced by increased temperature X, even if X fades, but it still greater than zero. Thus, a forward feedback loop. X increases, therefore the number of units increase, therefore X increases, and so on.
* the only way to break the loop is the destruction of the trap (and, unfortunately, the Earth with it).





05-11-2015 17:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Ceist wrote:




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
05-11-2015 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
@climate scientist, in his Data Mine thread (aka The Rabbit Hole), I even provided Into The Night with links to 6378 datasets from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) of surface radiation measurements from all over the world. They were the Surface Radiation measurements used in the Wild et al (2013) paper which was used in the IPCC's energy balance figures in AR5 WG1 diagram in Chapter 2, pg 181.

But he rejected them because he didn't have the time to visit each of the 6378 sites to check that the evil scientists weren't carrying erasers in their pockets to 'fudge the data'.


http://www.bsrn.awi.de/en/data/conditions_of_data_release

"The data collection contains 6378 links to basic measurements of radiation from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN). It covers all available measurements from the time period between 1992-01 and 2012-05 taken at BSRN stations all over the world."


I did not reject the data per se. I rejected the use of composite and fudged data in the paper you quoted. The data you provided was quite bulky and you didn't explain any of it, neither did you provide the methodology or instrumentation information of how it was collected. Without knowing where the numbers come from and how, they are only random numbers. I explained all this in the Data Mine (Rabbit Hole to you).


I posted 6378 links to 6378 different data sets, not the data itself. And that was JUST surface radiation data over a small period of time. One point I was making was that you believe you can post any actual meaningful 'data' in a single forum post.

Yes, I know. I also know that no one is going to bother clicking on each link.
Meaningful data has been posted by myself and others. You seem intent on proving the futility of it by jamming the thread with extra long posts that have no meaning. This is the act of a troll.
Ceist wrote:
In the main link I provided, you would have seen where you could have found the info you wanted if you had looked on the left hand side of the page and top of the page where there were links to 'measurement', 'quality checks', 'errata', 'software', 'tool-box' etc. Did you want me to copy and paste hundreds of pages from the website into a forum post? Or perhaps you need instructions how to use a mouse to click on a hyperlink?

A summary of that information is fine. It is better than providing only a hyperlink. There is nothing preventing the hyperlink being included with such a summary.
Ceist wrote:
You are so entrenched in your irrational paranoia that scientists all over the world must be "fudging data" because you don't like what the data says, that you can't see anything beyond that paranoia. Sad, but really funny at the same time.


On the contrary, I believe that most scientists are simply out to collect data as accurately as they can. There would be no purpose to the Data Mine if I believed as you say I do.

Fudging and manufactured data are a real problem. It has been that way since there has been scientists, but it is particularly a problem these days. To deny the problem is to accept any numbers someone throws at you without question. To make a decision based on such information is worse than betting on the slot machine.
05-11-2015 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
climate scientist wrote:
You know what everyone - I think it is clear that Into the night must be correct. There clearly is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, based on the evidence that Into the night has provided here. So I guess that all the physics textbooks need to be re-written. And we probably shouldn't send anyone else up to space. In fact, it is probably safest to ground all flights from now onwards. I mean, the physics of the atmosphere is clearly nothing like we thought, so I doubt it is safe to fly anymore - we might just fall out of the sky! I guess that the world's physicists and atmospheric chemists are just plain wrong! Oh well, thank goodness for Into the Night. You have saved us all!

This whole diatribe doesn't even make sense!
05-11-2015 21:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote: You know what everyone - I think it is clear that Into the night must be correct. There clearly is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, based on the evidence that Into the night has provided here.

You noticed that he presented "falsifying evidence." "Supporting evidence" plays no role.

climate scientist wrote: So I guess that all the physics textbooks need to be re-written.

...or none need be. Physics textbooks aren't physics textbooks if they are discussing religion. I checked my physics textbook and there's no mention of "greenhouse effect" in there. It clearly won't have to be rewritten.

I wonder what books you are calling "physics textbooks."




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
06-11-2015 20:30
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
Greg wrote:While you're at it, you could help IBdaMann find a refutation of Tyndall's original work on this issue.

Greg, I'm not going to chase down Tyndall's work. Tyndall isn't even here in this discussion.

If you have a point, then write your point here in this thread. Then I'll tell you if you are correct or if you are mistaken.


True. Tyndall died in 1893, so he's not, as you say, here in this discussion. I gave you a link, but by not chasing down Tyndall's work, you seem to mean that you won't read it. Well, OK. Give me something to read then. You claim the greenhouse effect violates the first law of thermodynamics. Show me a cite in the scientific literature that supports this claim. The one cite I could find anywhere was in the blog, "The Hockey Schtick", which has a well presented, but, to me, transparently ridiculous, article explaining the theory. Of course, it doesn't cite any scientific research either. All its proof is through thought experiments.

