Remember me
▼ Content

What effects global temperature


What effects global temperature08-06-2017 18:08
Anna Maslova
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Hi folks,
I came with with this idea - what defines the range of temperatures on the planet - please see the .pdf attachment - 1-page diagram.

Would appreciate your opinions = Anna
Attached file:
ice.pdf
08-06-2017 19:20
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Anna Maslova wrote:
Hi folks,
I came with with this idea - what defines the range of temperatures on the planet - please see the .pdf attachment - 1-page diagram.

Would appreciate your opinions = Anna


The fact is that all of the gases in the atmosphere get rid of heat in the same manner. The only difference in the gases is the frequency at which they absorb energy.

The emissions from the Sun are at a very high frequency - that of upper infrared,visible and ultra-violet. Most of that energy is in the visible light regions.

Only about half of that energy from the Sun makes it to the surface of the Earth. The Earth absorbs this energy and emits it in the lower infrared bands.

H2O comprises on the average about 4% of the atmosphere. This is 100 times larger than the amount of CO2 and 400 times larger than the amount of CO2 blamed for man-made global warming.

There is a very narrow band of radiation that comprises almost no energy in which CO2 absorbs and H2O does not. This band is so narrow that it was entirely saturated at very low levels of CO2. Increasing levels of CO2 has no further effect simply because there is no further energy available for it to absorb. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that CO2 absorbs energy only through conduction in the same manner as all other atmospheric gases. And since CO2 has a low specific heat content it carries less energy than other gases that are far more common.

Heating in the atmosphere has a small portion that escapes through a spectrographic "hole" of about 10 uM. The rest of the energy ends up using the means of conduction and convection to cause a turnover in the atmosphere and moving the gases that have heat energy in them up into the Tropopause - the layer of the "thick" atmosphere below the stratosphere.

The lower Troposphere contains the thick atmosphere but but at the Tropopause the atmospheric pressure has dropped to about 0.1 bar or one tenth of a percent of the pressure at ground level. The Tropopause is between 10 km high at the poles and 17 km high at the equator.

Two things are occurring in conduction and convection - 1. There is work being done to lift the warmer gases into the upper atmosphere (meaning that a part of the energy is absorbed by lifting through the gravity field) and 2. Up in the Tropopause the gases are so thin that they can radiate heat rather than conduct it. Most of this radiation is into space.

Because of the absorption frequencies of the various gases most of the IR energy is carried away by the H2O in the atmosphere.

But NONE of these gases do anything but delay motion of the heat energy. And none of them cause any atmospheric heating. If you read this partial chapter of a paper and particularly note Figure 4.6 you can see that there is NO heat returning to the atmosphere.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

There is a small kick but this is in the stratosphere and it is the direct absorption from the Sun and not from the Earth. This sort of curve of atmospheric heat occurs in every planet and moon with an atmosphere in the solar system regardless of atmospheric makeup.

The "greenhouse effect" does not occur as is understood by most people and this is a paper that explains it and why CO2 doesn't have any effects on the atmosphere.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a phony science pushed almost entirely by politicians trying to gain more power or small time scientists attempting to get research grants. During the Obama administration you simply could not get a grant unless it was to prove AGW. Scientists have to eat too and many of them were willing to prostitute their work to put food on the table.
Edited on 08-06-2017 19:25
08-06-2017 21:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
The emissions from the Sun are at a very high frequency - that of upper infrared,visible and ultra-violet. Most of that energy is in the visible light regions.
The emissions from the Sun are in a wide range of frequencies, from X-rays all the way down through radio bands.
Wake wrote:
Only about half of that energy from the Sun makes it to the surface of the Earth. The Earth absorbs this energy and emits it in the lower infrared bands.
It is actually emitted on many bands. Emissions is a function of temperature, which tends to drop with altitude (other than certain exceptions).
Wake wrote:
H2O comprises on the average about 4% of the atmosphere. This is 100 times larger than the amount of CO2 and 400 times larger than the amount of CO2 blamed for man-made global warming.
No one knows how much water is in the atmosphere. We have no way to measure this. It also varies a lot from place to place.
Wake wrote:
There is a very narrow band of radiation that comprises almost no energy in which CO2 absorbs and H2O does not. This band is so narrow that it was entirely saturated at very low levels of CO2. Increasing levels of CO2 has no further effect simply because there is no further energy available for it to absorb. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that CO2 absorbs energy only through conduction in the same manner as all other atmospheric gases.

The absorption spectra of CO2 has many frequencies that absorb when water does not. You should look at the absorption spectra of both water and carbon dioxide. They are well known.
Wake wrote:
And since CO2 has a low specific heat content it carries less energy than other gases that are far more common.
Carbon dioxide does not any remarkable property here. Its specific heat is about the same as any other gas in the atmosphere. Specific heat is not a measure of how much energy a material can carry.
Wake wrote:
Heating in the atmosphere has a small portion that escapes through a spectrographic "hole" of about 10 uM. The rest of the energy ends up using the means of conduction and convection to cause a turnover in the atmosphere and moving the gases that have heat energy in them up into the Tropopause - the layer of the "thick" atmosphere below the stratosphere.
No 'hole'...or should I say there is not boundary around something you could call a 'hole'.

