Greenhouse Gases Are Real

GreenMan wrote:
A certain AGW Denier in here continues to state that there is no such thing as Greenhouse Gases.

GreenMan wrote:
That person's apparent justification for rejection of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming Theory are related to his misunderstanding of science.

GreenMan wrote:
His claims are that additional warming of the planet by anything other than the sun constitute the breaking of many laws of physics [which he professes to know a lot about, but apparently can't put what he knows together to draw any kind of rational conclusion].

GreenMan wrote:
So in his honor, and probably horror, I present this link,

GreenMan wrote:
to a scientific [even though he doesn't believe in science] paper

GreenMan wrote:
that explains that Greenhouse Gases do not break any laws of physics.

GreenMan wrote:
In fact, it goes on to explain that Greenhouse Gases actually follow the same laws of physics that everyone else does.
...deleted Holy Link...
Let the fun begin.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
A certain AGW Denier in here continues to state that there is no such thing as Greenhouse Gases.

There isn't. You can't even define what 'global warming' means.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
That person's apparent justification for rejection of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming Theory are related to his misunderstanding of science.

There is no 'global warming theory'. Such a theory is not internally consistent. Not even a non-scientific theory can do that. Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions, links, or quotes.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
His claims are that additional warming of the planet by anything other than the sun constitute the breaking of many laws of physics [which he professes to know a lot about, but apparently can't put what he knows together to draw any kind of rational conclusion].

1) You don't know the temperature of the planet.

Into the Night wrote:
2) I was unaware that 'two' meant 'many'.

Into the Night wrote:
3) Attempted redefinition of 'rational' as 'religious', attempted redefinition of void as 'conclusion'.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
So in his honor, and probably horror, I present this link,

Science is not a Holy Link.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
to a scientific [even though he doesn't believe in science] paper

Science is not a paper. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' paper.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
that explains that Greenhouse Gases do not break any laws of physics.

It breaks two: The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
In fact, it goes on to explain that Greenhouse Gases actually follow the same laws of physics that everyone else does.
...deleted Holy Link...
Let the fun begin.

No, they don't. They are Holy Gases that you give special properties to. Those properties don't exist.

GreenMan wrote:
No, actually, neither of those two laws are broken, as explained here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
People are being caught by semantics. Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don't "warm" the planet (as in, they don't supply additional heat energy), but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It's a bit like saying a blanket doesn't warm you in bed. Sure, it's got no internal heat source, and it won't add any heat energy that you didn't already have, but you sure feel cold without one. – Jo

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
In fact, it goes on to explain that Greenhouse Gases actually follow the same laws of physics that everyone else does.
...deleted Holy Link...
Let the fun begin.

No, they don't. They are Holy Gases that you give special properties to. Those properties don't exist.

According to even the Global Warming Denial scientists like Roy Spencer, they exist. It is a proven fact that they exist. There has been a lot of research into Greenhouse Gases, including measuring the difference between earth's IR radiation at ground level versus at the outer edge of the atmosphere. Virtually all of earth's long-wave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
A certain AGW Denier in here continues to state that there is no such thing as Greenhouse Gases.

There isn't. You can't even define what 'global warming' means.

That is such an idiotic thing to say. Simply use the definition of each of the two words, and you have the meaning of the term.
Global = The Whole World
Warming = It's getting hotter

GreenMan wrote:
This is a description of the Global Warming Theory, which you need to read, since you have apparently never heard of it.

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell
Every scientific theory involves assumptions.

GreenMan wrote:
Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared ("IR") radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth's greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth's natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on "low". The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

GreenMan wrote:
Yes, that is copy and pasted. It came from here:
...deleted Holy Link...

GreenMan wrote:
You need to take it up with him. You can probably get his email address from your boy Wake Me Up.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
1) You don't know the temperature of the planet.

Sure I do, it is 289 Kelvin, or 16C.

GreenMan wrote:
I know, because unlike you, I bothered to read that scientific paper that explains the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
...deleted Holy Link...

GreenMan wrote:
Well, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything.

GreenMan wrote:
But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Science is not a Holy Link.

That is true. Science is a collection of knowledge and understanding of nature.

GreenMan wrote:
That link lands a person who is interested enough to click it on a very good explanation of Global Warming.

GreenMan wrote:
It's a little scientific, but not really too hard to understand for a layman.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
to a scientific [even though he doesn't believe in science] paper

Science is not a paper. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' paper.

I think we covered that. Your point is noted. Science is not a paper. I'm not sure why you think that is relevant, since everyone knows it.

GreenMan wrote:
And everyone also knows that science is presented on paper.

GreenMan wrote:
That keeps scientists from having to repeat themselves over and over a million times, when they want to explain their understanding.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
that explains that Greenhouse Gases do not break any laws of physics.