As I say, the myth that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics is much more pervasive ... still fringe, but at least semi-popular among the fringe. What's your opinion of that one?
06-11-2015 21:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Greg wrote:Well, OK. Give me something to read then.


http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/TK8OFVLNETQS2HSGA/p373#c7807

Greg wrote: You claim the greenhouse effect violates the first law of thermodynamics.

I'm sorry but you can't say "the greenhouse effect." There are many versions. They are religious myths in which "climate" performs weather and environmental "miracles." Different people have different accounts of what a "greenhouse effect" is. People like Climate Scientist routine change theirs in mid-argument as they learn some science fundamentals they had not previously known.

Tell me yours.

All versions of the "greenhouse effect" involve some sort of violation of physics. They become like little puzzles, i.e. "find the violation."

Finding the violation in Climate Scientist's version was easy; he picked a rather standard version of the myth. trafn has a fringe version and wrote a book about it. I've seen many versions. The Global Warming religion sure fosters vivid imaginations.

Greg wrote: Show me a cite in the scientific literature that supports this claim.

No. you obviously don't get how this science thing works.

Cite science. Not literature. No author's subjective opinion matters, nor does either your opinion or mine.


Greg wrote: Of course, it doesn't cite any scientific research either.

Are you operating under the assumption that research transforms into science research if you simply add the word "science" in front when writing it? I get the impression you don't know what constitutes scientific research vs. just research.

Greg wrote: All its proof is through thought experiments.

From what falsifiable models were the hypotheses derived to which these experiments were tailored?

Greg wrote: As I say, the myth that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics is much more pervasive

I disagree. The "greenhouse effect" puzzles that involve violations of the 2nd LoT are nowhere near as common as the Climate Scientist's version that violates the 1st LoT. Jussayn.

In any event, the version of the "greenhouse effect" that violates the 2nd LoT is very popular with the religious denomination that worships "thermal forcing" miracles. They believe that the Global Warming god performs "thermal forcing" miracles that cause heat to flow from the cooler upper atmosphere to the warmer lower atmosphere, praise sweet "climate" hallelujia!

Of course, this violates the 2nd LoT but, hey, that's their preferred Global Warming miracle. It makes them happy. It doesn't hurt anyone. It's funny, though, when they describe this process and end with "...and there's no violation of the laws of thermodynamics."


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
07-11-2015 13:46
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Greg wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Greg wrote:While you're at it, you could help IBdaMann find a refutation of Tyndall's original work on this issue.

Greg, I'm not going to chase down Tyndall's work. Tyndall isn't even here in this discussion.

If you have a point, then write your point here in this thread. Then I'll tell you if you are correct or if you are mistaken.


True. Tyndall died in 1893, so he's not, as you say, here in this discussion. I gave you a link, but by not chasing down Tyndall's work, you seem to mean that you won't read it. Well, OK. Give me something to read then. You claim the greenhouse effect violates the first law of thermodynamics. Show me a cite in the scientific literature that supports this claim. The one cite I could find anywhere was in the blog, "The Hockey Schtick", which has a well presented, but, to me, transparently ridiculous, article explaining the theory. Of course, it doesn't cite any scientific research either. All its proof is through thought experiments.

As I say, the myth that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics is much more pervasive ... still fringe, but at least semi-popular among the fringe. What's your opinion of that one?


I have seen and read a decently presented paper which did argue that there was no need of the greenhouse hypothesis to explain the surface temperature of the earth.

It started from the point of considering the top of the atmosphere of earth as the surface of the planet and havingthat as the same temperature as the moon's surface. Them working down with pressure to find what the sea level temperature should be from that. It seemed to work for here and Venus.

I cannot now find it after a brief search and I am not qualified to know if it was decent science or not.

For me there seems little point in arguing about it. The prediced maximum changes are trivial and benifical so why the fuss?
07-11-2015 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Greg wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Greg wrote:While you're at it, you could help IBdaMann find a refutation of Tyndall's original work on this issue.

Greg, I'm not going to chase down Tyndall's work. Tyndall isn't even here in this discussion.

If you have a point, then write your point here in this thread. Then I'll tell you if you are correct or if you are mistaken.


True. Tyndall died in 1893, so he's not, as you say, here in this discussion. I gave you a link, but by not chasing down Tyndall's work, you seem to mean that you won't read it. Well, OK. Give me something to read then. You claim the greenhouse effect violates the first law of thermodynamics. Show me a cite in the scientific literature that supports this claim. The one cite I could find anywhere was in the blog, "The Hockey Schtick", which has a well presented, but, to me, transparently ridiculous, article explaining the theory. Of course, it doesn't cite any scientific research either. All its proof is through thought experiments.

As I say, the myth that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics is much more pervasive ... still fringe, but at least semi-popular among the fringe. What's your opinion of that one?


I have seen and read a decently presented paper which did argue that there was no need of the greenhouse hypothesis to explain the surface temperature of the earth.

It started from the point of considering the top of the atmosphere of earth as the surface of the planet and havingthat as the same temperature as the moon's surface. Them working down with pressure to find what the sea level temperature should be from that. It seemed to work for here and Venus.

