The Stench from the EPA, NASA and NOAA

And you're still a loser that can only sooth your soul by blaming everyone else for your being a loser.

GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking neither of you can prove it, or the other one about NASA's admission that increasing CO2 will not cause an increase in the average global temperature.

GreenMan wrote:
Link, anyone? Come on Jizzy, your hero's are struggling.

L8112 wrote:
Into the night, wake, and a few other people on here are mentally ill.

L8112 wrote:
wake is NOT white, so therefore he is either black, mexican, indian, or chinese...hahaha paints a funny picture.

L8112 wrote:

And you're still a loser that can only sooth your soul by blaming everyone else for your being a loser.

blaming everyone else' is the republicans facvorite pass-time "it was obama!, crooked hillary! the muslims! black athletes! liberals! the boogeyman!"

L8112 wrote:
ok..? idc what 'race' or flesh vehicle you inhabit, youre still a dickhead

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking neither of you can prove it, or the other one about NASA's admission that increasing CO2 will not cause an increase in the average global temperature.

I do not have to prove a negative. No one does. YOU have to show CO2 is capable of increasing the global temperature.

No one can determine the temperature of Earth. (reference: statistical mathematics)

CO2 has no magick properties that allow it to overrule the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the Stefan Boltzmann law. (reference: the scientific theories of thermodynamics and the scientific theories of Max Planck).

CO2 is not an insulator. It conducts thermal energy better than other gases in the atmosphere. (reference: engineering properties of CO2)

CO2 does not stop convection. It is part of convection. (reference: definition and characteristics of fluids)

GreenMan wrote:
Link, anyone? Come on Jizzy, your hero's are struggling.

You can go stuff your Holy Links. Use the references I provided.

GreenMan wrote: An idiot keeps posting the same thing as if it is based on some real published report.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:....parroting some group for which he would like to be identified with.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking neither of you can prove it, or the other one about NASA's admission that increasing CO2 will not cause an increase in the average global temperature.

I do not have to prove a negative. No one does. YOU have to show CO2 is capable of increasing the global temperature.

No one can determine the temperature of Earth. (reference: statistical mathematics)

CO2 has no magick properties that allow it to overrule the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the Stefan Boltzmann law. (reference: the scientific theories of thermodynamics and the scientific theories of Max Planck).

CO2 is not an insulator. It conducts thermal energy better than other gases in the atmosphere. (reference: engineering properties of CO2)

CO2 does not stop convection. It is part of convection. (reference: definition and characteristics of fluids)

GreenMan wrote:
Link, anyone? Come on Jizzy, your hero's are struggling.

You can go stuff your Holy Links. Use the references I provided.

You can go stuff your bull shit, ****.

GreenMan wrote:
An idiot keeps posting the same thing [which is what you do also] as if it is based on some real published report.

GreenMan wrote:
But he can't produce any link to confirm the validity of the report.

GreenMan wrote:
So I don't have to prove a thing, dunce.

GreenMan wrote:
He needs to produce the report he keeps referencing,

GreenMan wrote:
or shut up about the stupid notion that increasing CO2 won't increase the temperature,

GreenMan wrote:
according to NASA. "According to NASA" being the key part of that.

GreenMan wrote:
Not according to some idiot named Into the Night, or one named Gas Guzzler.

GreenMan wrote:
All of you guys are just a bunch of morons, wasting time in here, on some "mission from God," that you have created in your minds. You are out to "save our ways," "full steam ahead!"

GreenMan wrote:
If you had a brain, you would be looking at that wreck up ahead, and starting to figure out how to exit this train.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: An idiot keeps posting the same thing as if it is based on some real published report.

There you have it. This person is a student. Nothing more than a common core high school student but nothing but nothing more either. He neither knows science nor wishes to. What he is in the business of doing is parroting some group for which he would like to be identified with. We can scratch him off of the list permanently.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: An idiot keeps posting the same thing as if it is based on some real published report.

There you have it. This person is a student. Nothing more than a common core high school student but nothing but nothing more either. He neither knows science nor wishes to. What he is in the business of doing is parroting some group for which he would like to be identified with. We can scratch him off of the list permanently.

So you decided that bulverism is right for you too, eh?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: An idiot keeps posting the same thing as if it is based on some real published report.

