Remember me
▼ Content

Understanding Albedo


Understanding Albedo28-10-2015 15:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
It's going to happen. Someone will inject the term "albedo" into a "climate" discussion. If a given discussion carries on long enough, it becomes an almost certainty that the "albedo" card will be played.

What is "albedo" exactly?

It's merely the percentage (a coefficient) of solar energy that is reflected away and not absorbed by the earth. Actually, it's the percentage of any energy that is reflected away, not just from the sun, but we really only care about solar energy.

The earth's temperature is a function only of energy absorbed. Energy absorbed increases the earth's temperature (or changes the state of some matter) which, in turn, increases the intensity of earth's thermal radiation.*

Albedo affects the amount of energy absorbed. Greater albedo results in less solar energy absorbed. Ice and ocean surface comprise the bulk of earth's reflectivity. This leads to the claim that all the ice that is melting is reducing the earth's albedo which is causing the earth to absorb more solar energy which causes the earth's temperature to increase which causes more ice to disappear which causes the albedo to decrease, etc., i.e. creating a viscious thermal feedback loop of death for planet earth.**

The point to remember when discussing earth's temperature at any given moment (or short time interval) is that the earth's albedo is necessarily treated as a constant. This means that albedo represents energy that is reflected away and not absorbed. This means that we don't care about it.

If you were to engage in a discussion on the "greenhouse effect" and what is happening in nature, i.e. devising a model, you would only care about energy that is absorbed by the earth. Nothing else would matter. The amount of energy absorbed will increase the earth's temperature to the point that it will radiate energy away at the same rate as the incoming solar radiation (equilibrium). *** The albedo is not a factor because it is not changing.

Question: What is earth's albedo right now?
Answer: No one knows. We cannot measure it.

We have no way of knowing how much solar radiation is reflected off into space and not absorbed. You might ask "Can't I just check Wikipedia?" Unfortunately, Wikipedia is administered by a bunch of militant Marxists who post fabricated (and highly inflated) "albedo" figures that give the appearance that some other force of nature (i.e. Global Warming) is making the earth warmer than it "otherwise would be."




* - This falsifies most versions of the "greenhouse effect" which claim that an increase in temperature coincides with a decrease in intensity of thermal radiation.

** - Ice seems to be increasing/accumulating/amassing in both the Greenland ice shelf and in Antarctica. The ocean's surface isn't changing. The earth is more in danger of entering a cooling loop that will cause an ice age than it is in danger of a spiraling oven-roast.

*** - If you're looking at an "energy budget" diagram that doesn't have the "incoming solar energy" equal to "outgoing thermal radiation" then you can feel comfortable in simply dismissing it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-10-2015 15:22
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Interesting IB, very interesting indeed. So if there's no numbers of thermal radiation we reflect off to space the whole GH theory is based on information from one side of the coin.

This falsifies most versions of the "greenhouse effect" which claim that an increase in temperature coincides with a decrease in intensity of thermal radiation.

So if I understood correctly, that's what you mean when you say that the GH effect violates the first LoT, correct?

Ice seems to be increasing/accumulating/amassing in both the Greenland ice shelf and in Antarctica. The ocean's surface isn't changing. The earth is more in danger of entering a cooling loop that will cause an ice age than it is in danger of a spiraling oven-roast.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
28-10-2015 16:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Totototo wrote: So if I understood correctly, that's what you mean when you say that the GH effect violates the first LoT, correct?

No, To4, that is something else.

A violation of the 1st LoT occurs in the claim that CO2 increases temperature (thus adding thermal energy) through energy changing form. According to the 1st LoT, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but that is precisely what is described when temperature is increased (i.e. an increase in thermal energy)but no other work is performed. All that is described is EM being absorbed and being "reradiated" or being "radiated back to earth" or "creating feedback loops" or a series of energy changing form. This renders false many versions of the "greenhouse effect."

What I was discussing earlier was the standard fallback position of the person who runs into the 1st LoT. The claim becomes that CO2 does not create energy, but rather reduces earth's ability to radiate electromagnetic energy. This is, of course, false. As temperature increases, thermal radiation increases. Temperature is the only factor in thermal radiation. ^#


Ice seems to be increasing/accumulating/amassing in both the Greenland ice shelf and in Antarctica. The ocean's surface isn't changing. The earth is more in danger of entering a cooling loop that will cause an ice age than it is in danger of a spiraling oven-roast.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm


http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GreenlandIceSheet.htm



^# - The most common error made by proponent of a "greenhouse effect" conjecture is to confuse thermal convection/conduction with thermal radiation. This error is readily identified by implications that certain substances "trap" thermal energy or somehow "insulate" thermal radiation.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-10-2015 15:32
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Is albedo the same for all wavelenghts of light?
29-10-2015 16:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tim the plumber wrote: Is albedo the same for all wavelenghts of light?