It breaks two: The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No, actually, neither of those two laws are broken, as explained here:
...deleted Holy Link...

GreenMan wrote:
People are being caught by semantics.

GreenMan wrote:
Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don't "warm" the planet (as in, they don't supply additional heat energy),

GreenMan wrote:
but they slow the cooling,

GreenMan wrote:
which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them.

GreenMan wrote:
It's a bit like saying a blanket doesn't warm you in bed.

GreenMan wrote:
Sure, it's got no internal heat source, and it won't add any heat energy that you didn't already have, but you sure feel cold without one. – Jo

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
In fact, it goes on to explain that Greenhouse Gases actually follow the same laws of physics that everyone else does.
...deleted Holy Link...
Let the fun begin.

No, they don't. They are Holy Gases that you give special properties to. Those properties don't exist.

According to even the Global Warming Denial scientists like Roy Spencer,

GreenMan wrote:
they exist.

GreenMan wrote:
It is a proven fact that they exist.

GreenMan wrote:
There has been a lot of research into Greenhouse Gases,

GreenMan wrote:
including measuring the difference between earth's IR radiation at ground level versus at the outer edge of the atmosphere.

GreenMan wrote:
Virtually all of earth's long-wave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
1) You don't know the temperature of the planet.

Sure I do, it is 289 Kelvin, or 16C.

Argument from randU. Quoting some number doesn't make it right.

GreenMan wrote:
I know, because unlike you, I bothered to read that scientific paper that explains the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
...deleted Holy Link...

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse theory'. This is what the Church of Global Warming calls it's scripture.

GreenMan wrote:
Well, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything.

Argument from randU. Quoting more random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:
But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

Random numbers is not a 'guestimate'. Guesstimates come out of statistics. You are illiterate about statistical math.

You never answered the question put to you:
How many official thermometers are in the world? (It's ok to use a ballpark figure here)

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
1) You don't know the temperature of the planet.

Sure I do, it is 289 Kelvin, or 16C.

Argument from randU. Quoting some number doesn't make it right.

GreenMan wrote:
I know, because unlike you, I bothered to read that scientific paper that explains the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
...deleted Holy Link...

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse theory'. This is what the Church of Global Warming calls it's scripture.

GreenMan wrote:
Well, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything.

Argument from randU. Quoting more random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:
But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

Random numbers is not a 'guestimate'. Guesstimates come out of statistics. You are illiterate about statistical math.

You never answered the question put to you:
How many official thermometers are in the world? (It's ok to use a ballpark figure here)

In the USA there are 1018. And they are almost all in urban centers.

Into the Night wrote:

The question was asked of Greenman and the question was asked about the number of thermometers in the world, not the United States.

NOAA claims they have 1200 stations currently in operation. In addition, there are currently around 900 ASOS stations operating. That is 2100 official thermometers in just those two sets. There are additional sets from the National Weather Service, the Hurricane watch center, and U.S.operated buoys that measure sea and air temperatures.

All of these are government owned and operated. All of these are official thermometers.

There are also thermometers located at intervals along our nations freeways and highways. These are automated stations similar to ASOS. I have no figures on the number of these in operation. They are government owned and operated thermometers, however. They are official thermometers.

Now let's let Greenman try to answer the question put to him.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: There are 1221 stations and after surveying 1007 of them it was determined that only 8% of them were reliable.

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: There are 1221 stations and after surveying 1007 of them it was determined that only 8% of them were reliable.

Temp stations have been verified over & over, including procedures conducted by AGW skeptic Richard Muller.... who is now an AGW advocate. Quoting 5 year old dope from WUWT is a sure way to get dope, proving you are a dope.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, actually, neither of those two laws are broken, as explained here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
People are being caught by semantics. Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don't "warm" the planet (as in, they don't supply additional heat energy), but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It's a bit like saying a blanket doesn't warm you in bed. Sure, it's got no internal heat source, and it won't add any heat energy that you didn't already have, but you sure feel cold without one. – Jo

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
In fact, it goes on to explain that Greenhouse Gases actually follow the same laws of physics that everyone else does.
...deleted Holy Link...
Let the fun begin.

No, they don't. They are Holy Gases that you give special properties to. Those properties don't exist.

According to even the Global Warming Denial scientists like Roy Spencer, they exist. It is a proven fact that they exist. There has been a lot of research into Greenhouse Gases, including measuring the difference between earth's IR radiation at ground level versus at the outer edge of the atmosphere. Virtually all of earth's long-wave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.

Let me get you straight - first you portray Dr. Spencer's explanation of the theories of the AGW camp as his and agree with him and then you tell us he's a denier and doesn't know what he's talking about. So what is it? Either you agree with him after purposely misrepresenting his opinions, as one of the world's foremost climate scientists, or you hate him for telling the truth?

