originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Nathan-D
Goodness me, I've never come across such a stubborn fixation as you appear to have before. Look, this is going to be my last reply and then I shall
have to leave you to your own devices.
Remember that? I do, because it was probably the most all-time facepalm moment I’ve ever experienced on ATS
So, instead of addressing my arguments you instead decide to trawl through my back-catalogue of posts to find a comment I made on this forum 5 years
ago in some feeble attempt to humiliate me. Your humiliation-technique is pathetic. A character-assault from you is like being attacked by a child
wielding a bath-sponge.
so please - continue to post intellectually dishonest and nonsensical talking points in support of their schemes, while you demand the rest of us
“phonies” bow down to your emperor’s new clothes..
On the contrary, if anyone here is being ‘intellectually dishonest’ it’s you. I am the one who's been discussing AGW while you have attempted to
divert attention away so as to evade my challenges to you about them. You did this graphically in your previous reply to me by quoting a comment I
made 5 years ago to give yourself a pretext for dismissing my objections.
Your posts are some of the best examples I’ve ever seen of the brainwashing power these shills have in transforming naïve skeptics into
I’m not the one who is in denial here. You made the claim that the warming from CO2 is well-established science and now it is up to you to
demonstrate its truth and to answer our objections to it before you can expect us to accept it. Accusing me of being in denial while citing papers
that exist behind pay-walls will not convince rationally-minded people of the truth of your claim one bit. Your implicit suggestion that I should just
accept your claims while my real and honest objections to it remain unanswered and even unaddressed by you is beneath my consideration as a skeptic.
It implies that my reasons for rejecting your claims are irrelevant and of no importance and that I should just accept it anyway because expert
‘climate scientists’ say it is so. Much of humanity evolved out of that authoritarian mindset about five hundred years ago via the Renaissance.
Apparently you want to put us back inside it again.
I have a degree in this stuff from an actual accredited university, not wattsupwiththat.com.
You have a degree? When did you ever study any climate science? If you were actually to do the unthinkable and investigate the so-called “science of
climate change” for yourself with his mind open and unprejudiced, you would find that it is all mere conjecture and make-believe with no real
substance, just like the King’s New Clothes. But of course doing that would require you to dig deeply into the subject and to trace up the sources
of the ideas and beliefs that comprise its contents and then to evaluate them rationally and properly in your mind. It would take a lot of time and a
lot of mental effort on your part that no-one else could do for you – no servants and no “experts” with their ready-made opinions to offer you.
It is much easier for you to accept what all those interested parties are telling you is the obvious truth that only climate change denier fools
cannot see and to perpetuate the delusional mindset that plainly you have already bought from them.
(but is sooo complicated for people like yourself that you have to invent a deranged, non-sensical 150 year long conspiracy theory to explain it
I have not been talking about ‘conspiracy theories’ in this thread. That is something you invented all by yourself.
Or maybe I had to ask because you have no idea what you’re doing. I did calculate it using a formula that
IS in textbooks and got 0.09K.
The greenhouse positive feedback formula you applied in that paper has been derived from computerised models whose natures and parameters have been
determined arbitrarily by the modellers. The increase in temperature from a given increase in ‘radiative forcing’ is not calculated with that
formula. It is calculated with the Stefan-Boltzmann law which relates a body’s total amount of radiance to its absolute temperature. It is written
I = 0.000000056704*T^4
Where I is the intensity of the body’s radiance, 0.000000056704 is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant and T is the body's absolute temperature.
Rearranging the formula to make T the subject, we obtain:
T = (I/0.000000056704)^0.25
If a body absorbs an amount of radiation so that its absolute temperature increases by a corresponding amount, then this equation gives us:
deltaT = (T^4 + deltaI/0.00000005604)^0.25 - T
So, a radiative forcing increment of 0.2W/sq.m at the earth’s average surface temperature of 288K comes out as:
deltaT = (288^4 + 0.2/0.000000056704)^0.25-288 = 0.037C.
It’s a simple calculation that I would have thought a practicing scientist of your calibre could do in his sleep. 0.037C/decade from CO2 is hardly
the stuff of which the eco-cult’s doomsday scenario is made, is it? You appear to have got your green knickers in a twist over this.
Yes, “politically-correct pseudoscience based on speculative, unvalidated and unproven climate models” that was first confirmed by an Irish
physicist in 1859 before there was such thing as a computer model
Your arrogant dogmatism is breath-taking. The only sources for your flat assertions which you provide as though they were established matters of fact
are papers that exist behind pay-walls and from a scientist over 200 years ago before IR-spectrometers had even been invented. Sorry, but I should
not be expected to pay any fees for the privilege of enabling you to provide me with purported evidence to support your assertions. As for Arrhenius,
he was wrong and his equation is bunk. The IPCC’s (modified) Arrhenius equation’s essential conflict with the laws of physics can be seen most
graphically from the fact that the equation implies that the global warming from all the CO2 on the planet Mars should be 30C, when the actual global
warming on Mars is only 5-8C (This information was not available to Arrhenius in his day of course). These results are radically different to the
predictions of the IPCC based on their Arrhenius model. I don’t know how they may wish to explain away the flaws in the Arrhenius law but I imagine
they will have a hard time trying. They have not had to up to now of course because, as far as I know, they have not been challenged on them. However,
I think those of us who want to insist upon scientific rigour may now be in a position to call their bluff.
such willful idiocy.
No. Skeptics are assuming the “null hypothesis” that the climate is changing due to natural causes and then examining and evaluating the proposed
evidence for it not being natural but being man-made. To date skeptics have found that proposed evidence to be unconvincing and far short of
compelling. Therefore we do not accept it and we are not convinced of the man-made global warming theory that the proposed “evidence” is supposed
edit on 7-9-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)