No.

Albedo is simply a coefficient on an aggregate quantity of energy. If you could accurately measure the exact amount of solar energy striking the earth (all wavelengths, say X joules), and could accurately measure the amount of that energy that is reflected away (all wavelengths, say Y joules), then the earth's albedo for solar energy is Y/X. The amount of energy absorbed by the earth would be (X-Y)/X.

However, some wavelengths are "reflected" by some surfaces that absorb other wavelengths. A researcher might want to focus on incoming energy of a particular wavelength, or frequency band, say F, over a particular surface, say S. It would be appropriate to speak in terms of the surface's albedo A for that wavelength, i.e. A(F,S) = ?

So when speaking of the earth's albedo, it really is a composite of an infinite number of specific sub-albedos that are not all equivalent..and we currently don't have the means to accurately measure all of them and add them up.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-10-2015 17:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: Is albedo the same for all wavelenghts of light?

No.

Albedo is simply a coefficient on an aggregate quantity of energy. If you could accurately measure the exact amount of solar energy striking the earth (all wavelengths, say X joules), and could accurately measure the amount of that energy that is reflected away (all wavelengths, say Y joules), then the earth's albedo for solar energy is Y/X. The amount of energy absorbed by the earth would be (X-Y)/X.

However, some wavelengths are "reflected" by some surfaces that absorb other wavelengths. A researcher might want to focus on incoming energy of a particular wavelength, or frequency band, say F, over a particular surface, say S. It would be appropriate to speak in terms of the surface's albedo A for that wavelength, i.e. A(F,S) = ?

So when speaking of the earth's albedo, it really is a composite of an infinite number of specific sub-albedos that are not all equivalent..and we currently don't have the means to accurately measure all of them and add them up.


From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

Albedo depends on the frequency of the radiation. When quoted unqualified, it usually refers to some appropriate average across the spectrum of visible light. In general, the albedo depends on the directional distribution of incident radiation, except for Lambertian surfaces, which scatter radiation in all directions according to a cosine function and therefore have an albedo that is independent of the incident distribution. In practice, a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) may be required to accurately characterize the scattering properties of a surface, but albedo is very useful as a first approximation.


I'm not sure I will have athink about it.
29-10-2015 17:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tim the plumber wrote:From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

I recommend avoiding citing Wikipedia; it's not an authoritative source. Anyone could have written the wiki. In fact, if it has any relationship to anything that has any relationship to Global Warming, then the wiki was completely edited by a rabid Marxist to ensure the IPCC approves.

In this case, the wiki mistakenly specifies the unqualified term "albedo" as being limited to "visible light."

On the plus side, the wiki points out something I omitted in my treatise, and that is "angle of incidence". If you have ever skipped stones in a pond, you know that the flatter the angle, the more likely the stone will skip (reflect). A surface will absorb a given EM frequency per a likelihood associated with the angle of incidence. So the Greenland ice shelf will reflect more visible light (thus will have a greater albedo for visible light) when the sun is near the horizon than when the sun is directly overhead.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-10-2015 19:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

I recommend avoiding citing Wikipedia; it's not an authoritative source. Anyone could have written the wiki.

That's quite hilarious, coming from someone who just cited Cliff Harris as an authoritative source.
29-10-2015 20:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

I recommend avoiding citing Wikipedia; it's not an authoritative source. Anyone could have written the wiki.

That's quite hilarious, coming from someone who just cited Cliff Harris as an authoritative source.


Who's Cliff Harris? I didn't cite anyone.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 00:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

I recommend avoiding citing Wikipedia; it's not an authoritative source. Anyone could have written the wiki.

That's quite hilarious, coming from someone who just cited Cliff Harris as an authoritative source.

Who's Cliff Harris? I didn't cite anyone.

He's the author of the link you cited at:

http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GreenlandIceSheet.htm

Surely you read your own references?
30-10-2015 11:13
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

I recommend avoiding citing Wikipedia; it's not an authoritative source. Anyone could have written the wiki. In fact, if it has any relationship to anything that has any relationship to Global Warming, then the wiki was completely edited by a rabid Marxist to ensure the IPCC approves.

In this case, the wiki mistakenly specifies the unqualified term "albedo" as being limited to "visible light."

On the plus side, the wiki points out something I omitted in my treatise, and that is "angle of incidence". If you have ever skipped stones in a pond, you know that the flatter the angle, the more likely the stone will skip (reflect). A surface will absorb a given EM frequency per a likelihood associated with the angle of incidence. So the Greenland ice shelf will reflect more visible light (thus will have a greater albedo for visible light) when the sun is near the horizon than when the sun is directly overhead.