While carbon dioxide does absorb infrared, only about 1% of the carbon dioxide absorbs at all, even at the same frequency of light. The reason is that CO2 must be properly oriented to that light for absorption to occur. If it does not occur, the CO2 is effectively transparent.
Wake wrote:
The lower Troposphere contains the thick atmosphere but but at the Tropopause the atmospheric pressure has dropped to about 0.1 bar or one tenth of a percent of the pressure at ground level.
The pressure at the tropopause is about 200mBar, not 0.1. This varies with the altitude of the tropopause of course.
Wake wrote:
The Tropopause is between 10 km high at the poles and 17 km high at the equator.
This is basically correct, although the tropopause may reach as high as 20km and as low as 9km.
Wake wrote:
Two things are occurring in conduction and convection - 1. There is work being done to lift the warmer gases into the upper atmosphere (meaning that a part of the energy is absorbed by lifting through the gravity field) and 2. Up in the Tropopause the gases are so thin that they can radiate heat rather than conduct it. Most of this radiation is into space.
Convection, conduction, and radiation is coming from all altitudes. The surface itself radiates the most, since it is not a gas. These same modes of heating are the same everywhere in the atmosphere, with the exception of convection being reduced (but not eliminated) in the stratosphere and the thermosphere.
Wake wrote:
Because of the absorption frequencies of the various gases most of the IR energy is carried away by the H2O in the atmosphere.
Wrong. Most of the IR energy is radiated directly. Conduction and convection only help the surface to lose thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
But NONE of these gases do anything but delay motion of the heat energy.
It is not possible to delay heat. Are you referring to thermal energy?

Both carbon dioxide and water, along with the rest of the air mass, do not delay anything. They help the surface to lose thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
And none of them cause any atmospheric heating.
Wrong. If there were no atmospheric heating, the surface would have a more difficult time losing energy. Heating the atmosphere helps to cool the surface. It doesn't matter if that heating is by conduction, convection, or radiation.
Wake wrote:
If you read this partial chapter of a paper and particularly note Figure 4.6 you can see that there is NO heat returning to the atmosphere.

...deleted link...
The atmosphere is heated by the surface.
[quote]Wake wrote:
There is a small kick but this is in the stratosphere and it is the direct absorption from the Sun and not from the Earth.
Incorrect. The temperature inversion in the stratosphere is due to the destruction of ozone (an unstable molecule) near the top, and the creation of ozone at the bottom. The stratosphere is also heated by the surface of the Earth, just like the rest of the atmosphere.

The temperature inversion in the thermosphere is not due to direct heating by the Sun, but by the distance a molecule can travel before it hits something.

Wake wrote:
This sort of curve of atmospheric heat occurs in every planet and moon with an atmosphere in the solar system regardless of atmospheric makeup.
Wrong.

Most planets have one temperature inversion, the thermosphere like later near the top, due to the same effects I've just described. Earth has TWO temperature inversions, due to the presence of oxygen and filtered sunlight.
Wake wrote:
The "greenhouse effect" does not occur as is understood by most people and this is a paper that explains it and why CO2 doesn't have any effects on the atmosphere.
...deleted broken link...
The 'greenhouse' effect does not occur at all. This 'effect' is not even a theory. It is not internally consistent, which is a requirement of all theories, where they are scientific ones or not.
Wake wrote:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a phony science pushed almost entirely by politicians trying to gain more power or small time scientists attempting to get research grants.
The motivation you mention is quite correct. It is not a science. It is not even a theory of any kind. It is not internally consistent.
Wake wrote:
During the Obama administration you simply could not get a grant unless it was to prove AGW. Scientists have to eat too and many of them were willing to prostitute their work to put food on the table.

Bingo. People pushing the Church of Global Warming are quick to point the funding of privately funded scientists as 'biased', but completely ignore the absolute monopoly the government has on grant money in the universities.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2017 00:37
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:(Invents more science like he invented that he is an engineer but doesn't know how to transpose terms in an equation)


No one is talking to you and you do not understand what you're talking about. I suggest you stop confusing the issue and go back to raiding the local people's garbage cans for plastic bottles.
09-06-2017 01:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:(Invents more science like he invented that he is an engineer but doesn't know how to transpose terms in an equation)


No one is talking to you
This is a public forum. No needs to be 'talking to me'. If you want a private conversation, may I recommend the rather excellent private mail system they have here?

Wake wrote:
and you do not understand what you're talking about. I suggest you stop confusing the issue and go back to raiding the local people's garbage cans for plastic bottles.

Argument of the Stone. Insults are not a counterargument.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2017 14:55
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:(Invents more science like he invented that he is an engineer but doesn't know how to transpose terms in an equation)


No one is talking to you
This is a public forum. No needs to be 'talking to me'. If you want a private conversation, may I recommend the rather excellent private mail system they have here?

Wake wrote:
and you do not understand what you're talking about. I suggest you stop confusing the issue and go back to raiding the local people's garbage cans for plastic bottles.

Argument of the Stone. Insults are not a counterargument.


I am tired of fools making a mockery of the real arguments against AGW. I am tired of idiots arguing points that are transparently incorrect and then trying to back it up with false claims of education and experience.

You know nothing about this science and you should remain quiet.
09-06-2017 15:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Wake wrote: I am tired of fools making a mockery of the real arguments against AGW.

Isn't that special!