Wake wrote:

And while we're at it exact how do you represent taking someone else's data, graphing that data and then telling us you "modeled the climate"?

Wake wrote:

And in your copy catting tell us: when the temperature cycled through warm periods was THAT climate change?

Wake wrote:
When the temperature reverted back to it's lower levels was that climate change?

Wake wrote:
Curious parties want to know just what lengths you'll go to to try to convince yourself that you're smarter than the average PhD lead of NASA's weather satellite program.

Greenman wrote;
Why yes it was. In fact, if you would get your head out of your ass and study the earth's past climate, you will find that it is always changing. The previous ten thousand years has been a plateau with a slight cooling trend over time. That is very rare. The planet is usually either getting warmer or cooler, and hardly ever stays the same as it has since coming out of the last glacial period.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This is a description of the Global Warming Theory, which you need to read, since you have apparently never heard of it.

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell
Every scientific theory involves assumptions.

Every theory begins as a circular argument, dumbass.

What makes a theory a part of the body of science, and therefore more than a circular argument, is the test for falsifiability (along with the test of external consistency).

ALL theories must pass the test of internal consistency. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a fallacy, which is an error in formal logic. Like mathematics, formal logic is a closed system, complete with proofs and the power of prediction that stem from such a system.

GreenMan wrote:
Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared ("IR") radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth's greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth's natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on "low". The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

So...the 'global warming theory' is the concept of 'global warming'. Circular definition. Not a theory at all, not even a nonscientific one.

GreenMan wrote:
Yes, that is copy and pasted. It came from here:
...deleted Holy Link...

You have to define it without links or quotes. Using the arguments of others is lazy thinking. It is yet another sign that you are pushing a religion and nothing else.

GreenMan wrote:
You need to take it up with him. You can probably get his email address from your boy Wake Me Up.

I don't need to take it up with him. He is not here. I am not going to argue here with something someone said that isn't here.

Present YOUR argument. Don't depend on stealing arguments from others. That is mindless.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The question was asked of Greenman and the question was asked about the number of thermometers in the world, not the United States.

NOAA claims they have 1200 stations currently in operation. In addition, there are currently around 900 ASOS stations operating. That is 2100 official thermometers in just those two sets. There are additional sets from the National Weather Service, the Hurricane watch center, and U.S.operated buoys that measure sea and air temperatures.

All of these are government owned and operated. All of these are official thermometers.

There are also thermometers located at intervals along our nations freeways and highways. These are automated stations similar to ASOS. I have no figures on the number of these in operation. They are government owned and operated thermometers, however. They are official thermometers.

Now let's let Greenman try to answer the question put to him.

Another dumbazz answer: ...deleted Holy Link...

There are 1221 stations and after surveying 1007 of them it was determined that only 8% of them were reliable.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This is a description of the Global Warming Theory, which you need to read, since you have apparently never heard of it.

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell
Every scientific theory involves assumptions.

Every theory begins as a circular argument, dumbass.

What makes a theory a part of the body of science, and therefore more than a circular argument, is the test for falsifiability (along with the test of external consistency).

ALL theories must pass the test of internal consistency. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a fallacy, which is an error in formal logic. Like mathematics, formal logic is a closed system, complete with proofs and the power of prediction that stem from such a system.

GreenMan wrote:
Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared ("IR") radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth's greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth's natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on "low". The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

So...the 'global warming theory' is the concept of 'global warming'. Circular definition. Not a theory at all, not even a nonscientific one.

GreenMan wrote:
Yes, that is copy and pasted. It came from here:
...deleted Holy Link...

You have to define it without links or quotes. Using the arguments of others is lazy thinking. It is yet another sign that you are pushing a religion and nothing else.

GreenMan wrote:
You need to take it up with him. You can probably get his email address from your boy Wake Me Up.

I don't need to take it up with him. He is not here. I am not going to argue here with something someone said that isn't here.

Present YOUR argument. Don't depend on stealing arguments from others. That is mindless.

I have presented MY argument, and it is that you don't know what you are talking about.

GreenMan wrote:
You just repeat the same old things, over and over, throughout this forum,

GreenMan wrote:
and try to act like they are your own ideas [which you thinks keeps you from being a Parrot].

GreenMan wrote:
Your ideas are new to me,

GreenMan wrote:
but they aren't to others, because they are debunked.

GreenMan wrote:
That means that real scientists have heard about them, and took the time to explain why they are fallacies.

GreenMan wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...
And that means they didn't come from you.

GreenMan wrote:
So you are a Parrot, and I am the Parrot killer [ifukkayou hehehehehehehehehe].