Different wavelengths of light interact differently with different substances. Glass will allow visable light through whist stopping IR, mostly. That's why there is often a glass door on the oven which will allow you to see through but will stop the blast of heat hitting you.
30-10-2015 12:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

I recommend avoiding citing Wikipedia; it's not an authoritative source. Anyone could have written the wiki. In fact, if it has any relationship to anything that has any relationship to Global Warming, then the wiki was completely edited by a rabid Marxist to ensure the IPCC approves.

In this case, the wiki mistakenly specifies the unqualified term "albedo" as being limited to "visible light."

On the plus side, the wiki points out something I omitted in my treatise, and that is "angle of incidence". If you have ever skipped stones in a pond, you know that the flatter the angle, the more likely the stone will skip (reflect). A surface will absorb a given EM frequency per a likelihood associated with the angle of incidence. So the Greenland ice shelf will reflect more visible light (thus will have a greater albedo for visible light) when the sun is near the horizon than when the sun is directly overhead.


Different wavelengths of light interact differently with different substances. Glass will allow visable light through whist stopping IR, mostly. That's why there is often a glass door on the oven which will allow you to see through but will stop the blast of heat hitting you.


Not exactly. Glass still gets hot and radiates IR. Glass is a solid that blocks the oven's hot air from escaping (and burning any onlooker) while preventing cool air from entering the oven.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 12:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote:
He's the author of the link you cited at:

http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GreenlandIceSheet.htm

Surely you read your own references?


When did I cite that article?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 12:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
He's the author of the link you cited at:

http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GreenlandIceSheet.htm

Surely you read your own references?


When did I cite that article?


Aaah, in a different thread on a different topic for a different point.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 13:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
He's the author of the link you cited at:

http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GreenlandIceSheet.htm

Surely you read your own references?


When did I cite that article?


Aaah, in a different thread on a different topic for a different point.

Nope, it was in this thread and on this topic. Third post. Just scroll up a bit and refresh your memory.
30-10-2015 16:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote: Nope, it was in this thread and on this topic. Third post. Just scroll up a bit and refresh your memory.

You are correct. Good catch. For some reason I associated the topic of increasing terrestrial ice with another thread.

Thanks.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 17:44
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
IBdaMann wrote:
For some reason I associated the topic of increasing terrestrial ice with another thread.

The link was also in the other thread: Is The Gulf Stream slowing down?

"Search keywords" at the top of this site at the left just below the header can be a help here.
30-10-2015 17:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
John Niclasen wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
For some reason I associated the topic of increasing terrestrial ice with another thread.

The link was also in the other thread: Is The Gulf Stream slowing down?

"Search keywords" at the top of this site at the left just below the header can be a help here.


Thanks John. You are perceptive. I had forgotten that I had also referenced it in this thread.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 22:52
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - by the way, you may have noticed that some members like to be disrespectful toward other members in these threads. For some reason, they prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message.

We now have a new sub-forum here in Climate-debate.com for anyone who would like to discuss their ideas without being harassed because of what they think: Sharing Ideas. Please feel free to start a new thread there if you would rather be posting in a respectful, harassment-free environment.

Sharing Ideas is unique among all the other sub-forums on this website, as it is currently the only one dedicated to creating a non-debate, non-judgmental, supportive, respectful and synergistic environment where people can share and explore new ideas about climate, climate change, and climate change science together.



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!
31-10-2015 02:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
trafn wrote:

Are there any threads for which you don't plan on being a one-man denial of service attack?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-10-2015 03:11
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - I have spent time in contemplation, meditating upon the nature of participation within this vast community we know as Climate-debate.com, and time has revealed to me the need for deep healing, the reversal of many wounds, the withdrawing of many arrows from our beaten breasts. So, in service of our great and shared community, I bring the message of peaceful and respectful conversation to all in need. Where ever there is a comment posted in anger, when ever there is a voice of a member raised against another member, where ever insults overcome prudent exposition, I will be there to bring the calming message of peace and respect for all our fellow members of this website. For you. For me. For everyone.

[branner: copy about sub-forum removed - and in posts below]


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 by branner on 01-11-2015 00:13
31-10-2015 03:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
spamn wrote: <another form-letter spam>

This is why leftists governments always end up oppressing their own people.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-10-2015 04:12
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - your continued use of mockery only stresses the need for you to open your mind and your heart to the importance of M2C2 (man-made climate change) and the many ways in which you can share your intelligent and thoughtful ideas free from the anger and frustration they currently contain. If you see redundancy in the world, instead of passing judgement on others, look inward to find what redundancies you might be adding to the world. The science of climate change is waiting for you.