AGW is an unfalsifiable religion. No one can prove it false anymore than anyone can prove Christianity false.

But you can, you say. In fact, you have a monopoly on this ability, it appears!

Too funny.


Wake wrote: I am tired of idiots arguing points that are transparently incorrect and then trying to back it up with false claims of education and experience.

You are scientifically illiterate. Just keep your nose out of science and you'll be OK.

On the other hand, when you, of all people, become argumentative with those explaining science to you, you lower yourself to Surface Detail's level.

You are not smart. Your arguments are lame at best. You should take advantage of all the help you can get.

Wake wrote: You know nothing about this science and you should remain quiet.

Can you even state clearly your belief about "greenhouse effects?


.


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
09-06-2017 17:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:(Invents more science like he invented that he is an engineer but doesn't know how to transpose terms in an equation)


No one is talking to you
This is a public forum. No needs to be 'talking to me'. If you want a private conversation, may I recommend the rather excellent private mail system they have here?

Wake wrote:
and you do not understand what you're talking about. I suggest you stop confusing the issue and go back to raiding the local people's garbage cans for plastic bottles.

Argument of the Stone. Insults are not a counterargument.


I am tired of fools making a mockery of the real arguments against AGW. I am tired of idiots arguing points that are transparently incorrect and then trying to back it up with false claims of education and experience.

You know nothing about this science and you should remain quiet.

Like you?

The first thing the Church of Global Warming is going to have to do is define what 'global warming' IS. Circular definitions and arguments don't cut it. There is no theory to work with here. You can't make a theory out of something you can't define.

If the Church is going to claim any kind of science for 'greenhouse effect', they are going to have to account for the paradoxes that are built by that argument. It also is not internally consistent. You can't have a theory of any kind built upon a logical fallacy.

They are also going to have to account for things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They will either have to show these theories of science or false, or build a theory and model that doesn't conflict with them.

These ARE the basic arguments about the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2017 17:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: I am tired of fools making a mockery of the real arguments against AGW.

Isn't that special!

AGW is an unfalsifiable religion. No one can prove it false anymore than anyone can prove Christianity false.


Actually, they can. The theory of 'global warming' is not even a theory, nor a valid argument of any kind. No one has been able to define 'global warming' as anything other than itself.

No theory, whether scientific or non-scientific, may exist based upon a logical fallacy (in this case, a void argument). If you can't define it, you can't have a theory about it.

That alone is proof it is false. You don't even get to the idea of testing for falsifiability. There is no surviving theory remaining to test. It is unfalsifiable, because it isn't a theory at all.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2017 20:10
litesong
★★★★☆
(1861)
"old sick silly slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: That alone is proof it is false.

The name of "old sick silly slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" proves that "badnight" is false.

Meanwhile:
....present Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 11,000+ cubic kilometers less than average 1980's years for Arctic sea ice VOLUME. NOT till present Arctic sea VOLUME returns to the quantities of the 1980's, can AGW denier liar whiners pretend that ice age conditions have returned.....
AND it ain't goin' to happen, because 388+ straight months have passed, with all months being over the 20th century average. Solar TSI has been languid for decades & low for 10+ years (including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low TSI). When solar TSI returns to normal, Earth temperatures will escalate all the more & into the future hundreds & thousands of years.
10-06-2017 05:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote: That alone is proof it is false.

I'm going to fall back on the axiom that nothing unfalsifiable can be shown to be false. It's in the definition. Only the falsifiable can be shown to be false.

As you quite correctly observed, there is no defined, formally specified model for Global Warming. It is definitely not falsifiable. Ergo, we will never get to the point of any testing and it can never be shown to be false.

HOWEVER ... we can still recognize it as a bunch-o-crappola.


.


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
10-06-2017 07:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: That alone is proof it is false.

I'm going to fall back on the axiom that nothing unfalsifiable can be shown to be false. It's in the definition. Only the falsifiable can be shown to be false.

As you quite correctly observed, there is no defined, formally specified model for Global Warming. It is definitely not falsifiable. Ergo, we will never get to the point of any testing and it can never be shown to be false.

HOWEVER ... we can still recognize it as a bunch-o-crappola.


.


Certainly one way to look at it, I suppose. As for me, there is no sense even asking the question of falsifiability for something that doesn't exist. It's like trying to determine if fizzgort is easy to see. It's a senseless statement.


The Parrot Killer
10-06-2017 14:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
litesong wrote: Meanwhile:
....present Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 11,000+ cubic kilometers less than average 1980's years for Arctic sea ice VOLUME. NOT till present Arctic sea VOLUME returns to the quantities of the 1980's, can AGW denier liar whiners pretend that ice age conditions have returned.....
AND it ain't goin' to happen, because 388+ straight months have passed, with all months being over the 20th century average. Solar TSI has been languid for decades & low for 10+ years (including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low TSI). When solar TSI returns to normal, Earth temperatures will escalate all the more & into the future hundreds & thousands of years.

litesong my friend, how is the Arctic sea ice faring as we roll into summer?


.


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
10-06-2017 23:30
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:(Invents more science like he invented that he is an engineer but doesn't know how to transpose terms in an equation)


No one is talking to you
This is a public forum. No needs to be 'talking to me'. If you want a private conversation, may I recommend the rather excellent private mail system they have here?

Wake wrote:
and you do not understand what you're talking about. I suggest you stop confusing the issue and go back to raiding the local people's garbage cans for plastic bottles.

Argument of the Stone. Insults are not a counterargument.


Well, since you correctly tell us that the Sun sends us energy in the radio bands tell us what their energy is as it strikes the Earth.

Tell us what frequencies that the Earth admits energy at. You say that it is many frequencies. What are they?

No one knows how much water is in the atmosphere? In fact at any one moment the atmosphere contains about 37,500,000,000 gallons of water in it's vapor phase. But of course you are totally unaware of that. It would NEVER occur to you that water is visible at emission wavelengths to satellites. Since knowledge is something you go without it isn't any surprise that you don't seem to think that anyone can know anything.

Perhaps I should have said a 10 uM window in the atmosphere in which NOTHING absorbs energy and hence the energy in that window passes straight into space. But that would require thinking on your part which isn't your strong suit.

Then you're off telling us absolutely inane comments about the height of the Tropopause which makes NO difference. Tell me stupid, do you know the difference between .1 bar at about 11 miles of altitude which is the highest point of the tropopause and your asinine "duhhhh 200 mbar" which I suppose means that as usual you cannot do math and have no idea of the difference in pressure between the lowest point of the break between the tropopause and the stratosphere and the highest point? Why are so you stupid? Can't you tell the difference between bar and millibars?

Now maybe your scientific mind can explain to us how a molecule being able to travel longer distances in some way gives it energy? Inquiring minds want to know.

What is plain yet again is that you haven't any idea what the real "greenhouse effect" is. You keep saying stupid things like "you can't slow down heat" as if conduction and convection occur instantaneously. Are you for real? Are you really a True Believer and simply trying to make science look stupid?
11-06-2017 00:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Wake wrote: In fact at any one moment the atmosphere contains about 37,500,000,000 gallons of water in it's vapor phase.

What is the margin of error for this measurement, or is this the exact amount?

Wake wrote: What is plain yet again is that you haven't any idea what the real "greenhouse effect" is.

Too funny!

You had your chance(s) to explain *your* version of "greenhouse effect" but simply became EVASIVE every time... and we all know why.

The concept of "greenhouse effect" is dead and you are scientifically illiterate.


.


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

Edited on 11-06-2017 00:35
11-06-2017 00:52
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: In fact at any one moment the atmosphere contains about 37,500,000,000 gallons of water in it's vapor phase.

What is the margin of error for this measurement, or is this the exact amount?

Wake wrote: What is plain yet again is that you haven't any idea what the real "greenhouse effect" is.

Too funny!

You had your chance(s) to explain *your* version of "greenhouse effect" but simply became EVASIVE every time... and we all know why.

The concept of "greenhouse effect" is dead and you are scientifically illiterate.


.


I asked you stupid - do you know the difference between bar and millibar?
Do you have any idea that the height of the Tropopause shifts according to the time of day and the temperature?
Do you believe that conduction of heat through the atmosphere is instantaneous?

You have a serious mental problem and I want to see your answers.
11-06-2017 01:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Wake wrote: I asked you stupid - do you know the difference between bar and millibar?

Hey moron, no, you never asked me and yes, I know the difference.

I'll presume you are asking because you really don't know and that you need me to explain it to you.

"milli" is the metric prefix for "one thousandth."

1 bar = 1000 millibars.

I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

So back to my question. You stated with utter certainty that the earth's atmosphere contains 37,500,000,000 gallons of water in vapor phase.

What is the margin of error for this measurement, or is this the exact amount?

Wake wrote: What is plain yet again is that you haven't any idea what the real "greenhouse effect" is.

Too funny!

Once again, you had your chance(s) to explain *your* version of "greenhouse effect" but simply became EVASIVE every time... and we all know why.

The concept of "greenhouse effect" is dead and you are scientifically illiterate.

Let's stay focused.


.


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
11-06-2017 09:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:(Invents more science like he invented that he is an engineer but doesn't know how to transpose terms in an equation)


No one is talking to you
This is a public forum. No needs to be 'talking to me'. If you want a private conversation, may I recommend the rather excellent private mail system they have here?

Wake wrote:
and you do not understand what you're talking about. I suggest you stop confusing the issue and go back to raiding the local people's garbage cans for plastic bottles.

Argument of the Stone. Insults are not a counterargument.


Well, since you correctly tell us that the Sun sends us energy in the radio bands tell us what their energy is as it strikes the Earth.

Specify. Your question is too vague.
Wake wrote:
Tell us what frequencies that the Earth admits energy at. You say that it is many frequencies. What are they?
Many frequencies. Your question is asking for an unspecifiable answer.
Wake wrote:
No one knows how much water is in the atmosphere? In fact at any one moment the atmosphere contains about 37,500,000,000 gallons of water in it's vapor phase.
Argument from randU. You don't know how much water there is in the atmosphere. No one does.
Wake wrote:
But of course you are totally unaware of that. It would NEVER occur to you that water is visible at emission wavelengths to satellites.
....And your point?
Wake wrote:
Since knowledge is something you go without it isn't any surprise that you don't seem to think that anyone can know anything.

Insult fallacy coupled with an assumption of a void argument (and a lie).
Wake wrote:
Perhaps I should have said a 10 uM window in the atmosphere in which NOTHING absorbs energy and hence the energy in that window passes straight into space.
If you like, there a lot of frequencies that pass through the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
But that would require thinking on your part which isn't your strong suit.
Now you're just getting insulting again.
Wake wrote:
Then you're off telling us absolutely inane comments about the height of the Tropopause which makes NO difference.
If it makes no difference, why are you arguing about it???
Wake wrote:
Tell me stupid, do you know the difference between .1 bar at about 11 miles of altitude which is the highest point of the tropopause
Unit mismatch. There is no difference describable. Try using compatible units.

The pressure at the tropopause is generally about 200mBar.
Wake wrote:
and your asinine "duhhhh 200 mbar" which I suppose means that as usual you cannot do math and have no idea of the difference in pressure between the lowest point of the break between the tropopause and the stratosphere and the highest point?
About 100mBar.
Wake wrote:
Why are so you stupid? Can't you tell the difference between bar and millibars?
1 Bar is equivalent to 1000mBar.
Wake wrote:
Now maybe your scientific mind can explain to us how a molecule being able to travel longer distances in some way gives it energy? Inquiring minds want to know.
It doesn't.
Wake wrote:
What is plain yet again is that you haven't any idea what the real "greenhouse effect" is.
There isn't one. 'Greenhouse effect' is not even a theory of any kind. It builds paradoxes. No theory can be based on a logical fallacy, not even non-scientific ones.
Wake wrote:
You keep saying stupid things like "you can't slow down heat" as if conduction and convection occur instantaneously.
That is not slowing down heat. You don't seem to understand what 'heat' is. Heat is not thermal energy. You also don't seem to grasp the concept of thermal coupling.
Wake wrote:
Are you for real? Are you really a True Believer and simply trying to make science look stupid?

Science has no intelligence. It does not have a brain. It is not a life form.

Since are attempting to associate my statements to a religion of some sort, please state the initial circular argument of that belief. That is the common characteristic to any religion.

BTW, did you know the circular argument is not necessarily a fallacy?


The Parrot Killer
11-06-2017 15:34
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: I asked you stupid - do you know the difference between bar and millibar?

Hey moron, no, you never asked me and yes, I know the difference.

I'll presume you are asking because you really don't know and that you need me to explain it to you.

"milli" is the metric prefix for "one thousandth."

1 bar = 1000 millibars.

I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

So back to my question. You stated with utter certainty that the earth's atmosphere contains 37,500,000,000 gallons of water in vapor phase.

What is the margin of error for this measurement, or is this the exact amount?

Wake wrote: What is plain yet again is that you haven't any idea what the real "greenhouse effect" is.

Too funny!

Once again, you had your chance(s) to explain *your* version of "greenhouse effect" but simply became EVASIVE every time... and we all know why.

The concept of "greenhouse effect" is dead and you are scientifically illiterate.

Let's stay focused..


Once again you avoid admitting your supreme stupidity after "correcting" my claim that the atmospheric pressure at the top of the troposphere is .1 bar.
"No it isn't it's 200 millibar". On your best day you couldn't pass a grade school exam.

And again you dodge the question - do YOU believe that heat conducts from the ground level to the troposphere instantaneously?
11-06-2017 15:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Wake wrote: Once again you avoid admitting your supreme stupidity after "correcting" my claim that the atmospheric pressure at the top of the troposphere is .1 bar.

You've completely lost it. You and I never had this conversation.

Check the post. You asked me what one bar converts to in millibars.

Wake wrote: And again you dodge the question - do YOU believe that heat conducts from the ground level to the troposphere instantaneously?

You never asked me this. Had you, I would have told you that heat flows from the surface to the troposphere via convection, not conduction.

Yes, the heat is instantaneous whereas the arrival of the thermal energy at the troposphere certainly is not.

You apparently don't know what heat is.


.


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
11-06-2017 16:07
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:(Invents more science like he invented that he is an engineer but doesn't know how to transpose terms in an equation)


No one is talking to you
This is a public forum. No needs to be 'talking to me'. If you want a private conversation, may I recommend the rather excellent private mail system they have here?

Wake wrote:
and you do not understand what you're talking about. I suggest you stop confusing the issue and go back to raiding the local people's garbage cans for plastic bottles.

Argument of the Stone. Insults are not a counterargument.


Well, since you correctly tell us that the Sun sends us energy in the radio bands tell us what their energy is as it strikes the Earth.

Specify. Your question is too vague.
Wake wrote:
Tell us what frequencies that the Earth admits energy at. You say that it is many frequencies. What are they?
Many frequencies. Your question is asking for an unspecifiable answer.
Wake wrote:
No one knows how much water is in the atmosphere? In fact at any one moment the atmosphere contains about 37,500,000,000 gallons of water in it's vapor phase.
Argument from randU. You don't know how much water there is in the atmosphere. No one does.
Wake wrote:
But of course you are totally unaware of that. It would NEVER occur to you that water is visible at emission wavelengths to satellites.
....And your point?
Wake wrote:
Since knowledge is something you go without it isn't any surprise that you don't seem to think that anyone can know anything.

Insult fallacy coupled with an assumption of a void argument (and a lie).
Wake wrote:
Perhaps I should have said a 10 uM window in the atmosphere in which NOTHING absorbs energy and hence the energy in that window passes straight into space.
If you like, there a lot of frequencies that pass through the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
But that would require thinking on your part which isn't your strong suit.
Now you're just getting insulting again.
Wake wrote:
Then you're off telling us absolutely inane comments about the height of the Tropopause which makes NO difference.
If it makes no difference, why are you arguing about it???
Wake wrote:
Tell me stupid, do you know the difference between .1 bar at about 11 miles of altitude which is the highest point of the tropopause
Unit mismatch. There is no difference describable. Try using compatible units.

The pressure at the tropopause is generally about 200mBar.
Wake wrote:
and your asinine "duhhhh 200 mbar" which I suppose means that as usual you cannot do math and have no idea of the difference in pressure between the lowest point of the break between the tropopause and the stratosphere and the highest point?
About 100mBar.
Wake wrote:
Why are so you stupid? Can't you tell the difference between bar and millibars?
1 Bar is equivalent to 1000mBar.
Wake wrote:
Now maybe your scientific mind can explain to us how a molecule being able to travel longer distances in some way gives it energy? Inquiring minds want to know.
It doesn't.
Wake wrote:
What is plain yet again is that you haven't any idea what the real "greenhouse effect" is.
There isn't one. 'Greenhouse effect' is not even a theory of any kind. It builds paradoxes. No theory can be based on a logical fallacy, not even non-scientific ones.
Wake wrote:
You keep saying stupid things like "you can't slow down heat" as if conduction and convection occur instantaneously.
That is not slowing down heat. You don't seem to understand what 'heat' is. Heat is not thermal energy. You also don't seem to grasp the concept of thermal coupling.
Wake wrote:
Are you for real? Are you really a True Believer and simply trying to make science look stupid?

Science has no intelligence. It does not have a brain. It is not a life form.

Since are attempting to associate my statements to a religion of some sort, please state the initial circular argument of that belief. That is the common characteristic to any religion.

BTW, did you know the circular argument is not necessarily a fallacy?


And the clown strikes again. You tell us that the Sun emits energy in the radio bands and I asked you HOW MUCH ENERGY.

Since that energy down in the radio bands is pretty much fixed you should be able to tell us how much energy it is.

But to YOU that question is "too vague".

You tell us that my statement is incorrect when I say that the Earth emits energy in the low IR. You claim that it emits in "many frequencies" but apparently that to is something you cannot explain. Surprise!

I also like your use of "randU" showing that you learned a new term especially so that you could use it to imply that a .01% inaccuracy in something makes it a number picked from the sky. Yet again you show a stupidity almost unbelievable even in such a fool as yourself. Two entirely different satellite systems orbiting the Earth on complex orbital patterns is something that is entirely beyond you. That they could detect water simply by the radiated emissions in the atmosphere is again entirely beyond you. We need yet more "Duhhhhhhh" from you.

There are a LOT of frequencies that pass through the atmosphere? I was speaking of emissions FROM THE EARTH and you damn well know it. Trying to get out of your ignorant statements by saying something like that isn't going to save yourself from exposures.

Unit mismatch? Are you telling us that you HAVE to have units you understand? And I plainly stated the pressure at the top of the troposphere which ISN'T your stupid idea of "average". You make stupid statements and then have to cry that I wasn't plain enough.

You TOLD US that gases didn't absorb energy from the Sun but because they had a longer way to travel between molecules. That is so stupid that you can't even defend that. Did you erase that posting? I see that it isn't here any longer.

But you have such immensely stupid statements such as "The absorption spectra of CO2 has many frequencies that absorb when water does not." CO2 has four major absorption lines and H2O in it's vapor phase absorbs across the entire lower IR bands with only a few open windows. The sheer ignorance of your statements is staggering.

You make comments telling us that specific heat isn't important which again is ignorant on a level with the IQ of a puppy.

This entire confrontation is something that you decided to start in order to prove how much you know. In fact you know almost nothing and all you've succeeded in doing is showing just how little you do know.
11-06-2017 17:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Wake wrote: You tell us that the Sun emits energy in the radio bands and I asked you HOW MUCH ENERGY.

Now I'm curious. I know that the sun emits in radio-band frequencies but off hand, I don't know that particular power level.

So what? Do you have a point?

Wake wrote: Since that energy down in the radio bands is pretty much fixed you should be able to tell us how much energy it is.

I just told you that I don't know it.

So what? Do you have a point?

Wake wrote: But to YOU that question is "too vague".

It was very vague on your first attempt to spit it out.


Wake wrote: Two entirely different satellite systems orbiting the Earth on complex orbital patterns is something that is entirely beyond you.

Are you trying to blame Into the Night for your inability to understand the limitations of satellites?

Wake wrote: That they could detect water simply by the radiated emissions in the atmosphere is again entirely beyond you.

We already know that there is water vapor in the atmosphere. It's no major revelation that a satellite was able to detect water vapor in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, you state with certainty that the atmosphere contains exactly 37,500,000,000 gallons of water vapor, yet you EVADE discussion on how you know this or on any margin of error.


.


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
11-06-2017 18:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: I asked you stupid - do you know the difference between bar and millibar?

Hey moron, no, you never asked me and yes, I know the difference.

I'll presume you are asking because you really don't know and that you need me to explain it to you.

"milli" is the metric prefix for "one thousandth."

1 bar = 1000 millibars.

I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

So back to my question. You stated with utter certainty that the earth's atmosphere contains 37,500,000,000 gallons of water in vapor phase.

What is the margin of error for this measurement, or is this the exact amount?

Wake wrote: What is plain yet again is that you haven't any idea what the real "greenhouse effect" is.

Too funny!

Once again, you had your chance(s) to explain *your* version of "greenhouse effect" but simply became EVASIVE every time... and we all know why.

The concept of "greenhouse effect" is dead and you are scientifically illiterate.

Let's stay focused..


Once again you avoid admitting your supreme stupidity after "correcting" my claim that the atmospheric pressure at the top of the troposphere is .1 bar.
"No it isn't it's 200 millibar".
Yes, it is. Go look it up.
Wake wrote:
On your best day you couldn't pass a grade school exam.
...annnnd insults again. Did you know this is a fallacy? They don't strengthen your argument they weaken it.
Wake wrote:
And again you dodge the question - do YOU believe that heat conducts from the ground level to the troposphere instantaneously?

Yes. Just as soon as there is a difference in temperature. Since the troposphere is in contact with the ground, coupling exists between them. Heat begins instantaneously.


The Parrot Killer
11-06-2017 19:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
And the clown strikes again.

You seem to be having another meltdown. You are resorting to more and more insults.
Wake wrote:
You tell us that the Sun emits energy in the radio bands and I asked you HOW MUCH ENERGY.

It does. Specify.
Wake wrote:
Since that energy down in the radio bands is pretty much fixed you should be able to tell us how much energy it is.
No, it isn't. Specify.
Wake wrote:
But to YOU that question is "too vague".
It is.
Wake wrote:
You tell us that my statement is incorrect when I say that the Earth emits energy in the low IR. You claim that it emits in "many frequencies" but apparently that to is something you cannot explain. Surprise!
The low IR, for one thing, is a fairly wide frequency band. The Earth also emits below any IR frequency. I believe the lowest frequency recorded is on the order of 3Hz. A fairly strong source of emissions occurs around 7.8Hz.
Wake wrote:
I also like your use of "randU" showing that you learned a new term especially so that you could use it to imply that a .01% inaccuracy in something makes it a number picked from the sky.
There is no accuracy for a random number. You are using a random number as data. You pulled it out of your ass. Argument from randU. You pulled the 0.01% number out of your ass too.
Wake wrote:
...deleted insult...
Two entirely different satellite systems orbiting the Earth on complex orbital patterns is something that is entirely beyond you.
Not at all. I am quite familiar with space flight and its requirements.
Wake wrote:
That they could detect water simply by the radiated emissions in the atmosphere is again entirely beyond you.
Never said they couldn't. I have already said this.
Wake wrote:
...deleted insult...
There are a LOT of frequencies that pass through the atmosphere?

Yes. Do you want me to say 'yes' again to this question?
Wake wrote:
I was speaking of emissions FROM THE EARTH and you damn well know it.
Not quite true.

You are speaking of emissions from the Sun, and you are also speaking of emissions from the Earth.

In terms of emitted energy from the Earth. There are a LOT of frequencies that pass through the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
Trying to get out of your ignorant statements by saying something like that isn't going to save yourself from exposures.
It's Seattle...it's 50 degF...time to take off your shirt and enjoy it!
Wake wrote:
Unit mismatch?
That's what I said. What about this is unclear to you?
Wake wrote:
Are you telling us that you HAVE to have units you understand?
No, I am telling you to use compatible units. Since you seem to think you did, please tell me the conversion rate of pressure in psi to distance in feet. If I travel to the local drugstore about a mile away, how many psi is that?
Wake wrote:
And I plainly stated the pressure at the top of the troposphere which ISN'T your stupid idea of "average".
The average press at the top of troposphere is approx 200mBar. This is what aircraft instruments are calibrated to, assuming standard conditions and a standard lapse rate.
Wake wrote:
You make stupid statements and then have to cry that I wasn't plain enough.
You are not only plainly incorrect, you are trying to justify your plainly incorrect numbers.
Wake wrote:
You TOLD US that gases didn't absorb energy from the Sun but because they had a longer way to travel between molecules.
Never said any such thing.
Wake wrote:
That is so stupid that you can't even defend that.
Not trying to. I never said any such thing.
Wake wrote:
Did you erase that posting?
No. I never made such a posting.
Wake wrote:
I see that it isn't here any longer.
A post that is never is never there.
Wake wrote:
But you have such immensely stupid statements such as "The absorption spectra of CO2 has many frequencies that absorb when water does not."
I stand by that statement.
Wake wrote:
CO2 has four major absorption lines
It has a lot of absorption. Far more than four.
Wake wrote:
and H2O in it's vapor phase absorbs across the entire lower IR bands with only a few open windows.
There are quite a lot of 'windows' (points of little to no absorption) in water.
Wake wrote:
...deleted insult...
You make comments telling us that specific heat isn't important
Never made any such comment. You seem to be hallucinating. Have you had enough sleep, or do you use mind altering drugs?
Wake wrote:
...deleted insult...
This entire confrontation is something that you decided to start in order to prove how much you know.
No, this entire confrontation is based on your misunderstanding of the atmosphere and its structure, the laws of thermodynamics, your random numbers that you quote as data, and your redefinitions of words.
Wake wrote:
In fact you know almost nothing and all you've succeeded in doing is showing just how little you do know.

First, learn what the word 'fact' means. Second, I believe it is obvious that I know a hell of a lot more than you do.


The Parrot Killer
11-06-2017 20:23
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: You tell us that the Sun emits energy in the radio bands and I asked you HOW MUCH ENERGY.

Now I'm curious. I know that the sun emits in radio-band frequencies but off hand, I don't know that particular power level.

So what? Do you have a point?

Wake wrote: Since that energy down in the radio bands is pretty much fixed you should be able to tell us how much energy it is.

I just told you that I don't know it.

So what? Do you have a point?

Wake wrote: But to YOU that question is "too vague".

It was very vague on your first attempt to spit it out.


Wake wrote: Two entirely different satellite systems orbiting the Earth on complex orbital patterns is something that is entirely beyond you.

Are you trying to blame Into the Night for your inability to understand the limitations of satellites?

Wake wrote: That they could detect water simply by the radiated emissions in the atmosphere is again entirely beyond you.

We already know that there is water vapor in the atmosphere. It's no major revelation that a satellite was able to detect water vapor in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, you state with certainty that the atmosphere contains exactly 37,500,000,000 gallons of water vapor, yet you EVADE discussion on how you know this or on any margin of error.
.


You tell us that the Sun admits in the radio wavelengths but you know nothing about it. But you had to talk about something you know nothing about.

JUST the energy in a radio wave is 10^19 less energy than that in the visible light spectrum. That's one millionth of a trillionth. What's more the Sun RARELY emits in the radio spectrum. It's only during solar storms.

Again and again you have to pretend you know something that you know NOTHING about.

As all jackasses you are attempting to make an approximation an exact amount because that will make you feel as if you are making points instead of being a fool.

http://eu.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/egec/pdf/GB085-W.PDF

But go ahead and continue talking. Every word out of your mouth shows more of what you are.
12-06-2017 06:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: You tell us that the Sun emits energy in the radio bands and I asked you HOW MUCH ENERGY.

Now I'm curious. I know that the sun emits in radio-band frequencies but off hand, I don't know that particular power level.

So what? Do you have a point?

Wake wrote: Since that energy down in the radio bands is pretty much fixed you should be able to tell us how much energy it is.

I just told you that I don't know it.

So what? Do you have a point?

Wake wrote: But to YOU that question is "too vague".

It was very vague on your first attempt to spit it out.


Wake wrote: Two entirely different satellite systems orbiting the Earth on complex orbital patterns is something that is entirely beyond you.

Are you trying to blame Into the Night for your inability to understand the limitations of satellites?

Wake wrote: That they could detect water simply by the radiated emissions in the atmosphere is again entirely beyond you.

We already know that there is water vapor in the atmosphere. It's no major revelation that a satellite was able to detect water vapor in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, you state with certainty that the atmosphere contains exactly 37,500,000,000 gallons of water vapor, yet you EVADE discussion on how you know this or on any margin of error.
.


You tell us that the Sun admits in the radio wavelengths but you know nothing about it. But you had to talk about something you know nothing about.

The Sun doesn't admit to anything. It isn't alive.
Wake wrote:
JUST the energy in a radio wave is 10^19 less energy than that in the visible light spectrum. That's one millionth of a trillionth.
Uh...no.
The energy is a function of the intensity of a source combined with the energy of the photons making up that source.
Wake wrote:
What's more the Sun RARELY emits in the radio spectrum.
It always emits in the radio spectrum.
Wake wrote:
It's only during solar storms.
Nope. Always.
Wake wrote:
Again and again you have to pretend you know something that you know NOTHING about.
Again and again, you just simply deny science and basic definitions like 'fact'.
Wake wrote:
As all jackasses you are attempting to make an approximation an exact amount because that will make you feel as if you are making points instead of being a fool.

...deleted non-sequitur link...

But go ahead and continue talking. Every word out of your mouth shows more of what you are.

So...somehow you feel insult streams like this are helping you make your case, yes?


The Parrot Killer
12-06-2017 13:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Wake wrote: As all jackasses you are attempting to make an approximation an exact amount because that will make you feel as if you are making points instead of being a fool.

It was you who who stated with certainty that the atmosphere contains exactly 37,500,000,000 gallons of water vapor and you mocked Into the Night for not "knowing" this.

How do YOU know this?

Is this an exact amount or is this an approximation?

If it is an approximation, what is the margin of error?


Wake wrote: http://eu.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/egec/pdf/GB085-W.PDF

Wake, go to your PDF, copy the section that supports your argument and paste THAT here in this forum.



.


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
14-06-2017 02:37
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(74)
Dear Anna, I explained it all here..
https://www.scribd.com/document/348761444/Its-the-Ocean-Stupid




Join the debate What effects global temperature:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Average Global Temperature of Ocean3918-11-2017 01:19
Temperature variation may be the key3627-09-2017 00:20
World Population and Annual Global temperature Since 19501026-09-2017 01:32
Measuring Mean Global Temperature.3222-09-2017 11:23
Experimental results proves CO2 does not increase temperature, so why still debate?418-05-2017 16:50
▲ 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