There you have it. This person is a student. Nothing more than a common core high school student but nothing but nothing more either. He neither knows science nor wishes to. What he is in the business of doing is parroting some group for which he would like to be identified with. We can scratch him off of the list permanently.

So you decided that bulverism is right for you too, eh?

And another word from the "Big Book of Words that Make You Sound Smart".

Believe me - it isn't working. You don't even know the correct way to use the word.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: An idiot keeps posting the same thing as if it is based on some real published report.

There you have it. This person is a student. Nothing more than a common core high school student but nothing but nothing more either. He neither knows science nor wishes to. What he is in the business of doing is parroting some group for which he would like to be identified with. We can scratch him off of the list permanently.

So you decided that bulverism is right for you too, eh?

And another word from the "Big Book of Words that Make You Sound Smart".

Believe me - it isn't working. You don't even know the correct way to use the word.

Oh it's accurate all right. You are a bulverist. Argument of ridicule. Argument by attempted redefinition. Argument from randU.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: An idiot keeps posting the same thing as if it is based on some real published report.

There you have it. This person is a student. Nothing more than a common core high school student but nothing but nothing more either. He neither knows science nor wishes to. What he is in the business of doing is parroting some group for which he would like to be identified with. We can scratch him off of the list permanently.

So you decided that bulverism is right for you too, eh?

And another word from the "Big Book of Words that Make You Sound Smart".

Believe me - it isn't working. You don't even know the correct way to use the word.

Oh it's accurate all right. You are a bulverist. Argument of ridicule. Argument by attempted redefinition. Argument from randU.

As I said - you don't even know what the word means.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: An idiot keeps posting the same thing as if it is based on some real published report.

There you have it. This person is a student. Nothing more than a common core high school student but nothing but nothing more either. He neither knows science nor wishes to. What he is in the business of doing is parroting some group for which he would like to be identified with. We can scratch him off of the list permanently.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: An idiot keeps posting the same thing as if it is based on some real published report.

There you have it. This person is a student. Nothing more than a common core high school student but nothing but nothing more either. He neither knows science nor wishes to. What he is in the business of doing is parroting some group for which he would like to be identified with. We can scratch him off of the list permanently.

Wake, you are a total waste of time, air, food, water, and everything else that it takes to stay alive. You are actually robbing someone else's opportunity to be alive now.

GreenMan wrote:
You accuse me of parroting, when that is what you are doing, and I am calling you on it. You have repeated that NASA released a report that says increasing CO2 concentrations by 10 times will not raise the temperature of the planet. That is parroting, idiot. But most parrots include some link to their source of information, so that others can confirm it. I'm asking for a link, because I have caught you several times saying one thing, when the report you cite actually says something else.

GreenMan wrote:
Another favorite of mine, that you parrot incorrectly, is the one about satellite measurements don't show any increase in warming since they were put into service in 1979. You base that on your hero Dr Roy Spenser's report that there was no increase in temperature beyond the record set in 1998, because 2016 only a few tenths higher, which means that it was not statistically higher. He doesn't even say there has been no warming since 1979, but somehow you conclude that he does.

GreenMan wrote:
You also have a habit of ignoring information that is required to totally understanding how CO2 warms the air. You think that because all the surface radiation has been absorbed in the first 30 meters after it leaves the surface, or other object that there is no more additional warming from CO2 above that.

GreenMan wrote:
While it is true that all the surface radiation is absorbed within 30 meters,

GreenMan wrote:
there are other things going on, that you ignore, because you want that to mean that increasing CO2 concentrations won't raise the temperature of the planet.

GreenMan wrote:
The part that you are ignoring is that the air is also emitting radiation, based on its temperature.

GreenMan wrote:
So the air above the first 30 meters that got warmed by surface radiation, is warmed by radiation from that lower air.

GreenMan wrote:
And remember, radiation is emitted in all directions, so some of it even gets to go down and warm the surface a little more.

GreenMan wrote:
So the warming from CO2 does continue into the upper atmosphere, until the air gets so thin that all the radiation is allowed to escape into space.

