Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's right, but he, for some reason, didn't repeat that idiocy in the post I was referring to. Also he agreed to accept the downward radiation "fantasy" for purposes of discussion.Naw, "we" don't. SSDD still thinks the equilibrium equation he kept howling about adds the atmosphere's downward longwave radiation (239.7W/m^2) to the earth's surface radiation (also 239.7W/m^2) to arrive at 303°K. That was his gross error from the start, that was what he thought demonstrates climate science in general, and the GHE in particular, are hoaxes, and he has yet to correct himself.
I will have to look int Frankfurt. How often do I get bullshit? Enough to fertilize the earth.BTW, have you ever read Harry G. Frankfurt's "On Bullshit"? If not, I find you ought to remedy that. It's an enlightening and entertaining read - how often do you get that?
since it was what it said, he used it to draw you to a conclusion. one you've done the twist with since his first post. so which is it, is that equation a good one or not? step up man make a difference and finally give your answer.We all agree on where the numbers are coming from.
Naw, "we" don't. SSDD still thinks the equilibrium equation he kept howling about adds the atmosphere's downward longwave radiation (239.7W/m^2) to the earth's surface radiation (also 239.7W/m^2) to arrive at 303°K. That was his gross error from the start, that was what he thought demonstrates climate science in general, and the GHE in particular, are hoaxes, and he has yet to correct himself.
That sort of self contradiction comes from someone who is either not very bright, a congenital liar, or can't operate in the realm of truth.
In short you are a veritable a troll.
BTW, have you ever read Harry G. Frankfurt's "On Bullshit"? If not, I find you ought to remedy that. It's an enlightening and entertaining read - how often do you get that?
More troll crap.To which you replied....in post #44 Yes...
So crying now that you knew where the numbers were coming from, and that you understood what the graphic was saying, and making the claim that we all agreed that it wasn't based on reality is just more stinking bullshit from you...you agreed explicitly that it was a stripped down, simple model of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....if your model is flawed at its most basic level, that flaw is going to insinuate itself into every part of a more complex model...if your basic premise is flawed, that flaw will pollute everything that comes after....
And I will be more than willing to copy posts from you yahoos asking where the numbers were coming from...and not having any idea what the graphic was saying...the evidence is there in abundance...
you did? when? OMG!!!!!!...More troll crap.To which you replied....in post #44 Yes...
So crying now that you knew where the numbers were coming from, and that you understood what the graphic was saying, and making the claim that we all agreed that it wasn't based on reality is just more stinking bullshit from you...you agreed explicitly that it was a stripped down, simple model of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....if your model is flawed at its most basic level, that flaw is going to insinuate itself into every part of a more complex model...if your basic premise is flawed, that flaw will pollute everything that comes after....
And I will be more than willing to copy posts from you yahoos asking where the numbers were coming from...and not having any idea what the graphic was saying...the evidence is there in abundance...
You are the one who wanted someones opinion on the diagram, and we told you. We all agreed that the graphic assumed isothermic atmosphere all at the same pressure, with no convection currents. And we all agreed that those assumptions were unrealistic. And you are the one who allowed to assume the "fantasy" of back-radiation. So what's your problem now.
More troll crap.To which you replied....in post #44 Yes...
So crying now that you knew where the numbers were coming from, and that you understood what the graphic was saying, and making the claim that we all agreed that it wasn't based on reality is just more stinking bullshit from you...you agreed explicitly that it was a stripped down, simple model of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....if your model is flawed at its most basic level, that flaw is going to insinuate itself into every part of a more complex model...if your basic premise is flawed, that flaw will pollute everything that comes after....
And I will be more than willing to copy posts from you yahoos asking where the numbers were coming from...and not having any idea what the graphic was saying...the evidence is there in abundance...
You are the one who wanted someones opinion on the diagram, and we told you. We all agreed that the graphic assumed isothermic atmosphere all at the same pressure, with no convection currents. And we all agreed that those assumptions were unrealistic. And you are the one who allowed to assume the "fantasy" of back-radiation. So what's your problem now.
All you are saying is that you conjured up a new way of saying that you don't believe in thermal radiation theory. We already know you are in denial, so what is your point?And again...if you build a model that is flawed when it is stripped down to its bones...no amount of fleshing out is going to make it a valid model...
All you are saying is that you conjured up a new way of saying that you don't believe in thermal radiation theory.
