@Shub Nov 12, 2011 at 1:47 PM

In other words, what you need is a blog. Your blog.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Shub! The zealot's rules do not permit one to make such helpful suggestions because s/he deems them to be attempts to "delegitimize" and/or "shut her/him down". Just a reminder, that when the zealot has decided to embark on a crusade, it is also not permitted to comment on her/his abrasive, insulting and self-centered "debating" style.

Rather one is supposed to silently worship the zealot as a (self-declared) paragon of posting virtue and an unimpeachable fount of knowledge and "truth" (regardless of all evidence s/he has presented to the contrary!) It matters not in the slightest that so many others do not share her/his high opinion of her/himself.

Amusingly, on Nov 12, 2011 at 9:46 AM, I had written:

[cue whining from zealot]

After one non sequitur, [Nov 12, 2011 at 1:07 PM] and several knee-jerk ad homs, the zealot whined [Nov 12, 2011 at 3:00 PM]:

My point was that Hilary is (as ever) trying to shut me down. [...] I am under constant attack by certain commenters. They have to be kept in check.

Just for the record, on this page (8) alone, as of 11/12/2011 02:31 PM PDT there are 25 comments, of which:

Shub, Philip, Dung and I have each contributed 1. matthu (valiantly) tried to engage in 9 - and the zealot takes the prize with 12.

Some "shut down", eh?!

I don't recall seeing such a performance from the zealot since about 2 months ago when s/he was on a virtually interminable anti-Spencer crusade; but I might have missed forgotten* some in the interim.

*Alas, the zealot's tirades and crusades have become so predictable, they are easily forgotten.

Ooops .... "on this page (8) alone" ... better make that "page (7)" ... and I see that in the interim the bullying zealot has added 13 on page 8.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

Hilary

First things first: it's 'he'.

*Alas, the zealot's tirades and crusades have become so predictable, they are easily forgotten.

By commenting as you have, you disprove this.

Just a reminder, that when the zealot has decided to embark on a crusade, it is also not permitted to comment on her/his abrasive, insulting and self-centered "debating" style.

A positively Shubsian irony blindness.

Your comment-counting tactic is misleading. A single commenter always has a high count When engaging with several other commenters simultaneously.

Your substantive responses to the various topics examined on this thread are oddly absent.

At random:

- is renewables boosterism immoral?

- has the rate of warming increased over the C20th?

- where is the evidence for low climate sensitivity?

Etc.

BBD

As advised earlier you need to get your own blog,

You have the drive, the talent and the all encompassing requirement "brass neck"!

So get on and do it, you know it makes sense.

I am sure that you will get all the discourse and debate that you seek.

positively Shubsian

Translation: "Damn! She's right on the mark".

Your comment-counting tactic is misleading.

Here we see a corollary of one of the zealous tyrant's "rules" in action: the only valid observations that are permitted regarding the posts of another are those made by the zealous tyrant.

Your substantive responses to the various topics examined on this thread are oddly absent.

<sigh> There s/he he goes again, folks! Appointing himself as arbiter of what is (or is not) permissible to be discussed in a thread on which he has embarked on yet another crusade.

I do wonder if it has ever crossed his mind that his record of "replies" (for want of a better word) to others who have attempted to engage him 'n his pet mantras is such that - for the most part - he has demonstrated that the only acceptable response (at least in his books, and after all those are the only ones that count once the zealous tyrant has embarked on a crusade) is along the lines of, "Yes, sir! Yes, sir! Three bags full". Anything else is, well, whatever his chosen recycled insult of the hour might be.

I also wonder why he chooses not to set up his own blog - where he would be free to establish not only whatever topics are permissible in any given thread, but also to enforce his very own rules.

The zealous tyrant might never again have to concern himself with being "under constant attack". Nor with what his decidedly warped perceptions have led him to act as though his job here includes the responsibility of 'keeping [others] in check'.

In order to understand the hypothesis of radiative forcing I need to understand by which physical prosess does CO2 radiate heat energy, and how efficient is CO2 at emmiting longwave radiation compared with a black body. I need to get a feel for the magnitude of the process.

A bit bleary eyed this morning, please excuse my spelling errors above!

Hilary

'Zealous tyrant'... four times in one comment! We are deep in the realm of self-parody now.

Oddly enough, I didn't spot any substantive content amongst the repetitive insults.

Incidentally, the new tactic of 'get your own blog' (ie vanish and begone!) is childishly transparent. It's on a par with the nonsense about comment counting. You are going to have to do better than that.

We can start with a serious question: why is it impermissible to disagree with 'scepticism'?

Why does reliance on rational, referenced debate that actually connects to key scientific issues make me a 'zealous tyrant' and a 'bully'? Why is it so imperative for people like yourself and Shub to silence any dissent by any means you can?

And why are you so staggeringly blind to the irony that you are (wrongly) accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing? This is still just about amusing, although the joke is wearing thin.

This thread is stuffed with irrelevance, misrepresentations and errors. You have taken great exception to my pointing this out. I offered you the opportunity to demonstrate that I have been incorrect in some way (Nov 12, 2011 at 11:03 PM). You came back with a spew of invective instead.

This is evidence that you are a weak debater in a weak position who is clawing rather than arguing. I think we are done here.

BBD

"You still haven't admitted that the 'saturation' effect upon which your argument rests is mistaken. So we are a bit stuck, aren't we?"

You have not previously said that my "saturation effect" claims are mistaken nor have you said why they are mistaken? I did point out that the IPCC believes it to be a fact and that most sceptics agree it is a fact. I admitted that there was no consensus on the level at which CO2 ceases to warm the planet but gave empirical evidence that heavily persuades one that we are past that point. Would you like to comment on that please?

BBD

On this blog, people who disagree are not silenced, hence even though people are irritated by stuff that you have said, you are still able to keep posting. You are allowed to disagree with scepticism on this blog. Now go to realclimate and just for fun try posting the same kind of stuff there that you have been allowed to post here (it would of course require you to pretend to be sceptical hehe). Your posts will be deleted and if you keep on doing it you will be banned.

Dung

This is the second time on this thread you have wrongly claimed that I have not responded to you (see Nov 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM).

Please see Nov 12, 2011 at 5:02 PM. There you will find two links to explanations as to why you are mistaken to claim that absorbtion band saturation is going to reduce the RF from CO2 such that it is not a problem.

Please read them:

ONE

TWO

From RC:

So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

From SOD:

Most of the confusion about “saturation” of CO2 comes from a lack of understanding of how both absorption and re-emission are linked in the atmosphere.

The confusion also arises because atmospheric physics uses the term “saturation” to mean something more technically defined – that the atmosphere is “optically thick” at that wavelength. Two groups of people using the same word with a different (but related) meaning inevitably leads to confusion.

The radiative transfer equations are the basic and proven equations for the absorption and radiation of energy in the atmosphere. Solving these equations using line by line calculations shows that most of the additional effect from more CO2 occurs in the “wings” of the band and not in the band center.

AFAIK, the RC comments policy is to keep the nonsense levels low enough for constructive discussion to take place.

So your most recent comment would probably get deleted because you are banging away at a point which I addressed constructively and promptly more than 24 hours ago. The fault lies with you.

What percentage of dense -heavy- atmospheric CO2 is concentrated in the "thin upper atmosphere"

"the RC comments policy is to keep the nonsense levels low enough for constructive discussion to take place."

Another example that shows you have no direct experience in these matters whatsoever, yet apparently hold expert opinions on them. And, we are consigned to read such pronouncements as though they were.

Unlike you, I at least have a grasp of the basics. You deny them. So naturally, there is friction.

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican

Shub

Another example that shows you have no direct experience in these matters whatsoever, yet apparently hold expert opinions on them.

No, this is another example of you just saying stuff.

What are you so afraid of Shub?

Mike

When you are reduced to quoting scripture during a discussion of climate science, it is time to accept that you have not made your argument successfully.

RKS

So you think all the heavy CO2 in the free atmosphere will sink? Then why does it not poison the surface boundary layer? I think I'll leave you do Google your own way out of this confusion.

BBD
I get much pleasure from reading these exchanges, but have perhaps noticed why you are often looked upon with a certain disregard. It could be your tone, which doesn't lend itself to any form of serious scientific debate.
Here are just a few of your well used phrases, perhaps you will see what I mean.

"I'll do my best to ignore you".
"You are a complete buffoon".
"..go away.."
"You've had your chance.."
"You are simply refusing to face up to what is in front of you".
"You are refusing to address my question".
"You are of course wrong...."
"You are so consumed by bias.."
"You have some thinking to do".
"This goes beyond unfounded".
"Nonsense".
"..we both know that you are incapable..."
"You really never learn, do you?"
"Stop being silly".
"Dear God".
"..ever-more farcical extremes".
"Of course, it's all nonsense".
"You have exactly zero scientific or statistical knowledge".
"The fault lies with you".
"I know enough to be certain that you know next-to-nothing.."
"When are you going to accept that you are mistaken".
"Allow me to supply the answer".
"I too, have better things to do".
"What are you on about?"
"There's clearly no point in continuing this conversation".
"There is nothing else to say".

"I am a reasonable voice".

GW

What is missing from your collation is context.

By deliberately omitting that, you misrepresent me completely and at length.

It is exactly this sort of behaviour that sharpens my tone. Thank you for providing an excellent example of the poisonous mindset characteristic of many commenters here.

What are you so frightened of?

GW

For fairness, why not conduct a parallel exercise? Go through this thread in similar obsessive detail and reproduce every insult directed at me.

Go on. You started this crap. Finish it with some integrity or apologise.

RKS

So you think all the heavy CO2 in the free atmosphere will sink? Then why does it not poison the surface boundary layer? I think I'll leave you do Google your own way out of this confusion.
Nov 13, 2011 at 8:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

There's no need to get shirty just because you don't know the answer, that's the sort of answer I might expect from Zed. Stop being so paranoid and learn some basic manners when communicating with others.

RKS

Methinks you are trolling.

I find it mildly amusing that our resident zealot should have failed to notice that I was not addressing him. Yet his knee-jerk wall of pompous arrogance and insults (which some might call classic exercises in projection) - addressed directly to me - strongly suggests that he has very mistakenly concluded that I give even a tinker's dam(n) what his self-exalted opinion might be!

For the record, I haven't addressed the zealot directly in a post since the days of his irrational and intellectually dishonest (and very telling) ranting smears against Spencer - at which point, I had concluded that attempting to engage him was an utter waste of my time.

Yet, rather than respond to a question posed by RKS (which is directly related to the "scientific debate" in which the zealot purportedly wishes to engage) - or even, Gaia forbid, examine his own behaviours, and modify them accordingly - he chose to launch into yet another of his fact-free tirades (predictably followed by those against others who've had the temerity to highlight additional shortcomings he has demonstrated ad nauseam).

But I get the impression that he objects to being referred to as a "zealous tyrant". I suppose I could have used the equally appropos "pseudonymous twit" or "Mr. Even When I'm Wrong, I'm Always Right" - or even "Mr. Can't Stand the Heat but Won't Stay Out of the Kitchen". Oh, well ... variety is the spice of life, so perhaps I'll use 'em next time!

RKS

Methinks you are trolling.
Nov 13, 2011 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Learn some manners you pompous fool! You rudely evaded a perfectly reasonable question regarding the basic science, and then came out with personal abuse. You're not related to Zed are you?

You wouldn't be able to use a computer without the Theory of Relativity...... - ZedsDeadBed, Truro, UK, 3/10/2011 15:53

"What has the theory of relativity got to do with computers? That's the bit you're making up. A proper answer now, none of your usual waffling or sidetracking - put up or shut up as they say." - CedricksDeadBed, Truro, 04/10/2011 14:58 _______________________________________________________________________________________ You've got to love it when people demand answers over internet messageboards. Especially to things they could find out in about 30 seconds if they did a search online. I'm imagining this character frothing at the mouth and banging his fists against the keyboard in frustration at my lack of response. And why should I deny him that simple pleasure...

- ZedsDeadBed, Truro, UK, 4/10/2011 16:01

RKS

So you think all the heavy CO2 in the free atmosphere will sink? Then why does it not poison the surface boundary layer? I think I'll leave you do Google your own way out of this confusion.
Nov 13, 2011 at 8:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Is there a handbook for these evasive put down responses because they seem to be contageous?

Hilary

See Nov 13, 2011 at 2:14 PM. We are done here.

RKS

Stop being so paranoid and learn some basic manners when communicating with others.

and:

Learn some manners you pompous fool! You rudely evaded a perfectly reasonable question regarding the basic science, and then came out with personal abuse. You're not related to Zed are you?

This is infinitely ruder than anything I have said to you.

Nor did I evade your question. You appear to believe that the atmosphere is stratified according to the molecular weight of its constituent gasses. This is obviously not the case, but if it were, the CO2 content of the SBL would be high enough to be dangerous. As I suggested to you at the outset.

You are being needlessly abusive. This exchange is over.