GreenMan wrote:
And I'm thinking that the paper you are trying to parrot says the same thing, which is why you won't post a link to it. And that means that you actually know how full of shit you are. No wonder you resort to bullying tactics to wind an argument, because sound reasoning just doesn't work for you.

GreenMan wrote:
I have no idea what list you are referring to, which you think you can scratch me off of permanently.

GreenMan wrote:
If my name leaves the list, it will be because I scratched it off.

GreenMan wrote:
Your name, on the other hand might get scratched as soon as they finish their review of your continuous threats in here.
...deleted insult fallacy...

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: .....maintains.....

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: .....maintains.....

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" maintains it is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped:..... litesong....

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped:..... litesong....

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" maintains it is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener . It is a proficient janitor.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped: Talking....

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped: Talking....

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" adores its new name, down to the details.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many times threatener wake-me-up" yipped: As the asylums re-open....

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many times threatener wake-me-up" yipped: As the asylums re-open....

...people with names like "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many times threatener wake-me-up" get priority for admittance.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: An idiot keeps posting the same thing as if it is based on some real published report.

There you have it. This person is a student. Nothing more than a common core high school student but nothing but nothing more either. He neither knows science nor wishes to. What he is in the business of doing is parroting some group for which he would like to be identified with. We can scratch him off of the list permanently.

Wake, you are a total waste of time, air, food, water, and everything else that it takes to stay alive. You are actually robbing someone else's opportunity to be alive now.

So are you suggesting that he kill himself? Or are you going to go to Oakland and personally deal with it?

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
You accuse me of parroting, when that is what you are doing, and I am calling you on it. You have repeated that NASA released a report that says increasing CO2 concentrations by 10 times will not raise the temperature of the planet. That is parroting, idiot. But most parrots include some link to their source of information, so that others can confirm it. I'm asking for a link, because I have caught you several times saying one thing, when the report you cite actually says something else.

Science isn't a government agency. Arguing over what NASA said or didn't say is pointless.

GreenMan wrote:
Another favorite of mine, that you parrot incorrectly, is the one about satellite measurements don't show any increase in warming since they were put into service in 1979. You base that on your hero Dr Roy Spenser's report that there was no increase in temperature beyond the record set in 1998, because 2016 only a few tenths higher, which means that it was not statistically higher. He doesn't even say there has been no warming since 1979, but somehow you conclude that he does.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.

GreenMan wrote:
You also have a habit of ignoring information that is required to totally understanding how CO2 warms the air. You think that because all the surface radiation has been absorbed in the first 30 meters after it leaves the surface, or other object that there is no more additional warming from CO2 above that.

He's violating both the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, just like you do, by saying that.

GreenMan wrote:
While it is true that all the surface radiation is absorbed within 30 meters,

Have you seen Earth from images from the space station or the Moon? How can you see it if there is no surface radiance??

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
there are other things going on, that you ignore, because you want that to mean that increasing CO2 concentrations won't raise the temperature of the planet.

Actually, he's arguing that CO2 concentrations DOES raise the temperature of the planet. Pay attention. He's just saying it's insignificant. He's still wrong.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
The part that you are ignoring is that the air is also emitting radiation, based on its temperature.

That seems to get ignored by you too, when convenient for you.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
So the air above the first 30 meters that got warmed by surface radiation, is warmed by radiation from that lower air.

Upper air is not warmedby radiance from lower air. The frequency has shifted enough that CO2 is no longer able to absorb a lot of light from the colder air.

Upper air is warmed by conduction and convection, same as the lower air. Light isn't even involved in most of the heating of the air.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And remember, radiation is emitted in all directions, so some of it even gets to go down and warm the surface a little more.

You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance. You are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
So the warming from CO2 does continue into the upper atmosphere, until the air gets so thin that all the radiation is allowed to escape into space.

There is no magick 'threshold'. Most radiance from the Earth is from the surface, not the atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And I'm thinking that the paper you are trying to parrot says the same thing, which is why you won't post a link to it. And that means that you actually know how full of shit you are. No wonder you resort to bullying tactics to wind an argument, because sound reasoning just doesn't work for you.

No reasoning here...move along, move along.

GreenMan wrote:
I have no idea what list you are referring to, which you think you can scratch me off of permanently.

His list. He maintains it.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
If my name leaves the list, it will be because I scratched it off.

