U.S. "Arctic Outbreak" this week signals the End of Global Warming

[Bigdog]

You are still locked in your paradox. Playing word games will not resolve your paradox.

Science is not a word game.

A photon is electromagnetic radiation.

The vibrational energy of atoms and molecules is what we perceive as Heat.

A photon is Not an atom.

A photon is Not bound by the 2nd law of TD.

Heat can Not flow through a vacuum.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Proverbs 17:28 KJV: "Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."

Proverbs 18:15 KJV: "The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge."


There was once a time when I had no understanding at all of Stefan-Boltzmann. At that time, I "knew inside of me" that global warming was bogus, but I didn't have the proper knowledge re: science in order to clearly explain WHY that was the case. Since that particular "once upon a time", and only after I held my peace, shut my lips, had a prudent heart, and opened my ears to seek knowledge from others who HAD said knowledge, I then learned more about science, even Stefan-Boltzmann specifically, and now I have sufficient knowledge re: science in order to explain why the global warming faith is complete and utter BS, and why no rational adult would ever believe it to be true

Like me, you CAN gain this knowledge too, if you would only hold your peace, shut your lips, have a prudent heart, and open your ears to seek knowledge from others who HAVE said knowledge.

God sure works in mysterious ways. You sit there and claim with conviction that global warming doesn't exist while spouting bible verses telling you the wise seek knowledge.

Since you know so much about Stefan-Blotzmann what kind of math is involved in the equation. Show us that the knowledge is now in you.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Right. At this point, I've just correctly identified it.

I can.

No. It wouldn't do you any good; you've already proven yourself to be unwilling to learn.

I'm able to explain it.

And there it is. The claim that you are so smart that you can't explain it. I wonder what fallacy that is. Perhaps you can tell us what fallacy occurs when someone refuses to provide support for their claim.

I'm not interested in your distractions. I'm interested in why any rational adult should believe that Earth is warming. You've been unable to explain that thus far.

Continued denial of your own argumentation.

Still waiting for you to present where I made such an argument.

Projection.

Who is "us"? YOU are a singular person. And no, I don't care to tell you; it's not going to do you any good in your current lack of understanding of much more basic concepts.

Indeed I did.

No. You're not ready to learn about that yet, since you haven't even shown yourself ready to learn about the most basic of concepts regarding this matter.

Basic concepts like color temperature which you know nothing about? Basic concepts like ice out which you didn't know what it was until you googled it.

I don't have to prove anything to you. YOU are the one claiming that Earth is warming, so YOU need to prove to ME how that is so. The 'burden of proof' is YOURS, not mine.

Because you are describing an impossibility (and included another one in this response of yours). An email is not "speaking to someone" btw.

Good to know you aren't actually speaking to me. You are nothing but an idiot shouting into the ether.

They fall under the 'less ice cover' category.

Not necessarily. "Obviously, you aren't from Wisconsin."

Right. And you are from Wisconsin? I'll bet you can't name a single Packer past or present without doing an online search. I'll bet you can't name one beer produced by New Glarus without doing an online search. Do you even know what a cheese curd is? IBDaMann says you are a "he" and anyone who is male in Wisconsin or spent any time there would know those things and yet somehow you don't know the things it is impossible to avoid if you spend any time at all in Wisconsin.

None of that means that Earth is warmer. And who says that ice out "should be" on any particular date? Any time I see the words "should be" in what is supposed to be a discussion about science, a red warning light goes off. You didn't answer my question btw: How old do you believe Earth is? I'm guessing that 150 years is but a very small fraction of that number.

It's relevant. See above.

When did I use the words "should be" in reference to any particular day? Your reading skills suck. Once again, you don't seem to be able to understand what the word average means. Warming in the last 100 years doesn't care what happened in the previous 2 billion since it only refers to the last 100 years. You somehow seem to think that if someone were to say that the Bucks are having a bad year we should go back and look at their last 100 seasons because that is the only way to determine what their record for this season.

 

[gfm7175]

God sure works in mysterious ways. You sit there and claim with conviction that global warming doesn't exist while spouting bible verses telling you the wise seek knowledge.

Since you know so much about Stefan-Blotzmann what kind of math is involved in the equation. Show us that the knowledge is now in you.

To express it in "beginner-mode" terms for you:

Radiance = Temperature^4 * Stefan-Boltzmann Constant * Emissivity Constant.

In other words, Radiance and Temperature are directly proportional. That means that, if you decrease the Radiance value (via "heat-trapping CO2 greenhouse gas"), then the Temperature value will likewise DECREASE, NOT increase.

 

[Into the Night]

Baloney ^

The temperature(s) of the sun

How Hot Is the Sun? Sun Temperature

Learn how hot the Sun is and take a look at the temperature range for different parts of our favorite star.

sciencenotes.org

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Sun. It IS possible to measure the temperature of the photosphere of the Sun +- 1000 deg F, using Wien's law.

The temperature(s) of the moon

What is the Temperature on the Moon?

The temperature on the moon can vary drastically between lunar day and night time.

www.space.com

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Moon.

The temperature(s) of the earth

CORE https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22297915

MANTLE https://www.livescience.com/58097-earth-mantle-is-hotter-than-realized.html

CRUST https://phys.org/news/2016-09-temperature-earth-crust.html

SURFACE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature

ATMOSPHERE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Show us (people who are average intelligence and above) this post you think I am denying. As IBDaMann has said, "Either support your contention or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed."

He doesn't have to prove what you posted. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! ANYONE can read them!

Claiming a fallacy without explaining why you think it is a fallacy is a fallacy in itself in that you are simply avoiding making a refutation.

A fallacy that you make requires no explanation. You simply made the fallacy. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Not familiar with Stefan Boltzmann?

The Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is light radiated in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant', 'e' is a measured constant 'emissitivyt', or how well a surface absorbs or emits light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

The earth has never had a particular temperature at any given point

Yes it does. It is, however, unknown.

because the temperature at the poles are never the same temperature as the equator.

Divisional error fallacy.

The average for the globe requires you to take multiple readings and average them.

Math errors: Failure to provide unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare tolerance.

You might want to not bring up paradoxes since it introduces the paradox of why you sound exactly like Into the Night.

Not the meaning of 'paradox'. Redefinition fallacy. He simply quotes the same theories of science that you ignore that I do. The theories of science don't change depending on who's quoting them.

This would be an example of a strawman argument on your part.

Fallacy fallacy. No strawman.

Multiple readings don't give you the earth's temperature. It gives you an average. It is a statistical sampling of temperatures that is then averaged and over time can show you changes over time. At no time does it show the earth's temperature. The data isn't used to show the earth's temperature. It shows changes.

Paradox. Irrational. Math errors same as above.

Denial of statistical analysis.

Inversion fallacy.

Strawman argument

Fallacy fallacy.

Denial of statistics

Inversion fallacy.

Clearly you don't if you fail to understand what ice out is and how and why it occurs.

A lake is not the Earth.

No, you don't.

Denial of facts on your parts as you build a strawman.

Fallacy fallacy.

Ice out is not greater or lesser surface area of ice. Clearly you don't live in Wisconsin since you don't know what ice out is.

A lake is not the Earth. Wisconsin is not the Earth. Redefinition fallacies.

Denial of facts on your part.

Buzzword fallacy. Go learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'Universal Truth'.

No. Which is why the change in the average day of ice out in lakes throughout the world shows warming.

A lake is not the Earth. Wisconsin is not the Earth. Redefinition fallacies.

It's you that is lying about several things.

Inversion fallacy.

Show where I said what you claim.

Denying your own posts won't work.

Your strawman is not evidence I said something. It is merely a fallacy on your part.

Fallacy fallacy. No strawman.

Where did you show how to calculate an average? I see no formula that you ever posted.

Math errors. Same as above.

 

[Into the Night]

We (people of average or above intelligence) know that correctly identifying a fallacy means you can explain why something is a fallacy. Simply spouting that something is a fallacy doesn't make it a fallacy. It only shows you can't support your claim.

Your fallacies do not need an explanation.

Clearly you aren't familiar with the law since you know nothing about color temperature.

Color is not a temperature or temperature scale. Redefinition fallacy.

Since I never did anything of the sort it would mean you are simply building a strawman.

Fallacy fallacy. No strawman.

You have not provided any evidence in support of your claim which shows that you are not actually arguing against what I have said but simply making up an argument that you think you can defeat.

He is not claiming anything. YOU ARE. Inversion fallacy. Attempted proof by inversion. Attempted proof by negation.

You are not even aware of what the data set is.

What data set??? Statistical math REQUIRES an unbiased raw data set.

It is rather difficult for you to claim I am making math errors when you don't know what the numbers are.

You are making math errors. I have already listed them. You obviously know nothing about statistical math.

I guess you don't understand the difference between readings from the same place and readings from multiple locations.

Math errors: same as above.

Yeah, you clearly don't live in Wisconsin since no one that lives there would refer to ice out in this way. You also don't seem to understand that there is more than one lake in Wisconsin let alone lakes in Canada, Japan, Russia, Europe and all through the northern and southern hemisphere. Lakes throughout the world are recording ice outs of roughly 2 weeks earlier than they were 100 years ago. Some lakes have records of ice out that are 600 years old.

It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth. Most lakes don't get ice. Wisconsin is not the Earth. A lake is not the Earth. Redefinition fallacy.

At this point we can see you don't live in Wisconsin and aren't familiar with Stefan Boltzmann.

Inversion fallacies.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

To express it in "beginner-mode" terms for you:

Radiance = Temperature^4 * Stefan-Boltzmann Constant * Emissivity Constant.

In other words, Radiance and Temperature are directly proportional. That means that, if you decrease the Radiance value (via "heat-trapping CO2 greenhouse gas"), then the Temperature value will likewise DECREASE, NOT increase.

There you go proving you don't know much about Stefan-Boltzmann. It only applies to temperature of the surface of a black body. It does not tell you if the interior of the black body is colder or warmer than the surface.

If you have an iron ball that is 70K and you heat the surface to 800K the interior of the ball will not be 800K when the surface reaches 800K. The interior will be colder than the surface. Then if you take a an iron ball that is 1000K and cool the surface to 800K, the interior of the ball will be hotter than 800K. Both balls will have the exact same radiance when the surface is 800K but the interiors will be different because of the way heat transfers. Now tell us where the surface of the earth is that you are applying Stefan-Boltzmann to. Can Strefan-Boltzmann tell us what is happening not on that surface? Why or why not?

Can you tell us what the emissivity constant is and tell us if that changes based on what kind of material is radiating?

But you didn't tell us what kind of math is involved for the formula you provided. Is it calculus? trigonometry? geometry?

 

[Into the Night]

And there it is. The claim that you are so smart that you can't explain it. I wonder what fallacy that is. Perhaps you can tell us what fallacy occurs when someone refuses to provide support for their claim.

Your fallacies don't require an explanation.

Still waiting for you to present where I made such an argument.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Basic concepts like color temperature which you know nothing about? Basic concepts like ice out which you didn't know what it was until you googled it.

Color is not a temperature or temperature scale. Redefinition fallacy.

Good to know you aren't actually speaking to me. You are nothing but an idiot shouting into the ether.

Ether is an anesthetic (a shortened name for dyethyl ether). Why would anyone shout into an anesthetic???

Right. And you are from Wisconsin? I'll bet you can't name a single Packer past or present without doing an online search. I'll bet you can't name one beer produced by New Glarus without doing an online search. Do you even know what a cheese curd is? IBDaMann says you are a "he" and anyone who is male in Wisconsin or spent any time there would know those things and yet somehow you don't know the things it is impossible to avoid if you spend any time at all in Wisconsin.

Strawman fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

When did I use the words "should be" in reference to any particular day?

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Your reading skills suck.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Once again, you don't seem to be able to understand what the word average means.

Discard of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Math errors: same as above.

Warming in the last 100 years doesn't care what happened in the previous 2 billion since it only refers to the last 100 years. You somehow seem to think that if someone were to say that the Bucks are having a bad year we should go back and look at their last 100 seasons because that is the only way to determine what their record for this season.

Strawman fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

He doesn't have to prove what you posted. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! ANYONE can read them!

A fallacy that you make requires no explanation. You simply made the fallacy. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

The Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is light radiated in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant', 'e' is a measured constant 'emissitivyt', or how well a surface absorbs or emits light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

Yes it does. It is, however, unknown.

Divisional error fallacy.

Math errors: Failure to provide unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare tolerance.

Not the meaning of 'paradox'. Redefinition fallacy. He simply quotes the same theories of science that you ignore that I do. The theories of science don't change depending on who's quoting them.

Fallacy fallacy. No strawman.

Paradox. Irrational. Math errors same as above.

Inversion fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy.

Inversion fallacy.

A lake is not the Earth.

Fallacy fallacy.

A lake is not the Earth. Wisconsin is not the Earth. Redefinition fallacies.

Buzzword fallacy. Go learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'Universal Truth'.

A lake is not the Earth. Wisconsin is not the Earth. Redefinition fallacies.

Inversion fallacy.

Denying your own posts won't work.

Fallacy fallacy. No strawman.

Math errors. Same as above.

CO2 is not the earth. You have now fallen into your own paradox fallacy. Can you get up?

 

[Into the Night]

There you go proving you don't know much about Stefan-Boltzmann.

He just quoted it, dumbass!

It only applies to temperature

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature.

of the surface of a black body.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies...all the time. You can never just 'set it aside' for even a moment.

It does not tell you if the interior of the black body is colder or warmer than the surface.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature.

If you have an iron ball that is 70K and you heat the surface to 800K the interior of the ball will not be 800K when the surface reaches 800K. The interior will be colder than the surface. Then if you take a an iron ball that is 1000K and cool the surface to 800K, the interior of the ball will be hotter than 800K. Both balls will have the exact same radiance when the surface is 800K but the interiors will be different because of the way heat transfers. Now tell us where the surface of the earth is that you are applying Stefan-Boltzmann to. Can Strefan-Boltzmann tell us what is happening not on that surface? Why or why not?

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to every surface.

Can you tell us what the emissivity constant is and tell us if that changes based on what kind of material is radiating?

No.

But you didn't tell us what kind of math is involved for the formula you provided. Is it calculus? trigonometry? geometry?

Algebra. Apparently you don't understand THAT either!

 

[Into the Night]

CO2 is not the earth.

Never said it was, moron. You are hallucinating again.

You have now fallen into your own paradox fallacy. Can you get up?

LIF. Grow up. You can't resolve your paradox by blaming it on someone else!

 

[Into the Night]

Science is not a word game.

A photon is electromagnetic radiation.

The vibrational energy of atoms and molecules is what we perceive as Heat.

A photon is Not an atom.

A photon is Not bound by the 2nd law of TD.

Heat can Not flow through a vacuum.

Photons are bound by the 2nd law of thermodynamics AND the 1st law of thermodynamcis, both of which you ignore.
Heat CAN flow through a vacuum. The Sun heats the Earth, for example.

 

[Tobytone]

The earth's climate doesn't change for no reason.

In the past, geological events, orbital perturbations, or solar cycles could explain it.

The recent, very rapid acceleration of global warming is attributable to the rapid buildup of heat-trapping GHGs emitted or caused by human activities.

Ever Heard of the OCEAN, GENIUS.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

He just quoted it, dumbass!

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies...all the time. You can never just 'set it aside' for even a moment.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to every surface.

No.

Algebra. Apparently you don't understand THAT either!

Algebra is hard for you it seems.
Any algebraic equation can be used to calculate any of the variables as long as you know the other variables.
For instance if the equation is A + B = C you can calculate B if you know A and C by simply subtracting A from both sides B = C - A

Since the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is an algebraic equation it works the same way as all other algebraic equations.
Radiance = Temperature^4 * Stefan-Boltzmann Constant * Emissivity Constant.

To solve for Temperature -
Temperature^4 = Radiance/( Stefan-Boltzmann Constant * Emissivity Constant.)

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Never said it was, moron. You are hallucinating again.

LIF. Grow up. You can't resolve your paradox by blaming it on someone else!

I never said that lakes were the earth so it seems you never grew up using your standards. The paradox is now eating you alive.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to every surface.

Where is the surface of the atmosphere? Does the atmosphere have more than one surface?

 

[gfm7175]

And there it is. The claim that you are so smart that you can't explain it. I wonder what fallacy that is. Perhaps you can tell us what fallacy occurs when someone refuses to provide support for their claim.

You only assume that I can't.

Still waiting for you to present where I made such an argument.

Already done.

Basic concepts like color temperature which you know nothing about?

Temperature is not a color.

Basic concepts like ice out which you didn't know what it was until you googled it.

Stop blaming me for your word games and your lack of knowledge.

Good to know you aren't actually speaking to me. You are nothing but an idiot shouting into the ether.

Whatever.

Right. And you are from Wisconsin?

Yes, I've said that many times now.

I'll bet you can't name a single Packer past or present without doing an online search.

Bart Starr
Don Majkowski
Gilbert Brown
Brett Favre
Antonio Driver
Billy Schroeder
Robert Brooks
Reggie White
Vonnie Holliday
LeRoy Butler
Al Harris
Tony Mandarich
Mark Chmura
Doug Pederson
Dorsey Levens
William Henderson
Matt Hasselbeck
Mark Brunell
Najeh Davenport

Need I go on??? I was a big Packer fan in years past. Now YOU are gonna have to do an online search in order to make sure that I got them all correct because I even threw in a few obscure names.

I'll bet you can't name one beer produced by New Glarus without doing an online search.

Spotted Cow. I'm not a big beer drinker, but I've had that one before.

Do you even know what a cheese curd is?

Yes. I LOVE cheese curds! I love all types of them, too, but I do prefer white cheddar over yellow cheddar. A&W had some really good cheese curds back when I used to eat there from time to time. There's also the (cold) "squeaky" type of cheese curd commonly sold in grocery stores and specialty cheese shops (Wisconsin has A LOT of those shops btw!).

IBDaMann says you are a "he"

I am indeed a he.

and anyone who is male in Wisconsin or spent any time there would know those things

I DO know those things (see above).

and yet somehow you don't know the things it is impossible to avoid if you spend any time at all in Wisconsin.

Why would you assume that I don't know those things before even allowing me to respond?

When did I use the words "should be" in reference to any particular day? Your reading skills suck.

Stop denying you own posts. Stop blaming me for your issues.

Once again, you don't seem to be able to understand what the word average means.

Already addressed ad nauseum.

Warming in the last 100 years doesn't care what happened in the previous 2 billion since it only refers to the last 100 years.

100 is but a speck of 2 billion.

You somehow seem to think that if someone were to say that the Bucks are having a bad year we should go back and look at their last 100 seasons because that is the only way to determine what their record for this season.

Earth's temperature is not Bucks records.

Bucks records are KNOWN. Earth's temperature is NOT KNOWN.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You only assume that I can't.

Already done.

Temperature is not a color.

Stop blaming me for your word games and your lack of knowledge.

Whatever.

Yes, I've said that many times now.

Bart Starr
Don Majkowski
Gilbert Brown
Brett Favre
Antonio Driver
Billy Schroeder
Robert Brooks
Reggie White
Vonnie Holliday
LeRoy Butler
Al Harris
Tony Mandarich
Mark Chmura
Doug Pederson
Dorsey Levens
William Henderson
Matt Hasselbeck
Mark Brunell
Najeh Davenport

Need I go on??? I was a big Packer fan in years past. Now YOU are gonna have to do an online search in order to make sure that I got them all correct because I even threw in a few obscure names.

Spotted Cow. I'm not a big beer drinker, but I've had that one before.

Yes. I LOVE cheese curds! I love all types of them, too, but I do prefer white cheddar over yellow cheddar. A&W had some really good cheese curds back when I used to eat there from time to time. There's also the (cold) "squeaky" type of cheese curd commonly sold in grocery stores and specialty cheese shops (Wisconsin has A LOT of those shops btw!).

I am indeed a he.

I DO know those things (see above).

Why would you assume that I don't know those things before even allowing me to respond?

Stop denying you own posts. Stop blaming me for your issues.

Already addressed ad nauseum.

100 is but a speck of 2 billion.

Earth's temperature is not Bucks records.

Bucks records are KNOWN. Earth's temperature is NOT KNOWN.

Ice out is known.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

They're the same people. I call Into the Night/gfm7175/IBDaMann/Uncensored2008 Sybil for short. I believe him to be a paranoid schizophrenic and, obviously, unemployable.

Notice he types all of his posts one-handed with his other hand rubbing his, ummm....sock.

This is why I don't think they are the same person -

Heat CAN flow through a vacuum. The Sun heats the Earth, for example.

IBDaMann would never make such a statement. Unless Into the Night is IBDaMann on drugs and falling down drunk. IBDaMann has at least some understanding of science. Into the Night only knows a few buzzwords he likes to throw around hoping it will dazzle the ignorant.