Remember me
▼ Content

What a Greenhouse is for IBdaMann


What a Greenhouse is for IBdaMann14-04-2019 03:35
James___
★★★★☆
(1030)
A greenhouse is defined by it's boundaries. Our planet has a greenhouse type barrier. Since this gets into astrophysics the Stefan-Boltzmann constant doesn't apply.
Some things for you to check out on the internet if you think we can monitor temperature. If not then the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a fable or myth because that requires an ability to measure the temperature.
The mesopause on a winters day will be - 100° C. In the summer, - 130° C.
The tropopause is about - 56° C. Those 2 barriers IMHO (it's not humble but it sounds good, right?) insulate the Earth similar to the inside of a greenhouse being insulated from the environment around it.
The term greenhouse was first used in 1827. At that time they didn't know that the Earth's atmosphere had multiple layers whose temperatures vary.
That would be the Earth's actual "greenhouse". Scientists haven't considered that yet. It is something I hope to have the opportunity to make known in a meaningful way. This forum, I think this is more involved than what anyone cares for.

IBdaMann, I am wrong because what I wrote is not mentioned in any book. If I am able to mention this, while this is publicly I would say where millions becomes aware of it and in the future it is considered correct then in the future I would be right.
As far as stratospheric cooling goes which is what they say to expect with Global Warming, ozone depletion could account for that. If so then that goes back to CFCs.
Edited on 14-04-2019 03:55
14-04-2019 04:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
James___ wrote: A greenhouse is defined by it's boundaries.


A greenhouse is delimited by its boundaries; it is not defined by its boundaries. You don't have a very good command of the English language. This might explain why you rarely make sense.

James___ wrote:Our planet has a greenhouse type barrier.

Not possible. There is no way to further reduce convection between an atmosphere and a vacuum. You don't really know what a greenhouse is, do you?

James___ wrote: Since this gets into astrophysics the Stefan-Boltzmann constant doesn't apply.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law and consequently the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, certainly apply in astrophysics. Why are you trying to deny that science applies to Greenhouse Effect? Is that because you know that it is a religion, and that physics doesn't apply to religions?

James___ wrote: The mesopause on a winters day will be - 100° C. In the summer, - 130° C. The tropopause is about - 56° C. Those 2 barriers IMHO (it's not humble but it sounds good, right?) insulate the Earth similar to the inside of a greenhouse being insulated from the environment around it.

Incorrect. You are treating the atmosphere as though it is somehow separate from, and not part of, the earth. I may be the first person to tell you this but the atmosphere is definitely part of the earth. So is the hydrosphere. You have to extend out to the vacuum of space beyond the atmosphere to be outside the earth. This would be clearer if you would learn black body science.

James___ wrote:IBdaMann, I am wrong because what I wrote is not mentioned in any book. If I am able to mention this, while this is publicly I would say where millions becomes aware of it and in the future it is considered correct then in the future I would be right.

You will need to develop new science because, at the moment, you are egregiously violating existing science. In order to be successful you need to develop a falsifiable model that predicts nature. I haven't seen anything of the sort yet. You might want to get cracking.

Assuming you successfully develop new science, I will personally congratulate you, I will buy your book and I will buy tickets to your lectures.

James___ wrote: As far as stratospheric cooling goes which is what they say to expect with Global Warming, ozone depletion could account for that. If so then that goes back to CFCs.

This is an egregious violation of the 2nd LoT. You might want to address this.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-04-2019 05:04
James___
★★★★☆
(1030)
IBDaMann, I tried being nice. You're nothing more than ITN's sock puppet. Of course that means he has his member up inside of you. And you seem to enjoy it. This suggests that the 2 of you are homosexuals. Am only going where the evidence leads.
It's sad how you nor your boyfriend doesn't understand that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant applies to metal. Why do you think a light bulb works? When the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is applied to the surface area of the filament then from that the wattage of the bulb can be determined.
Or how about how the heating element in an oven, hot water heater, etc.? Those radiate heat according to the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
All you have are personal attacks defending your lover. You must love him because you show how much he means to you. It's cool if the 2 of you are gay. There's a woman I like. I tend to feel the same way about her. All I can tell is go for it. Who knows, you 2 might make a nice couple after all. I've been watching the Hallmark channel. I know how romance goes and you and ITN are an item.
14-04-2019 07:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
James___ wrote: IBDaMann, I tried being nice.