I think that what happened was, when you thought about what your persona was going to be, that you had to figure out a way to present yourself as someone who had done the time and put in the research, and came up with your own conclusions [much like I have, but you got confused and figured it out wrong]. You couldn't be a Parrot Killer, if you were a Parrot yourself, could you? But now the truth is out. You are a lowly Parrot, just spouting off about things that others have already come up with. Just repeating other people's lies.

GreenMan wrote:
And that is a shame, because you do appear to be a very knowledgeable person, capable of helping people understand what is going on. That would help you tremendously with your karma problems, that are getting worse and worse as time goes on. Did you know that you reap what you sow? You are sowing confusion, so you will become confused. Your world will become the product of confusion.

GreenMan wrote:
It's not too late to come back to reality.

GreenMan wrote:
You will find that the challenges ahead of it are worth it,

GreenMan wrote:
and your talents will be very useful in helping those who want to know what to do.

GreenMan wrote:
And then your karma will begin to balance out, and your world will slowly become harmonious with the universe.

GreenMan wrote:
It's all up to you. I can lead a horse to water, but he has to reach down and take a drink himself.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenman wrote;
Why yes it was. In fact, if you would get your head out of your ass and study the earth's past climate, you will find that it is always changing. The previous ten thousand years has been a plateau with a slight cooling trend over time. That is very rare. The planet is usually either getting warmer or cooler, and hardly ever stays the same as it has since coming out of the last glacial period.

OK Greenman, all jabs and insults out the window....for a moment. I know we'll never change your mind, so I'm honestly looking for a clean discussion.

What I want to know is how is it that you came to the conclusion that CO2 is warming the planet. If I look at your model, I see wild swings of natural warming and cooling, and then there is this tiny tiny uptick in temps, nowhere near previous natural warming.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Also, what is it, besides what you hear reported on the news, that actually makes you believe that it is actually warming? I have done fairly deep digging in your state of Michigan and can't find any evidence of warming, according to the local records.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I admittedly did poorly in school, so I haven't the science to engage in those discussions. What I do have is some knowledge in weather. I also have this experiment that happens every day right outside my door called the weather. When I hear someone tell me climate(average of all weather)is changing, I look outside to see if it's true. The things I'm being told are happening, well, they just aren't in my neck of my woods. What about Michigan? What are YOU seeing as proof positive that Michigan is getting warmer on average. What is it that convinces Greeman beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1. It is Definitely warming

GasGuzzler wrote:
...and 2. It is definitely caused by CO2

GasGuzzler wrote:
...and 3.This is far different than any other natural temp swing in the history of the earth.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
1) You don't know the temperature of the planet.

Sure I do, it is 289 Kelvin, or 16C.

Argument from randU. Quoting some number doesn't make it right.

GreenMan wrote:
I know, because unlike you, I bothered to read that scientific paper that explains the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
...deleted Holy Link...

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse theory'. This is what the Church of Global Warming calls it's scripture.

GreenMan wrote:
Well, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything.

Argument from randU. Quoting more random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:
But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

Random numbers is not a 'guestimate'. Guesstimates come out of statistics. You are illiterate about statistical math.

You never answered the question put to you:
How many official thermometers are in the world? (It's ok to use a ballpark figure here)

GasGuzzler wrote:
Then one more question, If the CO2 is up 25-35% in the 150 years, why do you believe the temperature isn't up 25%?

I have looked at temp records from all across the US where I can find reliable records...I honestly can't find a solid trend up or down. Why do you trust NOAA so much? Do you still trust it with Trump in office? Bush?

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed:.... the conclusion that CO2 is warming the planet.

GreenMan wrote: When did Dr. Spencer become one of the "world's foremost climate scientists?"

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
1) You don't know the temperature of the planet.

Sure I do, it is 289 Kelvin, or 16C.

Argument from randU. Quoting some number doesn't make it right.

GreenMan wrote:
I know, because unlike you, I bothered to read that scientific paper that explains the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
...deleted Holy Link...

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse theory'. This is what the Church of Global Warming calls it's scripture.

GreenMan wrote:
Well, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything.

Argument from randU. Quoting more random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:
But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

Random numbers is not a 'guestimate'. Guesstimates come out of statistics. You are illiterate about statistical math.

You never answered the question put to you:
How many official thermometers are in the world? (It's ok to use a ballpark figure here)

I think someone answered that already,

GreenMan wrote:
and I'm not even going to get into it.

GreenMan wrote:
Your argument that we don't know the planet's temperature is total bull shit.

GreenMan wrote:
We can compare last years average with this year's average and determine if it got warmer or cooler or stayed the same.

GreenMan wrote:
Everything you say in fact, is total bull shit.

GreenMan wrote:
You are just repeating other people's lies [parroting],

GreenMan wrote:
and trying to point out whatever error you think you can find in someone's reasoning.

