| Why the Wilder Storms? It's a 'Loaded Dice' Problem15-10-2018 15:41 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/climate/rain-floods-extreme-weather.html
Torrential rainfall lashed Japan in July. A cloudburst in August submerged entire villages in south India. In September, Hurricane Florence burst dams and lagoons, with coal ash and pig waste spilling into the waterways of North Carolina. On the other side of the planet, a typhoon walloped the Philippines and ravaged the country's staple crop, rice.
Climate scientists can't say where or when the next big storm will hit, but all the evidence points to this: Global warming is bringing the planet into an era of wilder, more dangerous rains with ruinous and long-lasting consequences.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 15-10-2018 16:28 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
spot wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/climate/rain-floods-extreme-weather.html
Torrential rainfall lashed Japan in July. A cloudburst in August submerged entire villages in south India. In September, Hurricane Florence burst dams and lagoons, with coal ash and pig waste spilling into the waterways of North Carolina. On the other side of the planet, a typhoon walloped the Philippines and ravaged the country's staple crop, rice.
Climate scientists can't say where or when the next big storm will hit, but all the evidence points to this: Global warming is bringing the planet into an era of wilder, more dangerous rains with ruinous and long-lasting consequences.
Well, James failed at this. I assume you want to try it too?
Spots. It takes COLD air to condense vapor into rain.
I read your dumb story and they make it sound like it's pouring rain everywhere. A quick bit of searching turns up this.
Looks like roughly 45% of the US is in some bit of dry conditions. How can that be when it's raining cats and dogs everywhere else?
Attached image:
 |
| 15-10-2018 18:48 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/climate/rain-floods-extreme-weather.html
Torrential rainfall lashed Japan in July. A cloudburst in August submerged entire villages in south India. In September, Hurricane Florence burst dams and lagoons, with coal ash and pig waste spilling into the waterways of North Carolina. On the other side of the planet, a typhoon walloped the Philippines and ravaged the country's staple crop, rice.
Climate scientists can't say where or when the next big storm will hit, but all the evidence points to this: Global warming is bringing the planet into an era of wilder, more dangerous rains with ruinous and long-lasting consequences.
Well, James failed at this. I assume you want to try it too?
Spots. It takes COLD air to condense vapor into rain.
I read your dumb story and they make it sound like it's pouring rain everywhere. A quick bit of searching turns up this.
Looks like roughly 45% of the US is in some bit of dry conditions. How can that be when it's raining cats and dogs everywhere else?
I am a bit pushed for time at the moment but this might help.
If that doesn't work ask your mentor ITN. You seem to trust him over every sane person when it comes to the "controversy" on the laws of thermodynamics.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 15-10-2018 21:41 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/climate/rain-floods-extreme-weather.html
Torrential rainfall lashed Japan in July. A cloudburst in August submerged entire villages in south India. In September, Hurricane Florence burst dams and lagoons, with coal ash and pig waste spilling into the waterways of North Carolina. On the other side of the planet, a typhoon walloped the Philippines and ravaged the country's staple crop, rice.
Climate scientists can't say where or when the next big storm will hit, but all the evidence points to this: Global warming is bringing the planet into an era of wilder, more dangerous rains with ruinous and long-lasting consequences.
Well, James failed at this. I assume you want to try it too?
Spots. It takes COLD air to condense vapor into rain.
I read your dumb story and they make it sound like it's pouring rain everywhere. A quick bit of searching turns up this.
Looks like roughly 45% of the US is in some bit of dry conditions. How can that be when it's raining cats and dogs everywhere else?
I am a bit pushed for time at the moment but this might help.
If that doesn't work ask your mentor ITN. You seem to trust him over every sane person when it comes to the "controversy" on the laws of thermodynamics.
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-10-2018 23:54 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm
Why do you lie so much?
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
|
| 16-10-2018 04:34 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
...deleted Holy Quote...
Why do you lie so much?
I don't. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work either. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.
You can't warm a dead body with a blanket. You can't warm a rock with a blanket.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't just ignore and deny these laws. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-10-2018 05:04 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
...deleted Holy Quote...
Why do you lie so much?
I don't. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work either. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.
You can't warm a dead body with a blanket. You can't warm a rock with a blanket.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't just ignore and deny these laws. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified.
...Everything you said anyone who did a basic search and no understanding of science could've posted. It's funny how you'll try to make it looks like someone doesn't know what they're talking about by trying to make it look like they don't even understand the most basic science. I think that's all you know because as you say, you know logic and we need to learn to accept yours. Why discussing anything with you is a waste of time. |
| 16-10-2018 05:57 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
...deleted Holy Quote...