No, you did not. You seized every opportunity to be ignorant and then to blame me for it. I tried to be nice and helpful on several occasions. You simply whined and complained while continuing to spew gibberish under the impression that you are somehow a physics god.

You are a moron. You have no understanding of physics and you blame everyone but yourself for your willful adhesion to ignorance. I'd like to meet the person who somehow thinks you know anything.

James___ wrote: You're nothing more than ITN's sock puppet.

Delicious! Your timing is excellent! Just earlier today on the Danish Klima-Debat I posted how one can tell when I have a moron desperately backed into a corner because his last ditch effort is to call me a sock. A warmizombie on the Danish site did something different. He called me a spambot! He kept switching back-n-forth between violating the 1st LoT and violating Stefan-Boltzmann and I wouldn't let him off the hook ... so he insisted that I must be a spambot instead of insisting that I am a sock. I wish warmizombies could be more creative like him.

James___ wrote: Why do you think a light bulb works?

... because one warmizombie held it while four warmizombies turned the stool.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-04-2019 08:46
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(453)
How are the layers of the atmosphere barriers? From what I read, long time ago, was that the layers are temperature gradients. There is nothing confining the layers to a specific distance from the surface of the planet. Molecules have mass, so are subject to gravity, and won't completely escape. The volume can expand and contract, which is why distance doesn't define the layers, just temperature. Kind of why a lot of the lab experiments done in containers to approximate what happens in the atmosphere don't really apply outside the lab, and the computer models, derived from those lab experiments are garbage.
14-04-2019 20:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
James___ wrote:
A greenhouse is defined by it's boundaries. Our planet has a greenhouse type barrier. Since this gets into astrophysics the Stefan-Boltzmann constant doesn't apply.

There is no barrier.
James___ wrote:
Some things for you to check out on the internet if you think we can monitor temperature.

Sure we can monitor temperature. We just can't measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
If not then the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a fable or myth because that requires an ability to measure the temperature.

We can measure a temperature. We can't measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
The mesopause on a winters day will be - 100° C. In the summer, - 130° C.
The tropopause is about - 56° C. Those 2 barriers IMHO (it's not humble but it sounds good, right?) insulate the Earth similar to the inside of a greenhouse being insulated from the environment around it.

These are not barriers. Energy is still decreasing with altitude, even though temperature might be rising. Thinner air, you see. There is less mass to measure a temperature from.
James___ wrote:
The term greenhouse was first used in 1827. At that time they didn't know that the Earth's atmosphere had multiple layers whose temperatures vary.
No, they first used the term when they built the first greenhouse.
James___ wrote:
That would be the Earth's actual "greenhouse".
Earth is not a greenhouse.
James___ wrote:
Scientists haven't considered that yet.
Yes, they have.
James___ wrote:
It is something I hope to have the opportunity to make known in a meaningful way.
Try first accepting the science that is there. You can't just discard it.
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann, I am wrong because what I wrote is not mentioned in any book.
It is though. It's in the Church of Global Warming scripture. That's written down in many books.
James___ wrote:
If I am able to mention this, while this is publicly I would say where millions becomes aware of it and in the future it is considered correct then in the future I would be right.

You can't do it by discarding existing theories of science.
James___ wrote:
As far as stratospheric cooling goes which is what they say to expect with Global Warming,

You can't decrease entropy in any system. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
James___ wrote:
ozone depletion could account for that.

The ozone is not being depleted.
James___ wrote:
If so then that goes back to CFCs.

CFC's do not react with ozone.


The Parrot Killer
14-04-2019 20:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3411)
HarveyH55 wrote: How are the layers of the atmosphere barriers?

I don't mean to butt in, but I don't think you're supposed to be asking any sort of logical questions. James__ made this thread to more or less bash on me. Look back at the thread title. He didn't even bother to correctly state my position. I think his expectation is that you just join in on the bashing and not that you critically analyze the subject matter (which is just a pretense for people to rally around him). Expect James__ to be moderately disappointed by your choice to actually delve into physical aspects of the atmosphere.

HarveyH55 wrote: Molecules have mass, so are subject to gravity, and won't completely escape.