GreenMan wrote:
And you aren't too proud to make a few things up,

GreenMan wrote:
just to cast doubt about the validity what someone said.

GreenMan wrote:
You are just a bought and paid for Koch loving troll. [Koch, pronounced like it looks, not like your favorite beverage]

GreenMan wrote:
Is that how you really want to be remembered by your family?

GreenMan wrote:
Do you want your grandkids to have to explain how their grandfather was a famous troll, in the war on Global Warming, back in the early days, when there was something that could have been done to prevent all the perils that they are having to live through?

The other kids will be whipping up on your grandchildren, because of what you did. Is that what you really want?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Once again, not a math magick man or scientist. I'm just a very ordinary guy simply comparing what I've been told to what can I see.

Into the Night wrote: (continuous claims that there is no such thing as science unless he says it's so.)

GasGuzzler wrote:
OK, thanks for the detailed explanation. I will say that right or wrong, I do respect the effort you put into this. However, I do have more questions than answers now.

GasGuzzler wrote:
1. If the earth is like a brick oven and it takes more time to heat it gradually when more heat is applied, I assume you mean the surface is like the "brick"? If this is the case, then should we be seeing the ground temps warming also?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Again, not seeing this in Iowa anyway. Farmers always trying to get the crops in early as possible to bring them to maturity before the first frost. Again last spring, they're in late. I watch this carefully as I am an avid bow hunter. Everything must be taken into account to plan that successful ambush. If the corn is still in the field, the deer will be too. Also side note with the corn, the farmers are again screaming this year because they need some heat to bring the crop along. We just didn't get good heat on it this year. Yet your NOAA heat map you put up in the Hurricane thread showed above average temps for the entire Midwest. Was it hot in Michigan this year?

GasGuzzler wrote:

2. All your calculations seem to be very precise. However, all of the data is estimates within 3-4C. Sure, it can give you trends and show the ups and downs. I would say it is like trying to split hairs with the flat end of an ax. How do you explain your precision that is derived from ballpark numbers? (mainly the ice core data)

GasGuzzler wrote:

3. Please revisit the CO2 in the air argument. Still not understanding why it's not blazing hot right now with CO2 up 33%. If it works like you say it does, with CO2 grabbing heat on it's way up, and then redirecting it back to the surface, then it should be hot now, whether CO2 sinks are full or not. CO2 cannot take a day off. Is CO2 evenly distributed around the planet? I would assume no. So if this stuff effects the weather, then I would think NOAA would have more measuring devices. But I have yet to see CO2 be taken into account when putting together a weather forecast. Your thoughts?

Once again, not a math magick man or scientist. I'm just a very ordinary guy simply comparing what I've been told to what can I see.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: (continuous claims that there is no such thing as science unless he says it's so.)

Look I have explained to you that the Stefan-Boltzmann law, that you so often quote, fully shows that you can show the temperature of the Earth.

Wake wrote:
For reasons entirely unknown to me you refuse to believe that EVEN when you say the same thing.

Wake wrote:
The problem with ground temperature measurements are what I also showed to you - the accuracy of the measurements are 10 times less than actual temperature rise that NASA and NOAA are committed to via data lists.

Wake wrote:
We have seen that the satellite temperature record which is the most accurate method of measuring MGT

Wake wrote:
haven't shown any temperature rise

Wake wrote:
no matter what that idiot greenman seems to believe because he doesn't understand statistics.

Wake wrote:
The end result of all of this is that since 1979 there doesn't seem to have been a temperature rise measured by the most accurate method we have for determining the MGT.

Wake wrote:
This begs the question - has there been any significant global warming that isn't purely recovery from the little ice age?

Wake wrote:
It also begs the question - has anyone looked to see if there were prolonged cold periods before the past warming periods?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: (continuous claims that there is no such thing as science unless he says it's so.)

Look I have explained to you that the Stefan-Boltzmann law, that you so often quote, fully shows that you can show the temperature of the Earth.

No, you can't. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. You can't know the emissivity of the Earth with knowing the temperature in the first place!

Wake wrote:
For reasons entirely unknown to me you refuse to believe that EVEN when you say the same thing.

I never said you can measure the temperature of the Earth using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can only measure the temperature of something with a KNOWN EMISSIVITY.

Wake wrote:
The problem with ground temperature measurements are what I also showed to you - the accuracy of the measurements are 10 times less than actual temperature rise that NASA and NOAA are committed to via data lists.

Ground temperature measurements are completely accurate. These thermometers are calibrated to within a fraction of a degree of accuracy. They are checked annually.

Wake wrote:
We have seen that the satellite temperature record which is the most accurate method of measuring MGT

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

Wake wrote:
haven't shown any temperature rise

It is not possible to determine that either.