I cannot now find it after a brief search and I am not qualified to know if it was decent science or not.

For me there seems little point in arguing about it. The prediced maximum changes are trivial and benifical so why the fuss?

Looking at temperature at the surface of a planet in this way has a solid basis in gas and pressure laws.
07-11-2015 22:19
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
For me there seems little point in arguing about it. The prediced maximum changes are trivial and benifical so why the fuss?


Climate change will be beneficial for some, but there are likely to be far more 'losers' than 'winners'. For example, those living in Bangladesh, and the Netherlands, will very likely suffer adverse consequences. Similarly, people who rely on particular weather conditions in order to eat and drink, because they live off the land, will also likely suffer. If storms, cyclones, hurricanes and heat waves do increase due to climate change, then there will also be financial burdens. I am not an economist, but you may be interested in reading the Stern report, if you have not already: http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1169157/Stern%20Report_Exec%20Summary.pdf
07-11-2015 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
climate scientist wrote:
For me there seems little point in arguing about it. The prediced maximum changes are trivial and benifical so why the fuss?


Climate change will be beneficial for some, but there are likely to be far more 'losers' than 'winners'. For example, those living in Bangladesh, and the Netherlands, will very likely suffer adverse consequences. Similarly, people who rely on particular weather conditions in order to eat and drink, because they live off the land, will also likely suffer. If storms, cyclones, hurricanes and heat waves do increase due to climate change, then there will also be financial burdens. I am not an economist, but you may be interested in reading the Stern report, if you have not already: http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1169157/Stern%20Report_Exec%20Summary.pdf


Another doom and gloom report starting from rash assumptions. This one seems to propose placing everyone under a European 'carbon tax'.

You guys have been claiming this stuff is going to come true for decades now. You guys have claimed it would be hell on Earth by 2000. None of it has happened. You claimed it would be by 2010. None of it has happened. Neither of any of your predictions for 1970, 1980, or 1990 happen. You are a false prophet.
07-11-2015 22:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
climate scientist wrote:Climate change will be beneficial for some, but there are likely to be far more 'losers' than 'winners'.

How can you possibly have any idea if you haven't the vaguest idea of the mysterious ways in which "climate" supposedly changes?

Science necessarily predicts nature. "Climate" dogma can't nail down any sort of falsifiability much less predict anything. Of course, this should be a huge red flag for you, but your blind faith makes you, well, blind.

Hint: huge red flag. Cannot predict anything. Nothing but fear and panic.

climate scientist wrote: For example, those living in Bangladesh, and the Netherlands, will very likely suffer adverse consequences.

Let me guess, because your dogma says the ocean is rising when you can verify with your own eyes that it isn't (hint: Maldives are still as high above the sea level as when they were first inhabited).

So, no, those in low-lying areas don't appear to be in any danger. Next.

climate scientist wrote: Similarly, people who rely on particular weather conditions in order to eat and drink, because they live off the land, will also likely suffer.

How will more abundant crops cause people to suffer? I presume you are referring to more CO2 in the atmosphere that will spark a corresponding increase in plant growth.

What about all the barren deserts on the earth. How would changing those to food-producing regions cause people to suffer?

It seems clear that planet earth would only benefit if only Global Warming were actually real.

climate scientist wrote: If storms, cyclones, hurricanes and heat waves do increase due to climate change, then there will also be financial burdens.

...but we have plenty of solid science showing that no substance has any magical superpowers to perform weather miracles. We have plenty of data that puts the final nail in the coffin of any notion of some correlation between CO2 and the frequency and/or severity of storms, droughts, ice extent or any other element of weather.


.


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
07-11-2015 23:30
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
How will more abundant crops cause people to suffer? I presume you are referring to more CO2 in the atmosphere that will spark a corresponding increase in plant growth.


Well, how about other Greenhouse gases? If I'm not mistaken it's the most harmless of the GHG listed. Something called Global Warming Potential or somenthing like that I'm not sure. If someone can explain how scientist came up with Global Warming Potential please answer.

What about all the barren deserts on the earth. How would changing those to food-producing regions cause people to suffer?


That's a big assumption stated as a fact. Please provide info IB.

@ClimateScientist -
Into the Night said
You guys have been claiming this stuff is going to come true for decades now. You guys have claimed it would be hell on Earth by 2000. None of it has happened. You claimed it would be by 2010. None of it has happened. Neither of any of your predictions for 1970, 1980, or 1990 happen.


If science is the way to predict and understand nature, and the predictions pointed out by Into the Night were made (which I don't know for sure, I have to do some browsing), what went wrong in that prediction? What factor wasn't considered? If we still can't accurately predict this, should it be considered a science and why?
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate Tipping point:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why don't one of the climate scientists commit suicide to make a point?127-02-2019 04:22
Is there a Jewish Point of View?302-02-2019 18:36
Why the silence on zero point energy?311-04-2018 19:59
Whatever happened to the Global Warming "Tipping Points?"1405-10-2015 20:23
We passed the tipping point on climate change in 1901201-10-2015 18:07
▲ 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