Actually, the atmosphere is constantly losing molecules at the top where there is very close to zero gravity, very close to zero atmospheric pressure and molecules with sufficient momentum simply drift off. Achieving escape velocity at the top of the atmosphere is not quite the challenge that it is on the surface.

But this is a technicality. The rate of loss is entirely negligible, but it is nonzero.

HarveyH55 wrote: and the computer models, derived from those lab experiments are garbage.

There are no "Climate" models. The whole idea is a myth. There are people who truly believe that the Earth is visited by space aliens in UFOs; they talk about them as though they really exist, but the rest of the planet knows that the topic is just an exercise in imagination. But when the same kind of people do the same kind of thing and discuss "climate models" as though they really exist, for some reason the rest of the world seems to buy into it.

You have never seen space aliens emerge from a UFO. You have never seen a "Climate" model. Ask me how I know. No one has any. They don't exist. "Climate Scientists" fabricate "data" and rush to publish their fiction in a "peer reviewed" document in which they claim that the data came from God ... ummm, I mean, from a Climate Model!

There aren't any Climate models. There is no such thing as a Global Climate in the first place. You can't scientifically model that which does not exist.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-04-2019 20:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
James___ wrote:
IBDaMann, I tried being nice.

You never tried to be nice. You have always been insulting. Now you're a liar as well.
James___ wrote:
You're nothing more than ITN's sock puppet. Of course that means he has his member up inside of you. And you seem to enjoy it. This suggests that the 2 of you are homosexuals. Am only going where the evidence leads.
It's sad how you nor your boyfriend doesn't understand that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant applies to metal. Why do you think a light bulb works? When the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is applied to the surface area of the filament then from that the wattage of the bulb can be determined.
Or how about how the heating element in an oven, hot water heater, etc.? Those radiate heat according to the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

They don't radiate heat. They radiate light. That's what the Stefan-Boltzmann law (not the constant) is all about. The constant is just the value 5.67*10^-8. It effectively converts the Stefan-Boltzmann law to our units of measurement.
James___ wrote:
All you have are personal attacks defending your lover. You must love him because you show how much he means to you. It's cool if the 2 of you are gay. There's a woman I like. I tend to feel the same way about her. All I can tell is go for it. Who knows, you 2 might make a nice couple after all. I've been watching the Hallmark channel. I know how romance goes and you and ITN are an item.


More of your hate. You really need to get control of it.


The Parrot Killer
15-04-2019 00:43
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(453)
UFOs and Space Aliens, I like to keep an open mind. We exist, seems logical to expect that life happened else where too. The chances that life else where is technologically advanced, and able to travel the stars, is sort of stretching things though. They would also have to deal with the same physics, and similar restrictions we face. If we are ever visited, it'll be robots, similar to the ones we dump everywhere we can in space.

I once search around for these climate model/simulations, and you can download some, and play with them. Some generate graphics and animations, like a video game. Lost interest, when learning that you could only feed them data already prepared for the task, and limited to doing certain manipulations. I had wanted to pull some random, non-atmosphere related data sets off the web, to substitute for temperature or CO2, and see if there was any change in output. Thought it would be interesting to see how else man-made CO2 is ruining virtual earth. I'm sure universities have much faster computers than I'll ever hope to use, but I did some 3D graphics and animation in the past, and it takes a long time to calculate (ray-tracing). Strongly suspect the models spend much of there CPU time drawing the graphics, rather than climate calculations...

Scientist using 'Greenhouse' to explain our atmosphere just doesn't make sense to me. It's not even close. I'd think that some people would have clarified that publically, and it wouldn't be used much to sell a shady product. Really shock that Climatologist haven't made any recent media releases on the severe winter weather the folks up north are enjoying, in mid-April. Been one long winter for those folks, guess the greenhouse roof blew off over America.




Join the debate What a Greenhouse is for IBdaMann:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse gases, explained224-03-2019 04:43
Greenhouse gas hypothesis violates Law of Conservation of Energy218-03-2019 18:56
It is ridiculous to suggest N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases just because the don't absorb IR324-02-2019 22:09
How are O2 and N2 not greenhouse gases?1212-02-2019 01:36
NOAA's greenhouse gas forcing is fake?107-02-2019 19:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact