Remember me
▼ Content

Why deny global warming



Page 2 of 4<1234>
16-02-2016 00:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Surface Detail wrote: The first thing we need to get clear is that changes in insulation can give rise to temperature changes when there is a constant supply of external energy.

Sorry. The first thing we need to lock down is that energy sources increase temperature, not insulation. This should be obvious to you but we really can't proceed until you understand this. It does not matter how irrelevant you "deem" this point. It does not matter how desperately you wish to conflate thermal convection/conduction with thermal radiation.

One more time: If you were to place a rock in space with no star or any other significant source of energy, and you were to wrap the rock in a thick layer of the most advanced insulation known to chemical engineering (that was the same temperature as the rock).

1. would the rock increase in temperature?

2. would the rock nonetheless decrease in temperature?

Surface Detail wrote:It depends how hot the rock is to start with.

No it does not. If the insulation is the same temperature as the rock then both the rock and the insulation will specifically cool.

Shall I take it that you do not understand this? Shall I take it that you believe that there is a certain temperature that will somehow yield different results? You really have no business discussing a more complex topic if you don't grasp something this simple.

Surface Detail wrote:The Earth and everything on it is being continuously supplied with energy by the sun.

...and this does not change the fundamental mechanics of what energy sources do and don't do, and of what insulation does and does not do. It would be pointless for you to move on to a scenario involving a heat source while you are still operating under the mistaken belief that insulation somehow acts as a heat source.

You need to first understand the fundamentals, but I see a lot of resistance from you to even take steps to understand the science involved in your own conjecture.

Let me know if anything changes.


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
16-02-2016 00:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The first thing we need to get clear is that changes in insulation can give rise to temperature changes when there is a constant supply of external energy.

Sorry. The first thing we need to lock down is that energy sources increase temperature, not insulation. This should be obvious to you but we really can't proceed until you understand this. It does not matter how irrelevant you "deem" this point. It does not matter how desperately you wish to conflate thermal convection/conduction with thermal radiation.

One more time: If you were to place a rock in space with no star or any other significant source of energy, and you were to wrap the rock in a thick layer of the most advanced insulation known to chemical engineering (that was the same temperature as the rock).

1. would the rock increase in temperature?

2. would the rock nonetheless decrease in temperature?

Surface Detail wrote:It depends how hot the rock is to start with.

No it does not. If the insulation is the same temperature as the rock then both the rock and the insulation will specifically cool.

Shall I take it that you do not understand this? Shall I take it that you believe that there is a certain temperature that will somehow yield different results? You really have no business discussing a more complex topic if you don't grasp something this simple.

Surface Detail wrote:The Earth and everything on it is being continuously supplied with energy by the sun.

...and this does not change the fundamental mechanics of what energy sources do and don't do, and of what insulation does and does not do. It would be pointless for you to move on to a scenario involving a heat source while you are still operating under the mistaken belief that insulation somehow acts as a heat source.

You need to first understand the fundamentals, but I see a lot of resistance from you to even take steps to understand the science involved in your own conjecture.

Let me know if anything changes.

Whether the rock cools or warms depends on its initial temperature. If its initial temperature is below that of the cosmic microwave background (2.7 K) then it will warm. If its temperature is above that, then it will cool.

Insulation does not act as a heat source. I've not claimed that it does. It does, however, slow the rate of flow of energy from one place to another. Agreed?
16-02-2016 03:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Surface Detail wrote: Whether the rock cools or warms depends on its initial temperature. If its initial temperature is below that of the cosmic microwave background (2.7 K) then it will warm. If its temperature is above that, then it will cool.

The cosmic microwave background would be an energy source.

Surface Detail wrote: Insulation does not act as a heat source. I've not claimed that it does.

Unfortunately, you not claiming something doesn't prevent you from presenting models which imply what you might very well explicitly state is not happening. You violate physics and then follow up with the words "...and there's no violation of physics."

I already know what's going to happen. You are eager to start throwing in a heat source, i.e. the sun, so you can 1) begin having insulation add additional energy (i.e. become an energy source) and then include the words "...and it's adding no additional energy), and 2) you want the assertion "CO2" is insulation to thermal energy" to be assumed. That's not going to happen, by the way.


Surface Detail wrote: It does, however, slow the rate of flow of energy from one place to another. Agreed?

I'm waiting for you to acknowledge that insulation reduces the coefficient of heat transfer in conduction/convection but has nothing to do with thermal radiation which is driven by temperature alone.


.


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
16-02-2016 11:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Allright down the rabbit hole we go Im not a moderator so I can't stop every thread being diverted into a disscusion of THE LAWS OF FISICKS.;

What about water vapor if you dont believe the long established properties of CO2 you don't believe in the properties of water vapour either correct?
16-02-2016 12:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote: Im not a moderator so I can't stop every thread being diverted into a disscusion of THE LAWS OF FISICKS.;

We can at least celebrate the fact that you aren't a moderator.

spot wrote:What about water vapor if you dont believe the long established properties of CO2 you don't believe in the properties of water vapour either correct?

I acknowledge all the properties of all substances. I don't recognize the magical superpowers of the deities of your religion. That's why you don't appreciate any discussion that turns to physics (reality) and away from your dogma.


.


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
16-02-2016 13:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
You don't seem to detect where I am going with this line of questioning, what do you think water vapour does in the atmosphere?
16-02-2016 14:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote: You don't seem to detect where I am going with this line of questioning,...

Are you sure you want to go down this "rabbit hole"? You seem to be embarking on a discussion about the LAWS OF FISICKS.


spot wrote: ...what do you think water vapour does in the atmosphere?

Become precipitation?


.


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
16-02-2016 15:08
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: You don't seem to detect where I am going with this line of questioning,...

Are you sure you want to go down this "rabbit hole"? You seem to be embarking on a discussion about the LAWS OF FISICKS.


spot wrote: ...what do you think water vapour does in the atmosphere?

Become precipitation?


.


no I'm not sure about engaging in a disscussion with you but not because I fear that I would be proved wrong, If you were right me you and everyone else would never had existed.

Anyway besides become preciptation what else does it do, in the summer have you noticed how sometimes you get warm muggy nights?
16-02-2016 16:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote: If you were right me you and everyone else would never had existed.

That's an interesting argument, i.e. My being correct implies we never existed. Wow. Can I do that too?

spot wrote: Anyway besides become preciptation what else does it do, in the summer have you noticed how sometimes you get warm muggy nights?

Answer #2: Aid mold and mildew to flourish?


.


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
16-02-2016 16:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Te he, No thats damp the water is no longer in its vapour form for that to happen, I was more interested in the effect water vapour has on temputure.
16-02-2016 17:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote:
Te he, No thats damp the water is no longer in its vapour form for that to happen, I was more interested in the effect water vapour has on temputure.

Are you going to tell me that water vapor creates energy that increases temperature?

Are you going to tell me that water vapor destroys energy thus decreasing temperature?

...or are you going to tell me that water vapor, as a substance, has no direct relationship with temperature?


.


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
16-02-2016 18:09
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
spot wrote:
Te he, No thats damp the water is no longer in its vapour form for that to happen, I was more interested in the effect water vapour has on temputure.

I am still undecided on the legitimacy of back-radiation increasing the Earth's surface temperature during the day but I think there is some sort of greenhouse effect operating at night with water vapour and clouds. Nights are generally warmer when there are clouds are the air is humid. As I understand, this is because clouds prevent convection and water vapour has an extremely high specific heat capacity and can retain a large amount of energy and can release that energy when it condenses, whereas it only takes a mere 5 miliseconds for CO2 to release energy after absorbing radiation. I have heard arguments that water vapour in fact makes the Earth cooler during the day, which seems logical to me when comparing day-time temperatures between environments on Earth with almost no water vapour like the Sahara Desert to environments with lots of water vapour like the Amazon. If someone could pin-down a definite average temperature between these environments then maybe we would have a good idea if water vapour and clouds have a net-cooling or net-warming effect. But I dare say that no-one has done that work. The averages I have seen appear to be all over the place and not very certain.
Edited on 16-02-2016 18:19
16-02-2016 19:05
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Who of the 'great scientific minds' here is able to explain the eccentricity of the last glaciation? If you can explain this, you might successfully explain something else about our climate.