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

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

Edited by branner on 01-11-2015 00:14
31-10-2015 22:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - your continued use of mockery only stresses the need for you to open your mind and your heart to the importance of M2C2 (man-made climate change) and the many ways in which you can share your intelligent and thoughtful ideas free from the anger and frustration they currently contain. If you see redundancy in the world, instead of passing judgement on others, look inward to find what redundancies you might be adding to the world. The science of climate change is waiting for you. In an effort to help you better understand it:

* spam *



Again, you make a personal attack, then invite the guy you're attacking into the Kiddie Pool where he's "safe" from personal attacks. This is the act of an unbiased moderator???
Edited on 31-10-2015 22:18
01-11-2015 00:06
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you wrote Again, you make a personal attack, then invite the guy you're attacking into the Kiddie Pool where he's "safe" from personal attacks.

When I use the word "mockery," it is merely an observation of the kind of behavior that both you and IBdaMann are exhibiting.

When he refers to me as "spamn," he is mocking me.

When you refer to the Sharing Ideas sub-forum as "The Kiddie Pool," you are mocking my efforts to create a harassment-free sub-forum in this website.

Malevolent Projecting is a delusional state in which a person commonly accuses others of exhibiting their malevolent behavior as a means of avoiding any responsibility for their own malevolent behavior. Rather than admit to the fact that they are harming others, the use malevolent projection to shift attention away from themselves by falsely accusing others of that same bad behavior. When participating in social media such as this website, a moderator can often be helpful in avoiding one's tendency to use malevolent projection. If you or someone you know suffers from this condition, consider posting in Sharing Ideas, a new, moderated sub-forum here at Climate-debate.com.

Sharing Ideas - the projection-free 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!
01-11-2015 02:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

I recommend avoiding citing Wikipedia; it's not an authoritative source. Anyone could have written the wiki.

That's quite hilarious, coming from someone who just cited Cliff Harris as an authoritative source.


Cliff Harris claims on his website he is one of the "top ten climatologists of the last 40 years!". Yet he has no qualifications in any field of science (apparently he studied insurance law at some college?). He has NO published research. He has some er 'scrapbooks' on temperatures that he has kept since he was a child. He is also a devout Christian who believes that God controls the climate and that he can use the Bible for climate predictions.

This awesome 'authoritative science source' was provided by IBdaMann


'nuff said.



Edited on 01-11-2015 02:59
01-11-2015 03:03
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - well, if he studied insurance law, then I think Cliff Harris is more than qualified to insure that his statements are accurate. Don't you?


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

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
01-11-2015 03:14
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@Ceist - well, if he studied insurance law, then I think Cliff Harris is more than qualified to insure that his statements are accurate. Don't you?

The internet is full of crackpot cranks making all sorts of bizarre evidence-free claims. Does anyone take them seriously? (except other crackpot cranks or people so desperate to find anything at all to 'confirm' their religious/ideological beliefs, that they'll use anything they find on the internet, no matter how ridiculous)

That's why when making claims about science, I think it's preferable to use evidence-based authoritative sources like the major science institutions, current science textbooks, science Journals etc.



Edited on 01-11-2015 03:32
01-11-2015 03:23
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@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.


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!
01-11-2015 10:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote Again, you make a personal attack, then invite the guy you're attacking into the Kiddie Pool where he's "safe" from personal attacks.

When I use the word "mockery," it is merely an observation of the kind of behavior that both you and IBdaMann are exhibiting.

When he refers to me as "spamn," he is mocking me.

When you refer to the Sharing Ideas sub-forum as "The Kiddie Pool," you are mocking my efforts to create a harassment-free sub-forum in this website.

Absolutely I will mock you and your Kiddie Pool. Your "harassment-free" Kiddie Pool is nothing but a place set aside for you to conduct your censorship. That's hardly harassment free, dude.

trafn wrote:
Malevolent Projecting is a delusional state in which a person commonly accuses others of exhibiting their malevolent behavior as a means of avoiding any responsibility for their own malevolent behavior. Rather than admit to the fact that they are harming others, the use malevolent projection to shift attention away from themselves by falsely accusing others of that same bad behavior. When participating in social media such as this website, a moderator can often be helpful in avoiding one's tendency to use malevolent projection. If you or someone you know suffers from this condition, consider posting in Sharing Ideas, a new, moderated sub-forum here at Climate-debate.com.

Sharing Ideas - the projection-free sub-forum!

Denying your own argument again. More psychoquackery. More spam.
You are not in a position to make personal attacks (which is basically all you've done in the Adult Pool lately), and then claim a holier-than-thou Kiddie Pool.

You yourself are to blame for the mockery. Only you yourself can fix it. I warned you when you decided to leave the Adult Pool that you will never find your solution by hiding from dissenters. This is but one result of why.
01-11-2015 12:17
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
trafn wrote:
@Tim the plumber - by the way, you may have noticed that some members like to be disrespectful toward other members in these threads. For some reason, they prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message.

We now have a new sub-forum here in Climate-debate.com for anyone who would like to discuss their ideas without being harassed because of what they think: Sharing Ideas. Please feel free to start a new thread there if you would rather be posting in a respectful, harassment-free environment.

Sharing Ideas is unique among all the other sub-forums on this website, as it is currently the only one dedicated to creating a non-debate, non-judgmental, supportive, respectful and synergistic environment where people can share and explore new ideas about climate, climate change, and climate change science together.


'tis you who attacks me rather than the subject.

'tis you who attacks a video because you don't like the makers of the video rather than the arguments there in.
01-11-2015 12:32
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:Absolutely I will mock you and your Kiddie Pool.


And you can probably expect the same treatment in return if that's how you want to play. The problem for you is, you have no science or valid evidence from authoritative science sources to support your views, so your uneducated pseudoscience evidence-free views leave themselves wide open for mockery and ridicule.

I can understand why you can only resort to insults and mockery when you get challenged to provide authoritative science sources to support your assertions. There aren't any. That should tell a rational person something. I feel no obligation to treat you with kid gloves and pretend you actually have any kind of sane valid arguments when you claim 'greenhouse' gases don't even exist or that scientists all over the world are 'fudging data'. In another environment I might tone it down and be more respectful while patiently taking apart your uneducated pseudoscience claims with mainstream science and evidence from valid sources.

As there aren't really any rules to be polite or respectful on this forum, if you want to toss around insults and mock other people, then you'll just have to put up with your views being ridiculed and mocked quite harshly. I'm glad you have no problem with that.


Frankly, what I'd really like to say is "read a goddamned science textbook, you ignorant moron', but straight out personal insults, only invite more straight out personal insults and this place would just be a feces flinging forum with no science discussed in any intelligent way and no evidence provided to support discussions. That type of forum seems to be what IBAwesome wants. Sounds like that's what you want as well.



Edited on 01-11-2015 12:32
01-11-2015 17:26
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you wrote Absolutely I will mock you and your Kiddie Pool. Your "harassment-free" Kiddie Pool is nothing but a place set aside for you to conduct your censorship. That's hardly harassment free, dude.

Again, I find it amazing how threatened you are by the fact that this website has one and only one sub-forum dedicated to harassment-free posting. You are a troll who likes to insult and harass people anywhere you can on Climate-debate.com, and you do, except in Sharing Ideas because I moderate it and I won't let you insult people there. But even allowing a 1% safe-zone from people like you is too much for you to handle, so you have repeatedly extracted other people's content from SI so you can harass them in non-SI threads where you are free of the harassment-free SI guidelines.

You are a troll. You need to be banned from this website.


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

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
01-11-2015 17:30
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - you wrote 'tis you who attacks me rather than the subject. 'tis you who attacks a video because you don't like the makers of the video rather than the arguments there in.

You are nothing more than a retarded version of Into the Night who is, in fact, a second rate version of IBdaMann. The three of you are trolls who need to be banned from this website.

PS - adding 18th century grammatical structure to your posts only makes you sound like a very old, verbally incontinent retard.


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!
01-11-2015 17:39
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - actually, IBdaMann, his second rate side-kick Into the Night, and their retarded servant Tim the plumber are trolls who are only doing what the administration of this website allows them to do.

If the administration of this website truly wanted to have a place where people can rationally discuss climate change science in an adult-like fashion, they would do the following:

1. Have global website guidelines like the ones in Sharing Ideas, and then enforce them with a three-strikes-and-you're-out (banned) policy.

2. Delete every single thread that currently exists on this website, as the vast majority of content currently on Climate-debate.com is overwhelmingly garbage that just drives potential, new members away because it's such a bunch of shit.

3. After deleting everything, invite everyone - including our current trolls - back to start over, and immediately ban anyone who violates the three-strikes-and-you're-out policy.

I would strongly advocate that the administration take this approach immediately, unless of course it's goal to have a troll-based website.


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

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




Join the debate Understanding Albedo:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Understanding aspects of human induced climate changes through belief119-08-2019 00:57
Rapid climate shift due to Albedo Flip407-03-2017 21:32
▲ 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