The opposite of DENIALIST....

[jc456]

"Denialism" is a time honored tactic of the criminal right.

but you're still here?

 

[gfm7175]

A favorite tactic of lefty mind bullies is to use language tags to make one word statements. In the ongoing climate debate you're not allowed to have a different opinion so you immediately become a demonized carricature
Known as a denialist. This is a hoo-rah slogan bark shared like some kind of football huddle chant for the affirmationists!

Ahh! See what I just did there? Fighting fire with fire! Affirmationists are people who reinforce each other with group hive mind affirmations regardless of any other viewpoints. Not agreeing with the affirmationists will get you tagged as a denialist. From here on out simply refer back to the tag namer with a tag name just for them. Affirmationist!

Jo

I've been calling anyone who refers to me as a "climate denier" a 'physics denier' for quite some time now. That's my preferred name for them.

 

[Crick]

I've been calling anyone who refers to me as a "climate denier" a 'physics denier' for quite some time now. That's my preferred name for them.

I saw your note on the other thread that was asking how temperature data are extracted from ice cores. Based on those statements, I would call you a denier. Call me whatever you like but, if you could, please explain where you think the theory of anthropogenic global warming fails.

 

[gfm7175]

I saw your note on the other thread that was asking how temperature data are extracted from ice cores. Based on those statements, I would call you a denier. Call me whatever you like but, if you could, please explain where you think the theory of anthropogenic global warming fails.

Gladly.

There is a particular pattern that physics deniers follow when trying to justify their physics-denying religion of Global Warming. I will now post the words of IBDaMann, who has so brilliantly detailed the specific pattern that these physics-deniers follow when trying to justify their physics-denying faith:

1. Global Warming is the Marxist religion that asserts the inexplicable spontaneous increase in earth's average global temperature despite unchanging solar output, i.e. the equilibrium temperature simply increases without any additional energy. This is an egregious violation of Planck's law, the zeroth law of thermodynamics and of all black body science.

2. greenhouse effect is the doctrine that provides the holy mechanism for earth's Global Warming (see point 1) which began during the Industrial Revolution, specifically upon the writing of the sacred Communist Manifesto text. Global Warming, as taught by the Church, is caused by miraculous greenhouse gases which are attributed to human activity (that all points back to conservatives) that have magical superpowers to defy physics, as follows:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... when it is pointed out that point 2a is an egregious violation of thermodynamics, the preacher backpedals from 2a with the words "no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2b, as such:

- 2b. greenhouse gases act as insulation, like a big, warm, cumfy wool blanket that cradles the earth in Global Warming. This cumfy blanket is totally transparent/non-existent to inbound solar energy, but then "traps" some of earth's "heat" by preventing earth's radiance (thermal radiation) from escaping into space. This causes a direct increase in the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output.

... when it is pointed out that point 2b is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, because radiance and temperature always move in the same direction, i.e. you can't have an increase in temperature with a decrease in radiance, the preacher backpedals from 2b with the words "no one is claiming that radiance is being decreased ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2c, as such:

- 2c. The earth, in equilibrium, radiates thermally into space exactly what it absorbs, without creating any additional energy out of nothing, which is exactly what has been taught all along. The earth's thermal radiation, however, is simply absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and half of that energy is re-radiated back down to earth, increasing the temperature of the surface, which therefore provides additional thermal radiation to the atmosphere which balances out the quantity of thermal radiation needed to escape into space and maintain equilibrium.

... when it is pointed out that point 2c is an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because the much warmer lithosphere cannot be heated by the much cooler atmosphere, the preacher backpedals from 2c with the words "no one is claiming that the cooler atmosphere is somehow warming the earth ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2a, as such:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... and the cycle continues forever.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.



If you wish to go into further detail on any of these specific points, I'd be more than glad to elaborate.

 

[Crick]

Gladly.

There is a particular pattern that physics deniers follow when trying to justify their physics-denying religion of Global Warming. I will now post the words of IBDaMann, who has so brilliantly detailed the specific pattern that these physics-deniers follow when trying to justify their physics-denying faith:

I wasn't looking for such a pattern. I was looking to hear your understanding of the physics involved.

1. Global Warming is the Marxist religion that asserts the inexplicable spontaneous increase in earth's average global temperature despite unchanging solar output, i.e. the equilibrium temperature simply increases without any additional energy. This is an egregious violation of Planck's law, the zeroth law of thermodynamics and of all black body science.

I cannot be the first person to tell you that's complete nonsense. The Earth is warmed by greenhouse gases altering its albedo. The sun is not required to do anything and hasn't.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.


If you wish to go into further detail on any of these specific points, I'd be more than glad to elaborate.

Let's start with your first item. On what grounds have you ignored albedo?

 

[gfm7175]

I wasn't looking for such a pattern. I was looking to hear your understanding of the physics involved.

I cannot be the first person to tell you that's complete nonsense. The Earth is warmed by greenhouse gases altering its albedo. The sun is not required to do anything and hasn't.

Let's start with your first item. On what grounds have you ignored albedo?

The sure tell of any physics-denier is their usage of the word 'albedo' instead of speaking about its inverse (and proper terminology): 'emissivity'. Let's stick with the word 'emissivity' and forget all about the word 'albedo'.

If "greenhouse gases" are "warming Earth", it's curious why the daytime side of the Earth (with "greenhouse gases") is sooooooo much COLDER than the daytime side of the moon (without "greenhouse gases")...

It also sounds like you're trying to set up a denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law with your "alter [emissivity]" statement. Emissivity in the SB Law equation is a measured constant, not a variable. No one has ever measured a change in Earth's emissivity (if so, then show me the data). In fact, no one has ever measured Earth's emissivity to begin with (because no one has ever measured Earth's temperature to any useable accuracy to begin with).

So we're still left with you believing that Earth's temperature is somehow spontaneously increasing without the presence of any additional thermal energy that is required in order to increase it. How about you just chalk it up to "climate miracle" via "magic greenhouse gas" and leave your religion at that?

 

[Crick]

The sure tell of any physics-denier is their usage of the word 'albedo' instead of speaking about its inverse (and proper terminology): 'emissivity'. Let's stick with the word 'emissivity' and forget all about the word 'albedo'.

The sure tell of someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about is infamiliarity with the terminology. Emissivity is not the inverse of albedo. I will continue to use the terms I choose.

If "greenhouse gases" are "warming Earth", it's curious why the daytime side of the Earth (with "greenhouse gases") is sooooooo much COLDER than the daytime side of the moon (without "greenhouse gases")...

Arguments such as this are another tell: pseudo-science. The moon gets as hot as it gets and as cold as it gets because it has no atmosphere, either to absob incoming solar radiation our outgoing longwave radiation. Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

It also sounds like you're trying to set up a denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law with your "alter [emissivity]" statement.

Hardly. It sounds to me as if you don't even understand how the greenhouse effect works. Most 6th graders could tell you.

Emissivity in the SB Law equation is a measured constant, not a variable.

That's right. It is a charactristic of matter. Different materials have different emissivity constants. However, our atmosphere is a mixture of gases, each with its own emissivity constant. When you change the mixture, you change the algebraic sum of emissivity. Do you understand?

No one has ever measured a change in Earth's emissivity (if so, then show me the data).
In fact, no one has ever measured Earth's emissivity to begin with (because no one has ever measured Earth's temperature to any useable accuracy to begin with).

Does it ever occur to you to check things out before making absolutist statements like that?

Measurement of Emittance​

Emittance of a surface can be measured directly or indirectly from the emitted energy from that surface. In the direct radiometric method, the emitted energy from the sample is measured directly using a spectroscope such as Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR).[27] In the indirect calorimetric method, the emitted energy from the sample is measured indirectly using a calorimeter. In addition to these two commonly applied methods, inexpensive emission measurement technique based on the principle of two-color pyrometry.[28]

Emissivities of planet Earth​

A typical spectrum of Earth's total outgoing (upwelling) thermal radiation flux under clear-sky conditions, as simulated with MODTRAN. Planck curves are also shown for a range of Earth temperatures.
The emissivity of a planet or other astronomical body is determined by the composition and structure of its outer skin. In this context, the "skin" of a planet generally includes both its semi-transparent atmosphere and its non-gaseous surface. The resulting radiative emissions to space typically function as the primary cooling mechanism for these otherwise isolated bodies. The balance between all other incoming plus internal sources of energy versus the outgoing flow regulates planetary temperatures.[29]

For Earth, equilibrium skin temperatures range near the freezing point of water, 260±50 K (-13±50 °C, 8±90 °F). The most energetic emissions are thus within a band spanning about 4-50 μm as governed by Planck's law.[30] Emissivities for the atmosphere and surface components are often quantified separately, and validated against satellite- and terrestrial-based observations as well as laboratory measurements. These emissivities serve as input parameters within some meteorlogic and climatologic models.

Surface​

Earth's surface emissivities (εs) have been inferred with satellite-based instruments by directly observing surface thermal emissions at nadir through a less obstructed atmospheric window spanning 8-13 μm.[31] Values range about εs=0.65-0.99, with lowest values typically limited to the most barren desert areas. Emissivities of most surface regions are above 0.9 due to the dominant influence of water; including oceans, land vegetation, and snow/ice. Globally averaged estimates for the hemispheric emissivity of Earth's surface are in the vicinity of εs=0.95.[32]

Atmosphere​

A typical spectrum of infrared radiation transmittance through Earth's atmosphere. A 'window' can be seen between 8 and 14 μm that enables direct transmission of the most intense thermal emissions from Earth's surface. The remaining portion of the upwelling energy, as well as downwelling radiation back to the surface, undergoes absorption and emission by the various atmospheric components as indicated.
Water also dominates the planet's atmospheric emissivity and absorptivity in the form of water vapor. Clouds, carbon dioxide, and other components make substantial additional contributions, especially where there are gaps in the water vapor absorption spectrum.[33] Nitrogen (N
2) and oxygen (O
2) - the primary atmospheric components - interact less significantly with thermal radiation in the infrared band.[21] Direct measurement of Earths atmospheric emissivities (εa) are more challenging than for land surfaces due in part to the atmosphere's multi-layered and more dynamic structure.

Upper and lower limits have been measured and calculated for εa in accordance with extreme yet realistic local conditions. At the upper limit, dense low cloud structures (consisting of liquid/ice aerosols and saturated water vapor) close the infrared transmission windows, yielding near to black body conditions with εa≈1.[34] At a lower limit, clear sky (cloud-free) conditions promote the largest opening of transmission windows. The more uniform concentration of long-lived trace greenhouse gases in combination with water vapor pressures of 0.25-20 mbar then yield minimum values in the range of εa=0.55-0.8 (with ε=0.35-0.75 for a simulated water-vapor-only atmosphere).[35] Carbon dioxide (CO
2) and other greenhouse gases contribute about ε=0.2 to εa when atmospheric humidity is low.[36] Researchers have also evaluated the contribution of differing cloud types to atmospheric absorptivity and emissivity.[37][38][39]

These days, the detailed processes and complex properties of radiation transport through the atmosphere are evaluated with radiation transport codes and databases such as MODTRAN/HITRAN.[35]

For many practical applications it may not be possible, cost-effective or necessary to know all emissivity values locally. "Effective" or "bulk" values for an atmosphere or an entire planet may be used. These can be based upon remote observations (from the ground or outer space) or defined according to the simplifications utilized by a particular model. For example, an effective global value of εa≈0.78 has been estimated from application of an idealized single-layer-atmosphere energy-balance model to Earth.[40]

Effective emissivity due to atmosphere​

See also: Climate model § Zero-dimensional models
The IPCC reports an outgoing thermal radiation flux (OLR) of 239 (237-242) W m-2 and a surface thermal radiation flux (SLR) of 398 (395-400) W m-2, where the parenthesized amounts indicate the 5-95% confidence intervals as of 2015. These values indicate that the atmosphere (with clouds included) reduces Earth's overall emissivity, relative to its surface emissions, by a factor of 239/398 ≈ 0.60. In other words, emissions to space are given by OLR=�eff����4

where �eff≈0.6

is the effective emissivity of Earth as viewed from space and �se≡[SLR/�]1/4≈

289 K (16 °C; 61 °F) is the effective temperature of the surface.[41]: 934 

Emissivity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So we're still left with you believing that Earth's temperature is somehow spontaneously increasing without the presence of any additional thermal energy that is required in order to increase it.

You're already in deep enough of a hole, don't start lying as well. I never said any such thing. The Earth's temperature is increasing due to the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and methane that humans have added to the atmosphere.

How about you just chalk it up to "climate miracle" via "magic greenhouse gas" and leave your religion at that?

How about I don't. You are one stupid motherfucker. You should introduce yourself to poster EMH here. You could give him a run for his money.

 

[gfm7175]

The sure tell of someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about is infamiliarity with the terminology.

Your issue, not mine.

Emissivity is not the inverse of albedo.

Yes, it is.

I will continue to use the terms I choose.

Then you will continue to be wrong.

Arguments such as this are another tell: pseudo-science. The moon gets as hot as it gets and as cold as it gets because it has no atmosphere, either to absob incoming solar radiation our outgoing longwave radiation.

But aren't "magic greenhouse gases" supposed to make Earth sooooo much WARMER???

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Your issue.

Hardly. It sounds to me as if you don't even understand how the greenhouse effect works. Most 6th graders could tell you.

"Greenhouse effect" is the physics-denying doctrine that provides the holy mechanism for Global Warming. Nothing more.

That's right. It is a charactristic of matter. Different materials have different emissivity constants. However, our atmosphere is a mixture of gases, each with its own emissivity constant. When you change the mixture, you change the algebraic sum of emissivity. Do you understand?

Yes. Do YOU?

Does it ever occur to you to check things out before making absolutist statements like that?

Holy links (especially Wikipedia) are always summarily dismissed on sight. Form your own arguments to show your own understanding instead of stealing the words of others and making their errors into your own errors. It is not possible to accurately measure the emissivity of Earth because it is not possible to accurately measure the temperature of Earth.

You're already in deep enough of a hole, don't start lying as well. I never said any such thing.

Yes, you did, and you repeat it again below.

The Earth's temperature is increasing due to the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and methane that humans have added to the atmosphere.

Here, you have repeated it. You haven't added any additional thermal energy under this scenario, yet you're still claiming that Earth has somehow increased in temperature. Where is the additional thermal energy that is required to increase Earth's temperature coming from?

How about I don't. You are one stupid motherfucker. You should introduce yourself to poster EMH here. You could give him a run for his money.

When you have nothing else, resort to insults.

 

[fncceo]

A favorite tactic of lefty mind bullies is to use language tags to make one word statements. In the ongoing climate debate you're not allowed to have a different opinion so you immediately become a demonized carricature
Known as a denialist. This is a hoo-rah slogan bark shared like some kind of football huddle chant for the affirmationists!

Ahh! See what I just did there? Fighting fire with fire! Affirmationists are people who reinforce each other with group hive mind affirmations regardless of any other viewpoints. Not agreeing with the affirmationists will get you tagged as a denialist. From here on out simply refer back to the tag namer with a tag name just for them. Affirmationist!

Jo

It's not a coincidence that "denialist" is a religious term equivalent to "infidel" or "unbeliever".

 

[jc456]

"Denialism" is a time honored tactic of the criminal right.

when that's all you got huh?

 

[justoffal]

It's not a coincidence that "denialist" is a religious term equivalent to "infidel" or "unbeliever".

Shades of Saul....and the power of language sculpting!

 

[Oddball]

The GQP tends towards 3 words because it makes better angry chants.

Just pegged my projection-o-meter!

 

[justoffal]

Just pegged my projection-o-meter!

View attachment 892626

OH GOODIE AN NPC!

 

[justoffal]

Can you explain why there is ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska with "valid science"

LOL!!!


Crock's definition of "valid science" =

Hmmm....damn those look good!

 

[Crepitus]

Just pegged my projection-o-meter!

View attachment 892626

OK dingleberry. Post up some three word democratic chants other than the standard "four more years" thing that is done by everyone at every election where it applies.

 

[ding]

The GQP tends towards 3 words because it makes better angry chants.

You mean like "Hope and Change?"

 

[BackAgain]

The GQP tends towards 3 words because it makes better angry chants.

Assholes keep repeating the same witless chant like GQP instead of GOP.

 

[jc456]

You mean like "Hope and Change?"

Obammys favorite phrase.

 

[ReinyDays]

Obammys favorite phrase.

"If you like your electricity source, you can keep it" ...

 

[jc456]

"If you like your electricity source, you can keep it" ...

Three word phrase was the ask.

Like your doctor