You can't scratch your name off of his list.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Your name, on the other hand might get scratched as soon as they finish their review of your continuous threats in here.
...deleted insult fallacy...

Time will tell. I'll leave that with the forum owner. He is the only one that can make that decision. You can't.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: An idiot keeps posting the same thing as if it is based on some real published report.

There you have it. This person is a student. Nothing more than a common core high school student but nothing but nothing more either. He neither knows science nor wishes to. What he is in the business of doing is parroting some group for which he would like to be identified with. We can scratch him off of the list permanently.

Wake, you are a total waste of time, air, food, water, and everything else that it takes to stay alive. You are actually robbing someone else's opportunity to be alive now.

So are you suggesting that he kill himself? Or are you going to go to Oakland and personally deal with it?

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped:....31,000+ of the best scientists....

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" yipped:....31,000+ of the best scientists....

31,000 signatures on an oil, coal, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un patch of paper automatically eliminates 31,000 beings from best scientists considerations, specially with the majority NOT being scientists.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: u haven't yet told us why they haven't recently surfaces(sic) submarines at the north pole.

GreenMan wrote:
Nah, he isn't worth the trip to the airport, much less the trip all the way out there, from the airport. And then I got to worry about alibis, and things like that. It would be much cleaner if he would just off his own ass.

GreenMan wrote:
That's what I would do, if I was him, and suffered with an incurable mental disorder that makes him want to kill future generations of people. And you should think about it.

Maybe, since you two love CO2 so much, why don't you both got sit in your cars, with your exhaust piped into the cab for a little while, and take a little nap?

GreenMan wrote:
You can't see earth's radiance with your eyes, Parrot.

GreenMan wrote:
What you are seeing with your eyes is light that has been reflected by the object you are looking at.

GreenMan wrote:
Totally different wavelengths.

GreenMan wrote:
Visible light is not absorbed by greenhouse gases, because they are not at the right frequency.

GreenMan wrote:
Thank you for clarifying how it is that you think so many laws of physics are broken by natural occurring phenomena. You simply don't understand the different frequencies of things like light. No wonder you are so damn confused.

GreenMan wrote:
Oops, did you just admit that you are aware that CO2 absorbs radiation, at lower levels of the atmosphere? Yes, you did, when you said "CO2 is no longer able to absorb a lot of light from the colder air." That is saying that you are aware that CO2 does absorb light from warmer air.

GreenMan wrote:
Yes, there is a frequency shift involved, but the frequency of radiation being emitted by air is of the right frequency to be absorbed by other greenhouse gase molecules.

GreenMan wrote:
It's not really "heating" the surface, and neither is it a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

GreenMan wrote:
According to your argument, a simple sweater that someone puts on, on a cold day, is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse Gases simply slow down the rate at which the surface can cool.

GreenMan wrote:
They do not change the amount of energy from the sun at all,

GreenMan wrote:
so they are like a one way mirror,

GreenMan wrote:
only acting on radiation that is being emitted by the earth's surface,

GreenMan wrote:
Incoming energy is not restricted,

GreenMan wrote:
but outgoing energy is restricted.

GreenMan wrote:
End end result is that the surface and therefore the air around the planet warms more than it would without the gases.

GreenMan wrote:
You are clueless about where most radiance from the earth comes from. You don't even really know what it is, do you?

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" wiffed: accusing 31,000 scientists....

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Nah, he isn't worth the trip to the airport, much less the trip all the way out there, from the airport. And then I got to worry about alibis, and things like that. It would be much cleaner if he would just off his own ass.

So now you are encouraging suicide for religious reasons. Shall I start calling you Jim Jones?

GreenMan wrote:
That's what I would do, if I was him, and suffered with an incurable mental disorder that makes him want to kill future generations of people. And you should think about it.

Maybe, since you two love CO2 so much, why don't you both got sit in your cars, with your exhaust piped into the cab for a little while, and take a little nap?

So you have taken the religious position that I am the devil himself, eh? Fine. The Church of Global Warming is false. Soon there will be little difference between you and radical Islam.

GreenMan wrote:
You can't see earth's radiance with your eyes, Parrot.

Sure you can. All you need are some instruments to help.

GreenMan wrote:
What you are seeing with your eyes is light that has been reflected by the object you are looking at.

Reflected light is part of the light radiating from Earth.

GreenMan wrote:
Totally different wavelengths.

Okay. Let's talk about frequencies for a moment.

GreenMan wrote:
Visible light is not absorbed by greenhouse gases, because they are not at the right frequency.

Actually, they ARE, but that usually does not result in warming the CO2. It usually results in a chemical reaction, if anything.

It is infrared light that tends to warm substances.

GreenMan wrote:
Thank you for clarifying how it is that you think so many laws of physics are broken by natural occurring phenomena. You simply don't understand the different frequencies of things like light. No wonder you are so damn confused.

I understand all the different frequencies of light and what they tend to do when absorbed by different materials. Much of my instrumentation depends on it.

GreenMan wrote:
Oops, did you just admit that you are aware that CO2 absorbs radiation, at lower levels of the atmosphere? Yes, you did, when you said "CO2 is no longer able to absorb a lot of light from the colder air." That is saying that you are aware that CO2 does absorb light from warmer air.

I've always said CO2 absorbs infrared light. The result of that absorption is conversion of electromagnetic energy into thermal energy. It is a way for the surface to heat part of the atmosphere, just like conductive heating from the surface. That COOLS the surface, not warms it.

GreenMan wrote:
Yes, there is a frequency shift involved, but the frequency of radiation being emitted by air is of the right frequency to be absorbed by other greenhouse gase molecules.

Not really. All of your magick holy gases have similar absorption bands.

GreenMan wrote:
It's not really "heating" the surface, and neither is it a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The only way to increase the temperature of something is to put more energy into it.

GreenMan wrote:
According to your argument, a simple sweater that someone puts on, on a cold day, is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

No, you are putting more energy into heating yourself. Sweaters reduce heat.

GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse Gases simply slow down the rate at which the surface can cool.

No, they don't. CO2 is not an insulator. It doesn't reduce heat in any way.

GreenMan wrote:
They do not change the amount of energy from the sun at all,

You mean the energy of the Sun reaching the surface of the Earth? They sure do. CO2 and water both absorb infrared light, whether it's coming from the Sun or from the surface of the Earth.

GreenMan wrote:
so they are like a one way mirror,

Nope. No magick one way mirrors.

GreenMan wrote:
only acting on radiation that is being emitted by the earth's surface,

CO2 is sensitive to infrared light form any source, including the Sun. So is water.

GreenMan wrote:
Incoming energy is not restricted,

Yes it is.

GreenMan wrote:
but outgoing energy is restricted.

By the same amount.

GreenMan wrote:
End end result is that the surface and therefore the air around the planet warms more than it would without the gases.

The daylit skin of the ISS reaches 250 deg F. There is nowhere on Earth that gets that hot. If what you say is true, why is the Earth so much COLDER?

GreenMan wrote:
You are clueless about where most radiance from the earth comes from. You don't even really know what it is, do you?

Yes I do. It comes from the surface of the Earth. Much of it is reflected light from the Sun, and much of it is Planck radiation (emission due to conversion from thermal energy to electromagnetic energy).

GreenMan wrote:
Here we go again, dancing around this thing, instead of resolving it.

GreenMan wrote:
I guess that's because only one of us in interested in understanding and the other is only interested in confusing.

GreenMan wrote:
I think that is why you call yourself "Into the Night," because you aren't interest in clarity. No, you just want to confuse people, and lead them into darkness.

GreenMan wrote:
You have admitted that you understand that greenhouse gases absorb radiation and convert it to thermal energy. so there is no point in going there.

GreenMan wrote:
You can deny it later if you want, but your words are still up there.

GreenMan wrote:
And you have admitted this before in other places.

GreenMan wrote:
What you are confused about, or are deliberately trying to confuse other people about is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

GreenMan wrote:
You say that in order for a body to warm, you have to add energy

GreenMan wrote:
That's not even close to an accurate statement, and you know it.

GreenMan wrote:
Another way to increase the temperature of a body is to reduce thermal losses,

GreenMan wrote:
which is what a coat does on a cold day.

GreenMan wrote:
[You try to confuse people, by saying that a coat prevents heating, and it does, but that is irrelevant, because it's just a play on words.]

GreenMan wrote:
And you say that sunlight is absorbed by greenhouse gases as it enters our atmosphere.

GreenMan wrote:
And while that is true, it's is not really correct to equate the amount of energy being converted from the sun is equal to the amount of energy being converted from the earth.

GreenMan wrote:
And here is why [unlike you, I go ahead and tell a person why I think they are wrong, instead of just trying to snicker at them], most of the light from the sun is at a shorter wavelength than what CO2 converts.

GreenMan wrote:
While most of the radiation being emitted by the surface of earth is the correct wavelength.

GreenMan wrote:
So even though what you are saying is partially true [some incoming radiation (irradiation) is absorbed by gases] it doesn't compare equally to outgoing surface radiation.

GreenMan wrote:
And while reflected light is radiating, it is radiating at a frequency that is not absorbed by gases.

GreenMan wrote:
So, yeah, I'm going to stand by my previous observation.

GreenMan wrote:
You don't know jack shit about radiation, light, electro-magnetic energy, physics, or what makes a woman's g spot explode.

You have simply memorized a bunch of terms and equations,

GreenMan wrote:
and don't have a clue about how to use them to understand things.

GreenMan wrote:
And that is because you don't have enough patience, or intelligence to handle a good woman, or a mathematical problem.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener wake-me-up" wiffed:...You haven't yet told us why they haven't recently surfaces submarines at the north pole.

Into the Night wrote: WRONG. Most of the sunlight is right in the range of those frequencies absorbed by CO2. Most sunlight is infrared light. Fortunately, CO2 only absorbs a very narrow range of those frequencies, so most of the infrared light goes into heating the surface. Visible light does not generally cause heating. Ultraviolet light causes almost none at all.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: WRONG. Most of the sunlight is right in the range of those frequencies absorbed by CO2. Most sunlight is infrared light. Fortunately, CO2 only absorbs a very narrow range of those frequencies, so most of the infrared light goes into heating the surface. Visible light does not generally cause heating. Ultraviolet light causes almost none at all.

Yes something like 55% of the sun's energy striking the Earth is in the NEAR infra-red. But like UV it is simply a component of visible light.

Wake wrote:
This IR is far different than that emitted from the warmed Earth which is in the FAR infrared and CO2 does not absorb the frequencies in the near IR.

Wake wrote:
So the Sun's energy almost entirely strikes the Earth except for Tyndall effect scattering which is what makes the sky blue and isn't an absorption effect but a reflection.

Wake wrote:
Please stop trying, like James, to use a single tools to explain the world about you.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: WRONG. Most of the sunlight is right in the range of those frequencies absorbed by CO2. Most sunlight is infrared light. Fortunately, CO2 only absorbs a very narrow range of those frequencies, so most of the infrared light goes into heating the surface. Visible light does not generally cause heating. Ultraviolet light causes almost none at all.

Yes something like 55% of the sun's energy striking the Earth is in the NEAR infra-red. But like UV it is simply a component of visible light.

While most of the Sun's energy is in the so-called 'near' infrared band, the Sun puts out light frequencies all the way down to the lower radio bands.

Infrared and UV are NOT visible light.

Wake wrote:
This IR is far different than that emitted from the warmed Earth which is in the FAR infrared and CO2 does not absorb the frequencies in the near IR.

The Sun DOES put out 'far' infrared. Some of that incoming light IS absorbed by CO2 or water vapor and never reaches the surface to warm it.

Wake wrote:
So the Sun's energy almost entirely strikes the Earth except for Tyndall effect scattering which is what makes the sky blue and isn't an absorption effect but a reflection.

Yes. It's amazing how you point this out now, when you deny it later.

Wake wrote:
Please stop trying, like James, to use a single tools to explain the world about you.

I don't.

Your problem is that you are illiterate in statistical math, probability math, and random number math. You also don't seem to understand either the laws of thermodynamics nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Instead, you depend on claims of credentials, which are useless on forums, and on magick capabilities of satellite systems (I guess you like satellites), and on bad math.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: WRONG. Most of the sunlight is right in the range of those frequencies absorbed by CO2. Most sunlight is infrared light. Fortunately, CO2 only absorbs a very narrow range of those frequencies, so most of the infrared light goes into heating the surface. Visible light does not generally cause heating. Ultraviolet light causes almost none at all.

Yes something like 55% of the sun's energy striking the Earth is in the NEAR infra-red. But like UV it is simply a component of visible light.

While most of the Sun's energy is in the so-called 'near' infrared band, the Sun puts out light frequencies all the way down to the lower radio bands.

Infrared and UV are NOT visible light.

Wake wrote:
This IR is far different than that emitted from the warmed Earth which is in the FAR infrared and CO2 does not absorb the frequencies in the near IR.

The Sun DOES put out 'far' infrared. Some of that incoming light IS absorbed by CO2 or water vapor and never reaches the surface to warm it.

Wake wrote:
So the Sun's energy almost entirely strikes the Earth except for Tyndall effect scattering which is what makes the sky blue and isn't an absorption effect but a reflection.

Yes. It's amazing how you point this out now, when you deny it later.

Wake wrote:
Please stop trying, like James, to use a single tools to explain the world about you.

I don't.

Your problem is that you are illiterate in statistical math, probability math, and random number math. You also don't seem to understand either the laws of thermodynamics nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Instead, you depend on claims of credentials, which are useless on forums, and on magick capabilities of satellite systems (I guess you like satellites), and on bad math.

You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Would you please stop pretending that you do?

The EARTH has to rid itself of that ENTIRE energy band and it does it ONLY in the far infrared.

Wake wrote:
The Sun's addition to the far infrared is something like 0.01% of it's energy. That makes the Sun's addition to that band immeasurably small.

Wake wrote:
"Improbability math"? Exactly WHAT do you know about quantum mechanics?

Wake wrote:
You don't even know the first thing about statistics. Any ass would know that whether or not the actual measured temperatures are correct that you could use statistical analysis to arrive at a MGT. And that statistically the errors would average out. But not the nut case from Seattle.

Wake wrote:
Tell is all - what is random number math?

Wake wrote:
And perhaps you should stop talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and then saying that you can't tell the temperature by looking at a color since you are only showing your own ignorance.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: WRONG. Most of the sunlight is right in the range of those frequencies absorbed by CO2. Most sunlight is infrared light. Fortunately, CO2 only absorbs a very narrow range of those frequencies, so most of the infrared light goes into heating the surface. Visible light does not generally cause heating. Ultraviolet light causes almost none at all.

Yes something like 55% of the sun's energy striking the Earth is in the NEAR infra-red. But like UV it is simply a component of visible light.

While most of the Sun's energy is in the so-called 'near' infrared band, the Sun puts out light frequencies all the way down to the lower radio bands.

Infrared and UV are NOT visible light.

Wake wrote:
This IR is far different than that emitted from the warmed Earth which is in the FAR infrared and CO2 does not absorb the frequencies in the near IR.

The Sun DOES put out 'far' infrared. Some of that incoming light IS absorbed by CO2 or water vapor and never reaches the surface to warm it.

Wake wrote:
So the Sun's energy almost entirely strikes the Earth except for Tyndall effect scattering which is what makes the sky blue and isn't an absorption effect but a reflection.

Yes. It's amazing how you point this out now, when you deny it later.

Wake wrote:
Please stop trying, like James, to use a single tools to explain the world about you.

I don't.

Your problem is that you are illiterate in statistical math, probability math, and random number math. You also don't seem to understand either the laws of thermodynamics nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Instead, you depend on claims of credentials, which are useless on forums, and on magick capabilities of satellite systems (I guess you like satellites), and on bad math.

You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Would you please stop pretending that you do?

The EARTH has to rid itself of that ENTIRE energy band and it does it ONLY in the far infrared.

So reflected light is not ridding itself of energy, is it?

Since you want to concentrate only on Planck emissions (that due to temperature), then yes, the Earth emits mostly in the so called 'far' infrared band. CO2 absorption is only a narrow set of frequencies in that band though. Same with water vapor.

The absorption of light by CO2 is simply another way for the surface to rid itself of energy, much like thermal conductivity does.

Wake wrote:
The Sun's addition to the far infrared is something like 0.01% of it's energy. That makes the Sun's addition to that band immeasurably small.

