Remember me
▼ Content

What "Ecologists" Are Willing To Do


What "Ecologists" Are Willing To Do09-12-2017 17:51
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
When you cannot find proof of your theories of man destroying the world around you what do you do? Invent it. NASA and NOAA have changed the raw datasets of temperature to follow CO2 growth.

In this case ecologists wanted to prove that the oceans were being irretreivably poluted by plastic waste.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/researcher-swedish-fraud-case-speaks-out-i-m-very-disappointed-my-colleague?utm_campaign=news_weekly_2017-12-08&et_rid=79437105&et_cid=1714025

This smacks of the "there aren't any climate scientists on the Oregon Petition when the past director of NASA's climate research unit has signed."

There is no end to what the environmentalists will do, no lie too great nor too obvious that they will not stoop to to force their theories upon a world that knows better.
09-12-2017 22:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
When you cannot find proof of your theories of man destroying the world around you what do you do? Invent it. NASA and NOAA have changed the raw datasets of temperature to follow CO2 growth.

There is no raw dataset of Earth's temperature.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
NASA and NOAA are making up random numbers.
Wake wrote:
In this case ecologists wanted to prove that the oceans were being irretreivably poluted by plastic waste.
...deleted Holy Link...

A typical religious statement. Plastic breaks down when exposed to UV and various bacteria that naturally exist in ocean water. We simply don't make that much plastic as environmentalists claim is 'polluting the oceans'.
Wake wrote:

This smacks of the "there aren't any climate scientists on the Oregon Petition when the past director of NASA's climate research unit has signed."

There is no end to what the environmentalists will do, no lie too great nor too obvious that they will not stoop to to force their theories upon a world that knows better.

'Force' is the operative word here. By forcing their theories using government force, the Church of Global Warming essentially becomes a state religion.

All part of the Church of Karl Marx. These people want to force nations into oligarchies and dictatorships.

As you said...the world is starting to wise up to the 'global warming' hoax.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2017 23:32
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
nightmare - what is comical is that you said that the curve I supplied can from Wein's law and Planck's law and now you apparently claim that they are not science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#/media/File:Stefan_Boltzmann_001.svg

You could look in Wikipedia and read, "Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible). "

But that would represent a "holy link" to you so you simply invent science as you go along.
12-12-2017 02:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
nightmare - what is comical is that you said that the curve I supplied can from Wein's law and Planck's law and now you apparently claim that they are not science.

They ARE science. I never claimed they weren't theories of science. You cannot determine the temperature of the Earth with either law.
Wake wrote:
You could look in Wikipedia

Not a valid reference. Wikipedia is summarily dismissed.
Wake wrote:
and read, "Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible). "

Wikipedia is wrong (yet again).
Wake wrote:
But that would represent a "holy link" to you so you simply invent science as you go along.

That would indeed be a Holy Link. Science is not a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a reference to any theory of science. Indeed, their articles are often badly written or outright wrong. They are also biased in favor of the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-12-2017 02:59
15-12-2017 01:08
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
nightmare - what is comical is that you said that the curve I supplied can from Wein's law and Planck's law and now you apparently claim that they are not science.

They ARE science. I never claimed they weren't theories of science. You cannot determine the temperature of the Earth with either law.
Wake wrote:
You could look in Wikipedia

Not a valid reference. Wikipedia is summarily dismissed.
Wake wrote:
and read, "Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible). "

Wikipedia is wrong (yet again).
Wake wrote:
But that would represent a "holy link" to you so you simply invent science as you go along.

That would indeed be a Holy Link. Science is not a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a reference to any theory of science. Indeed, their articles are often badly written or outright wrong. They are also biased in favor of the Church of Global Warming.


Since you claim that wikipedia is a holy link and that "science" is a set of falsifiable theories by ALL means falsify the theory that using Planks Law and Wein's Law you can measure energy into the Earth and energy out.

Show your work.
15-12-2017 02:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
nightmare - what is comical is that you said that the curve I supplied can from Wein's law and Planck's law and now you apparently claim that they are not science.

They ARE science. I never claimed they weren't theories of science. You cannot determine the temperature of the Earth with either law.
Wake wrote:
You could look in Wikipedia

Not a valid reference. Wikipedia is summarily dismissed.
Wake wrote:
and read, "Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible). "

Wikipedia is wrong (yet again).
Wake wrote:
But that would represent a "holy link" to you so you simply invent science as you go along.

That would indeed be a Holy Link. Science is not a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a reference to any theory of science. Indeed, their articles are often badly written or outright wrong. They are also biased in favor of the Church of Global Warming.


Since you claim that wikipedia is a holy link and that "science" is a set of falsifiable theories by ALL means falsify the theory that using Planks Law and Wein's Law you can measure energy into the Earth and energy out.

Show your work.


Planck's law describes a radiation curve (electromagnetic energy to a temperature) relative to other temperatures. Essentially, for a given temperature and a given frequency of light, you can calculate the energy level of a substance. This equation produces the familiar energy displacement curve you keep quoting. It does not give the total power emitted. It gives the curve of how much energy is radiated from a known frequency and temperature.

Wien's law uses the derivitave of Planck's law to determine the peak wavelength emitted for a given temperature. It does not give the total power emitted. It cannot be used to measure an actual temperature since reflective bodies like Earth have a similar color as the light shining on them. The measured peak is different from that obtained by looking at Planck emission from the Earth alone. You don't know which is which.