Wake wrote:
no matter what that idiot greenman seems to believe because he doesn't understand statistics.

Neither do you.

Wake wrote:
The end result of all of this is that since 1979 there doesn't seem to have been a temperature rise measured by the most accurate method we have for determining the MGT.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Wake wrote:
This begs the question - has there been any significant global warming that isn't purely recovery from the little ice age?

The question isn't begged.

Wake wrote:
It also begs the question - has anyone looked to see if there were prolonged cold periods before the past warming periods?

That question isn't begged either.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Once again, not a math magick man or scientist. I'm just a very ordinary guy simply comparing what I've been told to what can I see.

You don't need to be a math magick man (it really isn't magick, but magic uses math!), or a scientist. There are really only two or three theories to understand. The equations in them are fairly simple.

The first is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This theory states that whenever there is a difference of temperature between two regions, and there is a way for heat to flow from to the other (they are coupled), heat will flow at a rate determined solely by the difference between the two regions, and the coupling. The better the coupling, the faster heat will flow. The greater the difference with the same coupling, the faster heat will flow. Heat always flows from hot to cold. Never backwards. If there is no difference in temperature, heating stops. If coupling is removed, heating stops. There is no way to get heat to flow from cold to hot.

Into the Night wrote:

Another way to put it is called 'entropy'. This odd word basically means the randomness of a system. A good way to visualize it is to have two containers, one with white bugs and one with red bugs. This is an example of low entropy. It is organized.

Allowing a pathway between the two containers is like the coupling I mentioned earlier. Soon you will have a mix of bugs in both containers. Entropy has increased.

The 2nd law states that entropy always increases. It never decreases. This is true always. The seeming way we can 'collect' heat in one place is only because we are taking the energy to do that from somewhere else (which must be included in a consistent way. Energy is like the bugs.
If it's concentrated somewhere, the 2nd law says it will dissipate.

For Earth, that means we get energy from the Sun, then radiate it back into space. The Earth is only 'in the way' so to speak of the energy coming from the Sun. It cannot heat itself.

On Earth, that means we start with a surface that is warm. This heats the atmosphere. Heat can flow by conduction (contact with the hotter region), convection (movement of material itself to colder region), or radiation (conversion to electromagnetic energy and back again).

The surface heats the atmosphere basically by conduction. CO2 can also be heated by radiance coming from the surface.

The atmosphere generally cools as you go higher. The CO2 is colder than the surface, so heat can flow to warm it. The reverse is not true. CO2 cannot heat the surface. It is colder than the surface (or at best the same temperature). It cannot do it by 'back radiation'. It cannot do it by contact. It cannot do it by convection. It cannot do it at all.

Space is colder than anything on Earth. Everything that has a temperature above the temperature of the very few molecules of space (about minus 455 deg F) tries to heat space. Space, however, is very large. It is so large it doesn't change temperature much. The Earth is just another particle in the way of the Sun trying to heat space around it.


The other theory is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law can be derived from Planck's laws of energy and light. His basic theory is that when you compare one photon with another, each has its own frequency. That frequency is the photon's 'color'. If the frequency is in a narrow range that our eyes are sensitive to (we have built in electromagnetic energy detectors!) then we see what we call a visible 'color'. White is all colors added up at once. Black is no light. Light has both an intensity (it's brightness) and a color.

All Planck was really saying is that a photon of one color has a different amount of energy than a photon of a different color. The number of photons per second is the brightness, or intensity of the light.

Light is simply electromagnetic energy. It is an electrostatic field (think rubbing a balloon on something to build up static electricity) and a magnetic field (we've all played with magnets) moving together. Visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, radio waves, microwaves, are all just light, but at different frequencies. It is possible to look at light either as a continuous wave, or as a packet of such waves (a photon). Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle explains why.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law took all the colors of light and combined them into one total energy. As a result the Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It combines all colors.

Now the law itself:

energy = SB constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4.

Where:
energy is the power emitted (in photons per second over a fixed area of the emitting surface)
SB constant is a constant of nature (used to convert the equation into our units of measurement).
emissivity is a constant that is measured. It is how well something emits the light. A shiny piece of metal doesn't emit light that well. It reflects it well, (why its shiny), but it has poor emissivity. A black hunk of coal has good emissivity. It is black because it doesn't reflect much light. Emissivity and absorptivity are equal. If a material absorbs light well, it also emits light well. It's units are a number expressed as a percentage between two ideal values.
temperature (in deg K)

Emissivity is probably the most misunderstood part of this equation. It is a measured value. It is constant. Emissivity doesn't change unless you change the surface at which point you will have to measure it again.

Emissivity is a percentage between a surface that is ideally black (the ideal black body absorbs all light and reflects or refracts no light) and ideally white (the ideal white body absorbs no light and reflects or refracts all light). These are ideals. These reference bodies do not exist in nature. Everything in nature is a 'gray' body...somewhere in between.

Emissivity is measured by first accurately measuring the temperature of the surface.

Then you measure the energy coming from the surface.

You compare that to the ideal bodies, assuming the same temperature.

The result is the emissivity value.

The basic equation describes that something appears brighter (more intense) the hotter it is. If something has a temperature above absolute zero, it is emitting light. The intensity of that light is determined by its temperature.

This is true for solids (which have an easily identifiable surface), liquids (somewhat less identifiable but a surface), and gasses (which have no visible surface, but they have a 'surface' area all the same).

If something makes Earth hotter, radiance (the intensity of energy) will increase. If something makes the Earth colder, radiance will decrease.

Similarly, if radiance is increasing, that means the temperature is increasing. If radiance is decreasing, that means temperature is decreasing. Everything else in the equation is a constant.

The Church of Global Warming depends on the use of Holy Gas that somehow absorbs light from the surface and either never lets the energy go, or uses that energy to in turn heat the surface. Either model means the photon never reached space. Radiance is reduced.

Into the Night wrote:

But at the same temperature is increased.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law says that this is not possible. If radiance is reduced, temperature is reduced. This is always true. The usual dance around this problem for the Church of Global Warming is to claim that the photon does eventually reach space, the Earth is now warmer, and radiance is increased.

That doesn't work. This imposes a sequence that is not in the equation. It is basically saying that radiance is reduced for only a moment while the temperature is increased [i]during that same moment[I]. Then everything works as advertised in the equation.

There is no sequence. There is no such moment. The equation is always in force. It works for all bodies (in this case the Earth and its atmosphere)...all the time...never ceasing...never temporarily suspended.

Another dance sometimes attempted is that emissivity changes with color. In other words, emissivity is different for each color. This is basically trying to justify that a magick color (infrared light) has a different emissivity than another magick color (visible light).

This doesn't work. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It combines all colors. That includes the emissivity value. It includes all frequencies of light.

See? The only math needed is simple arithmetic. The only science needed are two theories.

Into the Night wrote:

I like to refer to the two arguments of the 'greenhouse gas theory' as the Magick Blanket argument (which ignores the effect of removing coupling in BOTH directions, and assume that you are able to remove coupling at all using a Holy Gas), and the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument (which attempts to heat a hotter region with a colder one and which attempts to either rewrite or ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

These two theories did require a lengthy response to explain them on hopefully a more comfortable level for you, but I hope this clears up why I keep referring back to these laws when confronting the Church of Global Warming Scripture. Despite these, they will do anything to either rewrite these laws or attempt to ignore them (by producing manufactured data to show how wrong I am).

I took the time to post it not only to clarify my position to some, but because I think you truly can grasp these theories and understand them in the context of the climate debate here.

GreenMan wrote:
Wow, you finally presented your argument. Thank you.
Let's take a look at that, as see if we can tell what all the fuss is about.
I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface. What happens if you reduce the coupling's ability to conduct heat?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: (continuous claims that there is no such thing as science unless he says it's so.)

Look I have explained to you that the Stefan-Boltzmann law, that you so often quote, fully shows that you can show the temperature of the Earth.

No, you can't. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. You can't know the emissivity of the Earth with knowing the temperature in the first place!

Wake wrote:
For reasons entirely unknown to me you refuse to believe that EVEN when you say the same thing.

I never said you can measure the temperature of the Earth using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can only measure the temperature of something with a KNOWN EMISSIVITY.

Wake wrote:
The problem with ground temperature measurements are what I also showed to you - the accuracy of the measurements are 10 times less than actual temperature rise that NASA and NOAA are committed to via data lists.

Ground temperature measurements are completely accurate. These thermometers are calibrated to within a fraction of a degree of accuracy. They are checked annually.

Wake wrote:
We have seen that the satellite temperature record which is the most accurate method of measuring MGT

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

Wake wrote:
haven't shown any temperature rise

It is not possible to determine that either.

Wake wrote:
no matter what that idiot greenman seems to believe because he doesn't understand statistics.

Neither do you.

Wake wrote:
The end result of all of this is that since 1979 there doesn't seem to have been a temperature rise measured by the most accurate method we have for determining the MGT.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Wake wrote:
This begs the question - has there been any significant global warming that isn't purely recovery from the little ice age?

The question isn't begged.

Wake wrote:
It also begs the question - has anyone looked to see if there were prolonged cold periods before the past warming periods?

That question isn't begged either.

Quite frankly I don't know what to do with you.

Wake wrote:
If you were capable of even moderate algebra you would know that you can transpose terms in order to learn the emissivity.

Wake wrote:
But somehow you are incapable of so much as thinking along those lines.

Wake wrote:
I showed you a study that SHOWED that only something like 20% of the ground based temperature measuring centers are accurate to within 5 degrees

Wake wrote:
and you're talking about them being checked ANNUALLY?

Wake wrote:
Oh, that's right, you don't accept studies of the devices you have heretofore proclaimed as inaccurate.

Wake wrote:
You continue to tell me that it isn't possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Wake wrote:
Even WITHOUT the ground measurements and even without the satellite data we KNOW the emissions from the Sun.

Wake wrote:
We know the amount of power that is reflected from the upper atmosphere,

Wake wrote:
we know the amount reflected out of the lower atmosphere by Raleigh Scattering.

Wake wrote:
We know how much energy is lost via reflection from tropospheric clouds of various types.

Wake wrote:
That means we know how much energy actually reaches the ground.

Wake wrote:
From this alone we can calculate the expected MGT.

Wake wrote:
The fact that the satellite data is similar to this

Wake wrote:
might have given you a hint that calculating the MGT is not only possible but occurs every single 24 hour period but it seems to bypass you altogether.

Wake wrote:
Before you tell me I don't understand statistics

Wake wrote:
you had better show us that you even know what statistical analysis is.

Wake wrote:
So far everything you've talked about is sheer bunk.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Wow, you finally presented your argument. Thank you.
Let's take a look at that, as see if we can tell what all the fuss is about.
I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface. What happens if you reduce the coupling's ability to conduct heat?

Since you don't understand a single thing you're talking about I'll tell you what would happen - if you interrupted so much as one watt of heat from the surface into outer space you'd have been cooked just as if you were on the surface of Venus you putz.

You know nothing about science and you shoot your mouth off continuously.

GasGuzzler wrote:
3. Please revisit the CO2 in the air argument. Still not understanding why it's not blazing hot right now with CO2 up 33%. If it works like you say it does, with CO2 grabbing heat on it's way up, and then redirecting it back to the surface, then it should be hot now, whether CO2 sinks are full or not. CO2 cannot take a day off. Is CO2 evenly distributed around the planet? I would assume no. So if this stuff effects the weather, then I would think NOAA would have more measuring devices. But I have yet to see CO2 be taken into account when putting together a weather forecast. Your thoughts?

GasGuzzler wrote:

2. All your calculations seem to be very precise. However, all of the data is estimates within 3-4C. Sure, it can give you trends and show the ups and downs. I would say it is like trying to split hairs with the flat end of an ax. How do you explain your precision that is derived from ballpark numbers? (mainly the ice core data)

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Wow, you finally presented your argument. Thank you.
Let's take a look at that, as see if we can tell what all the fuss is about.
I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface. What happens if you reduce the coupling's ability to conduct heat?

Since you don't understand a single thing you're talking about I'll tell you what would happen - if you interrupted so much as one watt of heat from the surface into outer space you'd have been cooked just as if you were on the surface of Venus you putz.

You know nothing about science and you shoot your mouth off continuously.

So 1 watt of heat would cook me? That must be a giant watt, lol.

To start with, what I said was that those watts of heat that the earth's surface is putting out [that warms the air and eventually make it to space] are being slowed down slightly, by air that is slightly warmer than it would be without those nasty greenhouse gases [that make it so warm here on earth]. Not sure if you understand that part of it. The slight warming of the air occurs due to absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases, which heat up when radiation of the right wavelength strike them. They are like tiny little heaters, spread out everywhere.

And those tiny little heaters raise the temperature of the air slightly, and that slows down the transfer of heat from the surface to outer space. The hotter something is in relation to something else is part of what determines the rate of heat transfer is why. If the air temp goes up a little, the surface temp isn't quite as much hotter than it was before, so conduction slows down just a bit.

Not much advanced science needed to understand that. So I'm wondering what your problem is, since you think you are such a wiz at things like science, and statistics and things like that. Do you have any skills that allow you to understand nature? I think we covered that, and you can follow blue prints, apparently, because you put a bunch of stuff together. Not sure that really helps. Were you able to mark up those blue prints as you were building that fancy stuff, to show what modifications were made as it was being built? Were you the one who figured out what modifications to make to fix whatever the problem was? Or did you just go report the problem to someone else that would tell you what to do? I'm thinking the latter is what you did, since you don't appear to have much common sense.

And I'm thinking that it just takes common sense to understand Global Warming. And maybe that's why even some of the smartest sounding people do not understand it. Common Sense and Knowledge are two very different things. A person with good common sense can use knowledge to figure out problems and solve them. A person without common sense can just run around bitching like a dog about problems. They can never offer solutions, because they don't have an sense.

So anyway, you probably need to take a pill now, and go back to bed.