Yes the thought processes of SSDD and his sock puppets are astoundingly funny.No. He's saying that a simplistic model, which was developed for teaching purposes and doesn't match reality, cannot be changed and ameliorated to become, and cannot be replaced by, a model that more closely aligns with reality. So, because he found an alleged flaw - which is mostly a figment of his incomprehension - in that teaching model, climate science and the theory of the GHE are irreparably flawed.
You savor a good joke just as much as the next guy, don't you?
All you are saying is that you conjured up a new way of saying that you don't believe in thermal radiation theory.
No. He's saying that a simplistic model, which was developed for teaching purposes and doesn't match reality, cannot be changed and ameliorated to become, and cannot be replaced by, a model that more closely aligns with reality. So, because he found an alleged flaw - which is mostly a figment of his incomprehension - in that teaching model, climate science and the theory of the GHE are irreparably flawed.
You savor a good joke just as much as the next guy, don't you?
In fact...........let me present the evidence here..........
), an all time historic thread on the USMB dominated by skeptics and page one daily for over 3 years now on the ENVIRONMENT forum >>
[/URL]
.......illustration necessary for members of the religion who fail to connect the dots!
You give his "flaw" too much credence.
Ummm.....how about back to topic s0ns!!!
How did this morph into a science debate? dud........the title of the thread is "poof it was gone", which by extension means, climate science is not a priority. Like at all.........in other words, the administration has concluded nobody is caring about the science, which by the way, is not mattering in the real world anyway!! Tons of evidence to support that!!
So essentially, for members of the religion, this thread should be about posting up your Plan B to get people caring. Plan A going on for 20+ years now and haven't moved the ball even one yard toward the goalposts.........tons of evidence to support that too!!
Hundreds of links........epic # of "views" ( well over 200,000
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.313851/page-526#post-16578019
Just volumes of stuff decimating the ghey arguments of the religion............
I think Crick has a point about reading too much into SSDD. SSDD isn't that smart. I can see your point. SSDD said,,You think? Maybe that is because it doesn't matter. For, whichever flaw in that simplistic model he may have found - actual or merely invented - it doesn't change the argument. A model can be infinitely tweaked to ensure it more closely aligns with the aspects of reality it seeks to depict. So, no matter the truth value of the asserted flaw, the conclusion - GHE theory is irreparably flawed and thus invalid - doesn't follow.
I think Crick has a point about reading too much into SSDD. SSDD isn't that smart. I can see your point. SSDD said,,You think? Maybe that is because it doesn't matter. For, whichever flaw in that simplistic model he may have found - actual or merely invented - it doesn't change the argument. A model can be infinitely tweaked to ensure it more closely aligns with the aspects of reality it seeks to depict. So, no matter the truth value of the asserted flaw, the conclusion - GHE theory is irreparably flawed and thus invalid - doesn't follow.
And again...if you build a model that is flawed when it is stripped down to its bones...no amount of fleshing out is going to make it a valid model...
But that was 355 posts into this thread, and I see that as an afterthought.
SSDD as a premise for the sake of argument, said he would allow the idea of back-radiation. Then he backs out of that in post 345. I still think he has no point in this thread that is any different than his other rantings. Maybe he thought it was a "gotcha" moment for the scientists, but he was the one that suffered the "gotcha".
.
Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.Maybe he thought it was a "gotcha" moment for the scientists, but he was the one that suffered the "gotcha".
"Two radiators at -18C can't warm up anything above -18C"
But he was the only one claiming one of the radiators, the Sun, was at -18C.
But then he claimed it wasn't at -18C, just that "its radiation was at -18C".
It's pointless arguing with his idiocy.
"Cooler photons can't travel toward warmer matter"
Ummm...photons from the Sun's surface travel toward the warmer corona.
"Yeah, but work was dome"
He still doesn't see the problem with his latest claim.
Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.
Troll, you are not telling the truth. Your crap doesn't work anymore.And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...
Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.
And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...
post SSDD's post that he made that statement genius.Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.Maybe he thought it was a "gotcha" moment for the scientists, but he was the one that suffered the "gotcha".
"Two radiators at -18C can't warm up anything above -18C"
But he was the only one claiming one of the radiators, the Sun, was at -18C.
But then he claimed it wasn't at -18C, just that "its radiation was at -18C".
It's pointless arguing with his idiocy.
"Cooler photons can't travel toward warmer matter"
Ummm...photons from the Sun's surface travel toward the warmer corona.
"Yeah, but work was dome"
He still doesn't see the problem with his latest claim.