By integrating Planck's law over all frequencies, you can calculate total power emitted. This is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law uses an emissivity, which is also over all frequencies. Emissivity is a measured constant. To determine emissivity, the surface to be calibrated must have its temperature accurately measured and its radiance is compared to ideal black and white bodies. Since no actual body is ideally black or white, the emissivity factor is a required constant.

We do not know the emissivity of Earth. To determine it, we would have to know accurately the temperature of the Earth. The Stefan-Boltzmann is useless for calculating how much radiance is due to temperature of the Earth and how much is reflected from somewhere else. Since it is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth, it is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth as a whole.

The S-B law is useless for calculating absolute radiance from Earth due to Planck radiance. It is also useless for calculating a temperature from the measure radiance.

The S-B law CAN be used to show something wrong with the 'greenhouse' gas theory, specifically the Magick Bouncing Photon portion of the theory.

That argument specifies that CO2 captures light from the surface and prevents it's escape. The energy is 'trapped' by CO2, thus building up the temperature of Earth.

According to S-B, radiance is proportional to temperature. It is never inversely proportional. If CO2 were somehow able to trap such light, the radiance of Earth would necessarily be decreased. At the same time the temperature would rise. This goes against the S-B law. A rising temperature means MORE radiance, not less. Less radiance means a temperature drop, not an increase.

Wien's law is useless because we are talking a reflective body, not a star or something. The Earth is lit by the Sun, and it's color is influenced by that light source.

Planck's law it useless in it's base form because that only describes the curve of relative power for a given temperature and frequency of light.

S-B calculates total power from a temperature, but because we don't know the emissivity, we can't use it for such purposes, except by making comparisons between surfaces of similar emissivity such as clouds.

When any substance emits or absorbs light, it does so along it's absorption bands. It is not a smooth curve. The domain of these absorption bands is applied to the Planck curve to produce a composite. The S-B is free of this, since frequency has been integrated out of the equation. This equation (which is a form of Planck's law since it can be derived from it), is the ONLY equation that can determine total power emitted for a given temperature.


The Parrot Killer
15-12-2017 17:07
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
nightmare - what is comical is that you said that the curve I supplied can from Wein's law and Planck's law and now you apparently claim that they are not science.

They ARE science. I never claimed they weren't theories of science. You cannot determine the temperature of the Earth with either law.
Wake wrote:
You could look in Wikipedia

Not a valid reference. Wikipedia is summarily dismissed.
Wake wrote:
and read, "Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible). "

Wikipedia is wrong (yet again).
Wake wrote:
But that would represent a "holy link" to you so you simply invent science as you go along.

That would indeed be a Holy Link. Science is not a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a reference to any theory of science. Indeed, their articles are often badly written or outright wrong. They are also biased in favor of the Church of Global Warming.


Since you claim that wikipedia is a holy link and that "science" is a set of falsifiable theories by ALL means falsify the theory that using Planks Law and Wein's Law you can measure energy into the Earth and energy out.

Show your work.


Planck's law describes a radiation curve (electromagnetic energy to a temperature) relative to other temperatures. Essentially, for a given temperature and a given frequency of light, you can calculate the energy level of a substance. This equation produces the familiar energy displacement curve you keep quoting. It does not give the total power emitted. It gives the curve of how much energy is radiated from a known frequency and temperature.

Wien's law uses the derivitave of Planck's law to determine the peak wavelength emitted for a given temperature. It does not give the total power emitted. It cannot be used to measure an actual temperature since reflective bodies like Earth have a similar color as the light shining on them. The measured peak is different from that obtained by looking at Planck emission from the Earth alone. You don't know which is which.

By integrating Planck's law over all frequencies, you can calculate total power emitted. This is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law uses an emissivity, which is also over all frequencies. Emissivity is a measured constant. To determine emissivity, the surface to be calibrated must have its temperature accurately measured and its radiance is compared to ideal black and white bodies. Since no actual body is ideally black or white, the emissivity factor is a required constant.

We do not know the emissivity of Earth. To determine it, we would have to know accurately the temperature of the Earth. The Stefan-Boltzmann is useless for calculating how much radiance is due to temperature of the Earth and how much is reflected from somewhere else. Since it is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth, it is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth as a whole.

The S-B law is useless for calculating absolute radiance from Earth due to Planck radiance. It is also useless for calculating a temperature from the measure radiance.

The S-B law CAN be used to show something wrong with the 'greenhouse' gas theory, specifically the Magick Bouncing Photon portion of the theory.

That argument specifies that CO2 captures light from the surface and prevents it's escape. The energy is 'trapped' by CO2, thus building up the temperature of Earth.

According to S-B, radiance is proportional to temperature. It is never inversely proportional. If CO2 were somehow able to trap such light, the radiance of Earth would necessarily be decreased. At the same time the temperature would rise. This goes against the S-B law. A rising temperature means MORE radiance, not less. Less radiance means a temperature drop, not an increase.

Wien's law is useless because we are talking a reflective body, not a star or something. The Earth is lit by the Sun, and it's color is influenced by that light source.

Planck's law it useless in it's base form because that only describes the curve of relative power for a given temperature and frequency of light.

S-B calculates total power from a temperature, but because we don't know the emissivity, we can't use it for such purposes, except by making comparisons between surfaces of similar emissivity such as clouds.

When any substance emits or absorbs light, it does so along it's absorption bands. It is not a smooth curve. The domain of these absorption bands is applied to the Planck curve to produce a composite. The S-B is free of this, since frequency has been integrated out of the equation. This equation (which is a form of Planck's law since it can be derived from it), is the ONLY equation that can determine total power emitted for a given temperature.


Be a nice little boy and go play with your legos.




Join the debate What "Ecologists" Are Willing To Do:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact