NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 115 of 115 < 1 2 ... 113 114 115
Topic Options
#1135159 - 23/10/2012 17:54 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anthony Violi]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Originally Posted By: CeeBee


..... If the sceptics here were true sceptics then they would take on board new information that has been shown to be valid. Unfortunately that does not happen here. Which makes answering questions a waste of time really.




So why do you keep posting CB? I haven't seen one iota of information that has any basis in fact that you have posted since you first lobbed into the forum. The only thing you have posted is propaganda, not facts. In fact your a hypocrite. If you took one look at what we where posting and accepted even 0.1% of what we say then you would have no problems in you being a real Warmista - you aren't you are a fake warmista. You can't even accept the smallest point against your dogma so by your very arguement you once again show every person who reads these threads what sort of a person you really are.

You are a blind troll whos vastly over infalted ego and zealatory belief in the cAGW dogma means that you cannot accept even the smallest concession and as such you should be the last person in Weatherzone that should be demanding that we accept anything that you post as gospel.

Markus we used to have a sometimes lively (Climategate 1 for example) but usually fairly dull debate ongoing here for several years without any angst or problems until CB decided to invade the threads. Both sides had a good go at trying to influence others without any rancour and with some heated but quite quickly sorted out moments when we told each other to puill our collective heads in and very little input from Mods.
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
#1135161 - 23/10/2012 18:12 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
What should be happening is the AGW crowd accepting its not warming, and explaining it so.

Instead, they have fraudelently adjusted data to make it look it has has, and cooled the 1930-1960s relentlessly, and sent people like CB onto the boards to try to prove its still warming.

And that has Iraqi Information Minister written all over it.

Whats happening in the real world is that the lukewarmers are taking notice and are now changing their thinking as the mass of evidence stacks up against them.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1135164 - 23/10/2012 18:22 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: Mike (SBT) Busby


So why do you keep posting CB? I haven't seen one iota of information that has any basis in fact that you have posted since you first lobbed into the forum. The only thing you have posted is propaganda, not facts. I


I post because I enjoy it.

Your claim that I only post propaganda is not true, unless of course you think that peer reviewed science is propaganda...

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/957476/5/Climate_thread_for_articles_fo

http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1098450/CeeBee#Post1098450
_________________________

Top
#1135165 - 23/10/2012 18:23 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: CeeBee]
Lightning....Lee Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 02/03/2011
Posts: 328
Originally Posted By: CeeBee

Infrared radiation is at wavelengths between 750 nanometres and 1 millimetre.

Infrared thermal radiation is radiation emmited from an object due to its temperature.

There is a difference between the two, which is what I meant when I said "It's the trapping of long-wavelength thermal radiation by CO2 that warms the planet."




Rarely I stick my head out anymore but this...this I have to bite on! WTF???

IR has a wavelength between .75um(micro metres) to 1000um, which is what you have listed, but that's the whole damm spectrum dude, beyond that wavelength it's a microwave, below its visible red light.

Your magical "longwave" lies between 8um and 15um, and just for the record MW(Medium Wave) 3um to 8um has an effect on GHG theory too...in case you didn't understand your own theory or basic particle model! poke crazy
Again if it has a wavelength greater than 1000um it's a Microwave and if it's below .75um it's Visible red, inbetween is IR.

Some further reading might help...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Top
#1135166 - 23/10/2012 18:24 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3909
Originally Posted By: Mike (SBT) Busby
Originally Posted By: CeeBee


..... If the sceptics here were true sceptics then they would take on board new information that has been shown to be valid. Unfortunately that does not happen here. Which makes answering questions a waste of time really.




So why do you keep posting CB? I haven't seen one iota of information that has any basis in fact that you have posted since you first lobbed into the forum. The only thing you have posted is propaganda, not facts.


Contrast the arrogance of CeeBee's statement with the amount of effort the "sceptics" go to answer people's questions (sometimes over and over again).

And as for example just now with the infra red radiation nonsense, CeeBee has proven over and over again that he has no idea about science. I would bet that he didn't do any in high school... He's made too many elementary mistakes. So - two things:

A) CeeBee becasue he knows jack about science CAN'T answer science based questions; and
B) When he does he is usually wrong...

Originally Posted By: CeeBee

Which makes answering questions trusting CeeBees answers a waste of time really

_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#1135167 - 23/10/2012 18:25 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anthony Violi]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Is this what you mean by 'Thermal infrared radiation' CeeBee?

NASA Earth Observatory


The Atmosphere’s Energy Budget
Just as the incoming and outgoing energy at the Earth’s surface must balance, the flow of energy into the atmosphere must be balanced by an equal flow of energy out of the atmosphere and back to space. Satellite measurements indicate that the atmosphere radiates thermal infrared energy equivalent to 59 percent of the incoming solar energy. If the atmosphere is radiating this much, it must be absorbing that much. Where does that energy come from?

Clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and ozone directly absorb 23 percent of incoming solar energy. Evaporation and convection transfer 25 and 5 percent of incoming solar energy from the surface to the atmosphere. These three processes transfer the equivalent of 53 percent of the incoming solar energy to the atmosphere. If total inflow of energy must match the outgoing thermal infrared observed at the top of the atmosphere, where does the remaining fraction (about 5-6 percent) come from? The remaining energy comes from the Earth’s surface.

The Natural Greenhouse Effect
Just as the major atmospheric gases (oxygen and nitrogen) are transparent to incoming sunlight, they are also transparent to outgoing thermal infrared. However, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases are opaque to many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy. Remember that the surface radiates the net equivalent of 17 percent of incoming solar energy as thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy. The remaining fraction—a net 5-6 percent of incoming solar energy—is transferred to the atmosphere when greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy radiated by the surface.

When greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy, their temperature rises. Like coals from a fire that are warm but not glowing, greenhouse gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions. Heat radiated upward continues to encounter greenhouse gas molecules; those molecules absorb the heat, their temperature rises, and the amount of heat they radiate increases. At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.
Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.




The atmosphere radiates the equivalent of 59% of incoming sunlight back to space as thermal infrared energy, or heat. Where does the atmosphere get its energy? The atmosphere directly absorbs about 23% of incoming sunlight, and the remaining energy is transferred from the Earth’s surface by evaporation (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation (a net of 5-6%). The remaining thermal infrared energy from the surface (12%) passes through the atmosphere and escapes to space. (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon. Astronaut photograph ISS017-E-13859.)[/b]

- see link above for more -
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1135168 - 23/10/2012 18:28 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Lightning....Lee]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
Ceebee if you theories were correct we would be warming at 0.2 degrees a decade.

We are not even close to that, and have stopped warming for 16 years.

So all of those peered review papers you keep quoting need to re-researched and re-written.

The IPCC dismisses anything other than CO2 as a forcing, dismisses solar which obviously has an influence, and the oceans which have a huge influence.

Put two and two together, the IPCC have made a monstrous stuff up.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1135181 - 23/10/2012 19:02 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anthony Violi]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
The only other reference I can find to 'thermal infrared radiation' is:

Thermal infrared radiation refers to electromagnetic waves with a wavelength of between 3.5 and 20 micrometers. The main difference between thermal infrared and the infrared (color infrared - CIR) discussed is that thermal infrared is emitted energy that is sensed digitally.

Thermal Infrared ranges from 5.6 um to 1cm
- water and other gases in the atmosphere restricts aerial systems to two wavelength windows; 3 to 5 um and 8 to 15 um (absorption bands)
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1135184 - 23/10/2012 19:05 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anthony Violi]
Andy Double U Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 28/10/2006
Posts: 1829
Loc: Mundoolun, SE QLD, 129m ASL
As if CeeBee (or the rest of the AGW crew) hadn't shot themselves in the foot enough already, the below sums up everything perfectly:

Originally Posted By: Prof. Brian Cox - The Quantum Universe
A good scientific theory specifies a set of rules that determine what can and cannot happen to some portion of the world. They must allow predictions to be made that can be tested by observation. If the predictions are shown to be false, the theory is wrong and must be replaced. If the predictions are in accord with observation, the theory survives. No theory is ‘true’ in the sense that it must always be possible to falsify it. As the biologist Thomas Huxley wrote: ‘Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.’ Any theory that is not amenable to falsification is not a scientific theory – indeed one might go as far as to say that it has no reliable information content at all. The reliance on falsification is why scientific theories are different from matters of opinion. This scientific meaning of the word ‘theory’, by the way, is different from its ordinary usage, where it often suggests a degree of speculation. Scientific theories may be speculative if they have not yet been confronted with the evidence, but an established theory is something that is supported by a large body of evidence.

Top
#1135195 - 23/10/2012 19:47 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Andy Double U]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 14286
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
I have said it on multuple occasions Climate change is psuedoscience in that they have a theory that they have been trying to prove over and over again when the real world doesn't fit into their theory.

So what is a pseudoscience and how do you expose one? Physicist Milton Rothman describes pseudoscience as 'a false science that pretends to be real'. The following is a list of things to check for. The more questions you answer YES to, the more likely the topic being examined is a pseudoscience.

1.Does the discoverer pitch his claim directly to the media and/or layman? — YES

2.Does the discoverer say that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work? — YES bloody scpetics are destroying our work to save the world.

3.Is the scientific effect involved always at the very limit of detection? — YES

4.Do they only offer anecdotal evidence? — YES Sea level rise, temprature rises, glaciers melting etc

5.Does the discoverer say a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries? — No just decades

6.Is the best evidence for the theory decades old? — YES

7.Does the discoverer work in isolation? — No

8.Does the discoverer require us to abandon well established laws of science & proposes new laws of nature to explain an observation? — YES heatuing an ocean from above by increased CO2.

9.Does the discoverer use terms and phrases that make their claims sound scientific, but which are in fact bogus? — YES Hansen is a classic at this.

10.Is the subject only taught in unaccredited institutions or not taught at all? — No but a lot of main stream Unis are moving away from teaxching it now.

11.Does the discoverer make supportive claims that are fabricated? — YES Climategate I and II, etc

12.Does it employ the shyness effect: Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't? — YES

13.Do they appeal to ignorance?: "There is more out there than you know" — YES they do, every bloody day some natural weather event is claimed to be as a direct result of climate change.

14.Do they attack the critic rather than the criticism? — YES CB is a classic at this tactic and so is Mann, Hansen, Gore et al.

15.Do they say things that are largely true but are unrelated to their claims? — YES artic Ice melts so polar bears must drown, no one can survive at tempratures over 34C and 90%RH etc.

This was in relation to someone on another blog who was exposed as a fraud but the basic principles are the same here.
_________________________
785mm Jan
799mm Feb
130 March
2019 Total 1714mm
2018 Total 822mm






Top
Page 115 of 115 < 1 2 ... 113 114 115


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 32 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
caffeinated, Chaser_James, coffeeman, rhyso, Shear-iously
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529242 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image