If you can't explain the past, you don't understand the future.
16-02-2016 20:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Whether the rock cools or warms depends on its initial temperature. If its initial temperature is below that of the cosmic microwave background (2.7 K) then it will warm. If its temperature is above that, then it will cool.

The cosmic microwave background would be an energy source.

Which pervades the entire universe.

Surface Detail wrote: Insulation does not act as a heat source. I've not claimed that it does.

Unfortunately, you not claiming something doesn't prevent you from presenting models which imply what you might very well explicitly state is not happening. You violate physics and then follow up with the words "...and there's no violation of physics."

This would be less confusing if you'd just comment on what I say rather than what you think I will say.

I already know what's going to happen. You are eager to start throwing in a heat source, i.e. the sun, so you can 1) begin having insulation add additional energy (i.e. become an energy source) and then include the words "...and it's adding no additional energy), and 2) you want the assertion "CO2" is insulation to thermal energy" to be assumed. That's not going to happen, by the way.

I don't want to assume anything, but we will need to introduce an energy source at some point, since that is the situation we want to model. I just thought it's best to be absolutely clear about what an insulator does and what its effect is first of all.

Surface Detail wrote: It does, however, slow the rate of flow of energy from one place to another. Agreed?

I'm waiting for you to acknowledge that insulation reduces the coefficient of heat transfer in conduction/convection but has nothing to do with thermal radiation which is driven by temperature alone.

The fundamental property of an insulator is that it slows the transfer of energy from one place to another. This is typically through reduction of conduction or convection, but there no need to limit ourselves to those forms. That's for later though.

If we are now clear on what an insulator is, the next thing to do is indeed to consider the effect of adding an insulator (of whatever type) to a system through which energy is flowing. Could you imagine a situation in which you could change the temperature of part of such a system by adding an insulator?
16-02-2016 20:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Buildreps wrote:Who of the 'great scientific minds' here is able to explain the eccentricity of the last glaciation? If you can explain this, you might successfully explain something else about our climate.

It looks like roughly every 100,000 years the earth's eccentricity climbs to ~0.04 (might require up-rounding) to 0.05+ which seems to correspond to more ice.

Buildreps wrote: If you can't explain the past, you don't understand the future.

Is that because past performance guarantees future results?


.


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
16-02-2016 20:38
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
IBdaMann wrote:
Buildreps wrote:Who of the 'great scientific minds' here is able to explain the eccentricity of the last glaciation? If you can explain this, you might successfully explain something else about our climate.

It looks like roughly every 100,000 years the earth's eccentricity climbs to ~0.04 (might require up-rounding) to 0.05+ which seems to correspond to more ice.

Buildreps wrote: If you can't explain the past, you don't understand the future.

Is that because past performance guarantees future results?


.


1) How does this changing orbital eccentricity can account for an eccentricity of ice formation around the poles?

2) What is the net result in energy collection of this changing orbital eccentricity? When e is large, it would account for glaciations, but you will see that the net collected solar energy in one years remains unchanged. How do we want to explain ice ages knowing this?
Edited on 16-02-2016 20:42
16-02-2016 21:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Buildreps wrote:
1) How does this changing orbital eccentricity can account for an eccentricity of ice formation around the poles?

2) What is the net result in energy collection of this changing orbital eccentricity? When e is large, it would account for glaciations, but you will see that the net collected solar energy in one years remains unchanged. How do we want to explain ice ages knowing this?

All these questions are starting to look like a quiz.

I don't have enough information to confirm that only orbital eccentricity is the cause or even that it is simply a matter of correlation and not causation.


.


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
16-02-2016 21:16
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Sorry it's not meant to be a quiz, but when no one can solve these questions, there's no real debate about any of the causes, or is it?
16-02-2016 21:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Buildreps wrote:
Sorry it's not meant to be a quiz, but when no one can solve these questions, there's no real debate about any of the causes, or is it?

For reasons of applicability to today's world, let's add the question of solar cycles/minimums. Are we plunging into a "micro"-period of decreased temperatures?


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
16-02-2016 22:05
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
For an explanation of the 'greenhouse' effect:

Benestad, R. E. (2016). A mental picture of the greenhouse effect. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 1-10.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1732-y/fulltext.html

Supplemental material:

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00704-016-1732-y/MediaObjects/704_2016_1732_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

or

Pierrehumbert, Raymond T., David Hafemeister, Daniel Kammen, Barbara Goss Levi, and Peter Schwartz. "Infrared radiation and planetary temperature." In AIP Conference Proceedings-American Institute of Physics, vol. 1401, no. 1, p. 232. 2011.

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

or any textbook on Atmospheric Physics


For past ice-ages:

The short 24 minute lecture below is from the National Academy of Sciences July 2015 Symposium.

Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth's Climate History: The Role of CO2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg


Longer version from Professor Richard Alley's lecture at the 2009 American Geophysical Union conference:

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g


Professor Richard Alley - Curriculum Vitae
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Alley_vita_long_aug13.pdf



Edited on 16-02-2016 22:32
16-02-2016 22:25
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
It seems it wouldn't make that much difference to the earth's global temperature even if the sun went into a grand minimum. Especially with atmospheric GHG's at the current levels.



Jones, G. S., Lockwood, M., & Stott, P. A. (2012). What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near‐surface temperature changes?. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 117(D5).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD017013/full

.....

Maycock, A. C., Ineson, S., Gray, L. J., Scaife, A. A., Anstey, J. A., Lockwood, M., ... & Osprey, S. M. (2015). Possible impacts of a future Grand Solar Minimum on climate: stratospheric and global circulation changes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 120(18), 9043-9058.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022022/full

...


Ineson, S., Maycock, A. C., Gray, L. J., Scaife, A. A., Dunstone, N. J., Harder, J. W., ... & Wood, R. A. (2015). Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum. Nature communications, 6.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20150624&spMailingID=48949689&spUserID=ODkwMTM2NjQyNgS2&spJobID=703165793&spReportId=NzAzMTY1NzkzS0

...

Feulner, G., & Rahmstorf, S. (2010). On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(5).

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf



Edited on 16-02-2016 22:28
16-02-2016 22:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Ceist referenced: Benestad, R. E. (2016). A mental picture of the greenhouse effect. Theoretical and Applied Climatology

"The radiative energy emitted from an object can be described by Planck's law, relating electromagnetic energy loss to a so-called 'emission temperature' (T e )."

The above statement might be the only straightforward, correct statement in this liturgy, which might also explain why it is presented first.

Otherwise this sermon is one of the most needlessly convoluted pieces of gibber-babble. Let's jump to the conclusion.

Ceist referenced: Benestad, R. E. (2016). A mental picture of the greenhouse effect. Theoretical and Applied Climatology,

5 Conclusions
"The GHE is a result of a vertical distance between a planet's surface, where energy from the sun is deposited, and higher aloft, where its heat loss back to space takes place. The vertical distance itself, however, is determined by GHGs."



Who stands behind this statement? Show of hands?


.


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
16-02-2016 22:37
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.
Edited on 16-02-2016 22:37
16-02-2016 22:40
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field, where he explains what you were asking, but you can still claim "no-one can explain this".



You also managed to miss more than 200 published papers on Antarctic and Greenland ice-cores/ice-sheets listed in Prof Alley's CV.

"You better go back to the source of the info", instead of just making it up yourself.



Edited on 16-02-2016 22:59
16-02-2016 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field where he explains what you were asking, but can still claim "no-one can explain this".


"You better go back to the source of the info
", instead of just making it up yourself.


All Hail the Great God Consensus, for He teaches us to not think for ourselves!


The Parrot Killer
16-02-2016 22:56
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field where he explains what you were asking, but can still claim "no-one can explain this".


"You better go back to the source of the info
", instead of just making it up yourself.


All Hail the Great God Consensus, for He teaches us to not think for ourselves!


All Hail the Great God Cereal Box- where delusional science deniers suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect learn everything they need to know about The LAWS of FISICKS and other 'sciencey stuff'.



Edited on 16-02-2016 23:13
16-02-2016 22:57
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field, where he explains what you were asking, but you can still claim "no-one can explain this".



You also managed to miss more than 200 published papers on Antarctic and Greenland ice-cores/ice-sheets listed in Prof Alley's CV.

"You better go back to the source of the info
", instead of just making it up yourself.


I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense. Maybe you can give us the quintessence of the scientific conclusions?
16-02-2016 23:01
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field, where he explains what you were asking, but you can still claim "no-one can explain this".



You also managed to miss more than 200 published papers on Antarctic and Greenland ice-cores/ice-sheets listed in Prof Alley's CV.

"You better go back to the source of the info
", instead of just making it up yourself.


I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense.

Yes, it's obvious you and the other delusional science deniers suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect don't want to 'waste your time' on learning science. Laughably, you believe you already 'know all there is to know".

I didn't post those resources for the fake 'skeptic' science deniers who just reject them out of hand, but for rational people who might be interested.



Edited on 16-02-2016 23:57
16-02-2016 23:44
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Pompously pontificating science deniers pretending to be 'experts', don't seem to have a clue how ridiculous they appear. It's comedy gold.



Edited on 17-02-2016 00:12
17-02-2016 02:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field, where he explains what you were asking, but you can still claim "no-one can explain this".



You also managed to miss more than 200 published papers on Antarctic and Greenland ice-cores/ice-sheets listed in Prof Alley's CV.

"You better go back to the source of the info
", instead of just making it up yourself.


I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense.

Yes, it's obvious you and the other delusional science deniers suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect don't want to 'waste your time' on learning science. Laughably, you believe you already 'know all there is to know".

I didn't post those resources for the fake 'skeptic' science deniers who just reject them out of hand, but for rational people who might be interested.


You're a fan, aren't you, of Dunning and Kruger. Two guys that won the Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 for this theory of theirs. Psychoquackery at it's best!

I laugh at them, and I laugh at you for depending so heavily on them!


The Parrot Killer
17-02-2016 02:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist, none of the answers says something about the eccentricity (of the glaciation). When no one can explain this, it's all bullocks.

And here we are again (it's like saying to an Abrahamist that Allah/God/Yahweh doesn't exist): Look into the original data of Vostok or Dome-C and you will see that CO2 follows the trends of δ18O or δD. You probably know where these proxies stand for.

You better go back to the source of the info, instead of parroting just interpretations of others.

It's interesting how you managed NOT to watch those lectures by someone who is an expert in the field where he explains what you were asking, but can still claim "no-one can explain this".


"You better go back to the source of the info
", instead of just making it up yourself.


All Hail the Great God Consensus, for He teaches us to not think for ourselves!


All Hail the Great God Cereal Box- where delusional science deniers suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect learn everything they need to know about The LAWS of FISICKS and other 'sciencey stuff'.

All Hail the Great God Consensus, who teaches the faithful to resort to psychoquackery as Consensus and to use accusations and insults when cornered!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-02-2016 02:15
17-02-2016 12:59
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist wrote:
[quote]Buildreps wrote:"You better go back to the source of the info[/i]", instead of just making it up yourself.


I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense.

Yes, it's obvious you and the other delusional science deniers suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect don't want to 'waste your time' on learning science. Laughably, you believe you already 'know all there is to know".

I didn't post those resources for the fake 'skeptic' science deniers who just reject them out of hand, but for rational people who might be interested.


You're a fan, aren't you, of Dunning and Kruger. Two guys that won the Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 for this theory of theirs. Psychoquackery at it's best!

I laugh at them, and I laugh at you for depending so heavily on them!

Here's how Wikipedia explains the Dunning-Krunger effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.


Sounds a lot like climate scientists to me. You know, the sort of climate scientists who think they have god-like mental powers of omniscience and have convinced themselves that their simplistic models can accurately predict the temperature of the climate one-hundred years from now and refuse to admit their own ineptitude when their models fail to predict the climate a few years in advance:



The Dunning–Kruger effect describes Michael Mann, Phil Jones and the IPCC perfectly. Cue an attack on Roy Spencer unrelated to the graph above.
17-02-2016 14:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
While there are discrepancies in their predictions of the equatorial mid-troposphere temperatures, the models have done a pretty good job of predicting the global average surface temperature:



The surface is, of course, where we actually live!
Edited on 17-02-2016 14:15
17-02-2016 14:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
One Punch Man wrote:Here's how Wikipedia explains the Dunning-Krunger effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.


Sounds a lot like climate scientists to me. You know, the sort of climate scientists who think they have god-like mental powers of omniscience and have convinced themselves that their simplistic models can accurately predict the temperature of the climate one-hundred years from now and refuse to admit their own ineptitude when their models fail to predict the climate a few years in advance:



The Dunning–Kruger effect describes Michael Mann, Phil Jones and the IPCC perfectly. Cue an attack on Roy Spencer unrelated to the graph above.


A very astute observation. One does not have to look beyond this particular forum to find many examples of people who believe that the Global Warming religion bestows upon them divine knowledge, mostly:

1. An understanding of reality that is superior to that of physics, i.e. one which exposes the errors in the body of science, such as how the laws of thermodynamics don't mean what they say or how Planck's Law doesn't apply.

2. Ability to know the accurate global average temperature, even without knowing what "average global temperature" means exactly.

3. Ability to just know what accurate temperatures would be under different circumstances, e.g. if clouds were removed from the sky, if CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, etc...

4. Ability to speak for countless, unnamed others by virtue of knowing what they think and thus wielding the awesome "consensus."

5. Per items 1-4 above, the ability to speak for science, and thus owning science, which bestows the authority to determine what qualifies as "peer reviewed" and hence is "the truth," and what is not "peer reviewed" and hence just the drivel of charlatans.

Naturally this is the kind of divinely anointed individual I would ask about next century's weather...so I can plan accordingly. I don't want any of my events getting rained out just because I didn't avail myself of the forecast.


.


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
17-02-2016 14:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Surface Detail wrote:The surface is, of course, where we actually live!

It's too bad there hasn't been any falsifiable "climate" model produced that predicts nature.

There have been countless computer programs that have generated outputs that reflect the programmers' assumptions, some of which have intervals of high correlation to historical data. Unfortunately, they are all just guesses that inevitably diverge from reality.


.


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
17-02-2016 14:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
This seems a well-referenced way to determine who's a sufferer:

A Dunning-Kruger detection kit

1) Skill-boundary transgression: The individual is seeking to operate as an authority or qualified individual, in a field beyond their personal level of academic and professional qualification.

2) Self-identified authority: The individual identifies themselves as sufficiently competent to comment authoritatively on the subject.

3) Unrecognized competence: The individual's self-assessed competence is not recognized by those who are academically and professional competent.

4) False peers: The individual believes that the favourable commentary of other unskilled and non-professional individuals, indicates they themselves are sufficiently qualified.

5) Scrutiny avoidance: The individual fails to submit their work for professional scrutiny (such as in the relevant scholarly literature), for review by those genuinely qualified.

6) Pioneer complex: The individual self-identifies as a pioneer uncovering previously unknown or unrecognized facts; a Copernicus or Galileo.

7) Conspiracy claims: The individual explains opposition by qualified professionals as a coordinated attempt to suppress truth, in order to defend the existing scholarly consensus.

8) Allocentric claims of bias: The individual explains the difference between their views and those of qualified professionals, as the result of inherent bias on the part of the professionals; accusations of bias are directed at anyone other than themselves, and they claim objectivity.

There's quite a bit of number (7) going on here!
Edited on 17-02-2016 14:41
17-02-2016 15:17
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist wrote:
[quote]Buildreps wrote:"You better go back to the source of the info[/i]", instead of just making it up yourself.


I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense.

Yes, it's obvious you and the other delusional science deniers suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect don't want to 'waste your time' on learning science. Laughably, you believe you already 'know all there is to know".

I didn't post those resources for the fake 'skeptic' science deniers who just reject them out of hand, but for rational people who might be interested.


You're a fan, aren't you, of Dunning and Kruger. Two guys that won the Ig Nobel Prize in 2000 for this theory of theirs. Psychoquackery at it's best!

I laugh at them, and I laugh at you for depending so heavily on them!

Here's how Wikipedia explains the Dunning-Krunger effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.


Sounds a lot like climate scientists to me. You know, the sort of climate scientists who think they have god-like mental powers of omniscience and have convinced themselves that their simplistic models can accurately predict the temperature of the climate one-hundred years from now and refuse to admit their own ineptitude when their models fail to predict the climate a few years in advance:



The Dunning–Kruger effect describes Michael Mann, Phil Jones and the IPCC perfectly. Cue an attack on Roy Spencer unrelated to the graph above.

Science deniers who only ever read and parrot pseudoscience conspiracy blogs are so predictable. The obligatory 'conspiracy' personal attack on Mann (or Jones) out of the blue as if they were the only climate scientists to ever exist; a complete lack of understanding of climate models; and tossing in the obligatory dodgy unpublished "All the models are wrong!" deceptive blog graph by Spencer and Christy as if it's a "Gotcha!"


Sheesh, could you try to be more original at least?

No need to "attack Spencer" personally. Let's just take a look at that dodgy unpublished blog graph of his:

Spencer used TMT data -the Mid Troposphere goes up to about 50,000 ft and has a known contamination with the cooling stratosphere. Oh, and it's only from the Tropics, not global.

Spencer also averaged the UAH & RSS TMT values, which were more than 2-sigma different, which hid the fact that UAH TMT was a serious outlier.

The balloon data (radiosondes) plot is also incorrect as it's been shown that the satellite data and radiosonde data started to diverge from the early 2000s.

But even worse, he used single point baselines. Seriously? He's either incompetent or deliberately being deceptive.

RCP 8.5 scenario for the model runs? Really?

Hmmm, seems Spencer (who does know better) was intentionally trying to deceive ignorant gullible science deniers who will copy and paste his dishonest unpublished blog graphs on internet forums like this.

Add in the extra arrows etc from a retired physicist who worked for the energy industry opining outside his field of expertise (lookup Ultracrepidarianism)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ultracrepidarianism

And these science deniers arrogantly claim all climate scientists are stupid or incompetent?


Predictable and laughable.




Edited on 17-02-2016 15:46
17-02-2016 15:36
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
While there are discrepancies in their predictions of the equatorial mid-troposphere temperatures, the models have done a pretty good job of predicting the global average surface temperature:



The surface is, of course, where we actually live!




https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/689889733737082880




https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/689889149189525504



Edited on 17-02-2016 15:38
17-02-2016 15:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
How climate science deniers misrepresent the satellite data.

Interview with Dr Carl Mears from RSS at the Dec 2015 American Geophysical Union conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0

From an AP interview with Dr Carl Mears:

Earth's temperature depends on where you put thermometer

"Carl Mears, senior scientist for Remote Sensing Systems, told The Associated Press in an email: "The satellite measurements do not measure the surface warming. They are measurements of the average temperature of thick layers of the atmosphere" about 50,000 feet off the ground."

"For impacts on human society and the environment, the surface data are more important," Mears said. Mears said his analysis of his own satellite data has five times the margin of error of ground measurements. That's because satellites use complex mathematical algorithms and thousands of bits of code to translate wavelength measurements into temperature readings"


Interviews with several other scientists (mostly from the Dec 2015 AGU conference) discussing misrepresentation of satellite data:

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



Edited on 17-02-2016 16:10
17-02-2016 17:03
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
This seems a well-referenced way to determine who's a sufferer:

A Dunning-Kruger detection kit

1) Skill-boundary transgression: The individual is seeking to operate as an authority or qualified individual, in a field beyond their personal level of academic and professional qualification.

2) Self-identified authority: The individual identifies themselves as sufficiently competent to comment authoritatively on the subject.

3) Unrecognized competence: The individual's self-assessed competence is not recognized by those who are academically and professional competent.

4) False peers: The individual believes that the favourable commentary of other unskilled and non-professional individuals, indicates they themselves are sufficiently qualified.

5) Scrutiny avoidance: The individual fails to submit their work for professional scrutiny (such as in the relevant scholarly literature), for review by those genuinely qualified.

6) Pioneer complex: The individual self-identifies as a pioneer uncovering previously unknown or unrecognized facts; a Copernicus or Galileo.

7) Conspiracy claims: The individual explains opposition by qualified professionals as a coordinated attempt to suppress truth, in order to defend the existing scholarly consensus.

8) Allocentric claims of bias: The individual explains the difference between their views and those of qualified professionals, as the result of inherent bias on the part of the professionals; accusations of bias are directed at anyone other than themselves, and they claim objectivity.

There's quite a bit of number (7) going on here!


Pretty much all of the points are displayed on this forum. It's like the author actually met this forum's resident greenhouse effect deniers and was describing their behaviour




Edited on 17-02-2016 17:11
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Why deny global warming:

Remember me

▲ 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