It's more than that, but the number is immaterial to my statement. It is there. It is greater than zero.

Wake wrote:
"Improbability math"? Exactly WHAT do you know about quantum mechanics?

While quantum mechanics does use probability math, probability math is not quantum mechanics.

Probability math is simply about the effects of random numbers on events. A great branch of mathematics for gamblers to learn. Damn few know it, even among casino owners in Las Vegas. Those that do can stand to make quite a bit of money from some casino owner that introduces a game where the odds favor the gambler. That does happen, usually as a promotion of some kind.

Wake wrote:
You don't even know the first thing about statistics. Any ass would know that whether or not the actual measured temperatures are correct that you could use statistical analysis to arrive at a MGT. And that statistically the errors would average out. But not the nut case from Seattle.

Nope. Statistical errors do not 'self correct'. That concept is an error known as a preconceived conclusion. Each summary is independent of any other summary. All summaries must begin with raw data.

A simple average is not statistical math, although statistical math does use the simple average as part of its calculations. This is where most of the confusion about statistical math lies.

Wake wrote:
Tell is all - what is random number math?

The mathematics that describes how to calculate randR (the repeatable random number, such as dice), just exactly how random it is (no, it doesn't use statistics), and with it, all the other forms of random numbers including randN (the non-repeatable random number, such as cards), and randU (the 'predictable' random number, such as when someone grabs a number out of their head to describe <insert large number here> scientists say...).

Random number mathematics does not operate in the Real Math Domain (the kind taught in high school and most university courses), but it to a certain extent is translatable to that Domain. It operates in the Full Boolean Math Domain (which differs from the Real Domain by the modification of a couple of axioms). You can translate things between the two Domains, so long as you don't hit one of these differences in axioms.

Wake wrote:
And perhaps you should stop talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and then saying that you can't tell the temperature by looking at a color since you are only showing your own ignorance.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not look at color. It is color-blind, both for emissivity and for radiance.

If you want to try to use Wien's law to determine temperature, you must remember that only works for a rough comparison with things that are energy sources such as the Sun or hot coals, where reflection and translucency is not considered a significant factor. They are always there, however, and so such estimates and comparisons are naturally very rough.

It's good enough to get a general gauge of whether a steel is ready to weld, or how hot a star is compared to an equivalent 'coal' that bright. It is not precise by any means. It is useless for reflective bodies, like the Earth, since Earth is lit by a star that is a very different temperature than Earth itself.

Wien's law produces a smooth curve, which must be combined with the domain of the substance emitting the light. In other words, the spectral lines of individual frequencies are still there, but if you measure the intensity of them and compare that to the natural intensify of them, you will see the difference follows the Wien curve and is indeed dependent on temperature. Wien's law gives the peak frequency of the curve, but it does not give overall intensity. The peak light emitted may not even be the same as that predicted by Wien's law, since substances emit along their spectral lines according to their own characteristic intensity for each line, and the line may not match the calculated peak frequency.

The emissivity of the surface of the Earth varies greatly over the space of even just fractions of an inch. To measure emissivity, you must first determine accurately the temperature of what you are trying to measure. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then, you can compare the measured temperature and radiance and work backwards through the law, coming up with an emissivity value. For that surface, then, you can accurately determine the temperature from radiance using the known emissivity.

Since emissivity varies so greatly in such a short distance, it is not possible to determine an overall emissivity without first accurately determining the temperature of the Earth in the first place.

Thus a satellite is operating in a vacuum (in more ways than one!). While a satellite is great at relative differences of temperatures, assuming the same overall emissivity, they simply can't provide an absolute temperature measurement, since we don't know the emissivity of Earth.

So the satellites we send up that look at 'temperature' are really looking at differences in radiance and using assumed values for the unknowns, such as emissivity. All they see is that one place is hotter than another, and to a very rough guess, by how much. That guess is again determined by assumed values of emissivity.

They are great at tracking storms, looking for hot spots in oceans or on land, and for locating generally where warmer air is.

They just can't tell is how much warmer, or what the temperature of anything actually IS. We need ground thermometers for that. They are the only thing in contact with the air and the Earth that we are trying to measure. They are the reference, even to the point of being used to correct the 'guess' of the satellite.