Why do you lie so much?
I don't. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work either. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.
You can't warm a dead body with a blanket. You can't warm a rock with a blanket.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't just ignore and deny these laws. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified.
The blanket warming a dead body actually raises a fair question...
Seee everyone? I will question ALL sides.
If the center of the earth is lava and hot molten rock, is it comparable to a dead body? Is it not a heat source? You don't need to go down very far to find constant soil temps year round, regardless of season.
If the Sun burned out tomorrow, would the surface temp go to 0 Kelvin? |
| 16-10-2018 07:45 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
...deleted Holy Quote...
Why do you lie so much?
I don't. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work either. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.
You can't warm a dead body with a blanket. You can't warm a rock with a blanket.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't just ignore and deny these laws. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified.
The blanket warming a dead body actually raises a fair question...
Seee everyone? I will question ALL sides.
If the center of the earth is lava and hot molten rock, is it comparable to a dead body? Is it not a heat source? You don't need to go down very far to find constant soil temps year round, regardless of season.
If the Sun burned out tomorrow, would the surface temp go to 0 Kelvin?
...I'll go with the dead body covered by a blanket. This is another example of not considering application. It could increase the temperature. Any fool knows that decomposition generates both gases and heat. Why is that part being ignored?
..Forensic science is a science and once again science is being left out. You could say I "killed 2 birds with one stone" on that one.
..And gasguzzler, air has to be pumped into mines to help cool them. Even coal mines not that deep will be warm.
http://www.welshcoalmines.co.uk/forum/read.php?14,46717 |
| 16-10-2018 19:42 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
...deleted Holy Quote...
Why do you lie so much?
I don't. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work either. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.
You can't warm a dead body with a blanket. You can't warm a rock with a blanket.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't just ignore and deny these laws. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified.
...Everything you said anyone who did a basic search and no understanding of science could've posted. It's funny how you'll try to make it looks like someone doesn't know what they're talking about by trying to make it look like they don't even understand the most basic science. I think that's all you know because as you say, you know logic and we need to learn to accept yours. Why discussing anything with you is a waste of time.
They are theories of science. You can't just ignore them.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-10-2018 19:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
...deleted Holy Quote...
Why do you lie so much?
I don't. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work either. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.
You can't warm a dead body with a blanket. You can't warm a rock with a blanket.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't just ignore and deny these laws. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified.
The blanket warming a dead body actually raises a fair question...
Seee everyone? I will question ALL sides.
If the center of the earth is lava and hot molten rock, is it comparable to a dead body? Is it not a heat source? You don't need to go down very far to find constant soil temps year round, regardless of season.
If the Sun burned out tomorrow, would the surface temp go to 0 Kelvin?
...I'll go with the dead body covered by a blanket. This is another example of not considering application. It could increase the temperature. Any fool knows that decomposition generates both gases and heat. Why is that part being ignored?
Because decomposition doesn't generate heat. The body decomposing is at ambient temperature the whole way. In most cases, the blanket would rot along with the body, even synthetic ones.
If the ambient temperature drops below a certain temperature (just above freezing), decomposition stops completely. If the water is removed, decomposition stops completely.
James___ wrote:
..Forensic science is a science and once again science is being left out. You could say I "killed 2 birds with one stone" on that one.
Forensic science is not about the decomposition process.
James___ wrote:
..And gasguzzler, air has to be pumped into mines to help cool them. Even coal mines not that deep will be warm.
You just agreed with him.
Now if you want to also consider the temperature of all points WITHIN the Earth as part of the temperature of the Earth as well, you must also consider that we have NO thermometers inside the Earth, other than the occasional mine (which by comparison doesn't go very deep).
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 16-10-2018 19:59 |
| 16-10-2018 20:17 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
The blanket warming a dead body actually raises a fair question...
Seee everyone? I will question ALL sides.
If the center of the earth is lava and hot molten rock, is it comparable to a dead body? Is it not a heat source? You don't need to go down very far to find constant soil temps year round, regardless of season.
If the Sun burned out tomorrow, would the surface temp go to 0 Kelvin?
I am a bit pushed for time but in answer to your query
this might help
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 17-10-2018 01:00 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The blanket warming a dead body actually raises a fair question...
Seee everyone? I will question ALL sides.
If the center of the earth is lava and hot molten rock, is it comparable to a dead body? Is it not a heat source? You don't need to go down very far to find constant soil temps year round, regardless of season.
If the Sun burned out tomorrow, would the surface temp go to 0 Kelvin?
I am a bit pushed for time but in answer to your query
Redirection fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 17-10-2018 01:07 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The blanket warming a dead body actually raises a fair question...
Seee everyone? I will question ALL sides.
If the center of the earth is lava and hot molten rock, is it comparable to a dead body? Is it not a heat source? You don't need to go down very far to find constant soil temps year round, regardless of season.
If the Sun burned out tomorrow, would the surface temp go to 0 Kelvin?
I am a bit pushed for time but in answer to your query
Redirection fallacy.
...please explain. |
| 19-10-2018 11:28 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
...deleted Holy Quote...
Why do you lie so much?
I don't. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work either. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.
You can't warm a dead body with a blanket. You can't warm a rock with a blanket.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't just ignore and deny these laws. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified.
The blanket warming a dead body actually raises a fair question...
Seee everyone? I will question ALL sides.
If the center of the earth is lava and hot molten rock, is it comparable to a dead body? Is it not a heat source? You don't need to go down very far to find constant soil temps year round, regardless of season.
If the Sun burned out tomorrow, would the surface temp go to 0 Kelvin?
The geenhouse gas idea is that different wavelengths of light interact differently with the air.
Like radar will go through a cloud but visable light will be bounced around and reflected back down or up.
So high energy UV and visable gets through the CO2 to the ground but the lower energy IR from the surface is reflected back down more.
I have seen a credable argument that this idea is unnecessary to explain the temperatures of all the planets in the solar system and I don't actually care about it as it is all too complex for my level of physics to argue about. |
|
| 19-10-2018 17:01 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
...deleted Holy Quote...
Why do you lie so much?
I don't. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work either. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.
You can't warm a dead body with a blanket. You can't warm a rock with a blanket.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't just ignore and deny these laws. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified.
The blanket warming a dead body actually raises a fair question...
Seee everyone? I will question ALL sides.
If the center of the earth is lava and hot molten rock, is it comparable to a dead body? Is it not a heat source? You don't need to go down very far to find constant soil temps year round, regardless of season.
If the Sun burned out tomorrow, would the surface temp go to 0 Kelvin?
The geenhouse gas idea is that different wavelengths of light interact differently with the air.
Like radar will go through a cloud but visable light will be bounced around and reflected back down or up.
So high energy UV and visable gets through the CO2 to the ground but the lower energy IR from the surface is reflected back down more.
I have seen a credable argument that this idea is unnecessary to explain the temperatures of all the planets in the solar system and I don't actually care about it as it is all too complex for my level of physics to argue about.
I deleted my reply because I live in the U.S.
Jesus is the answer. As for this world, who cares? Both tin and gasguzzler are probably devout Christians. This is why they have the right answer. The church has always been against anything it can't control. And that's what tin and gasguzzler keep saying, if they're not in control then they're against what they're not in control of.
Edited on 19-10-2018 17:31 |
| 19-10-2018 18:07 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
...deleted Holy Quote...
Why do you lie so much?
I don't. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work either. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.
You can't warm a dead body with a blanket. You can't warm a rock with a blanket.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't just ignore and deny these laws. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified.
The blanket warming a dead body actually raises a fair question...
Seee everyone? I will question ALL sides.
If the center of the earth is lava and hot molten rock, is it comparable to a dead body? Is it not a heat source? You don't need to go down very far to find constant soil temps year round, regardless of season.
If the Sun burned out tomorrow, would the surface temp go to 0 Kelvin?
The geenhouse gas idea is that different wavelengths of light interact differently with the air.
Like radar will go through a cloud but visable light will be bounced around and reflected back down or up.
So high energy UV and visable gets through the CO2 to the ground but the lower energy IR from the surface is reflected back down more.
I have seen a credable argument that this idea is unnecessary to explain the temperatures of all the planets in the solar system and I don't actually care about it as it is all too complex for my level of physics to argue about.
That light came from the surface in the first place, cooling it. Reflecting it back down means you are trying to heat it again using the same light. Trouble is, it's already warmer than the gas that's trying to heat it. You can't make heat flow 'uphill'. No matter how you try, you can't heat a warmer surface using a colder one, not even by radiance.
No gas 'reflects' the infrared. It absorbs the infrared. Absorption does not heat the surface. The energy from that absorption simply warms the gas slightly, in a manner that is just as effective as conductive heating by contact with the surface.
Does air (and CO2) emit infrared? Sure, just as the surface does. Being a gas, it is quite a bit dimmer a radiance. It is not the same color of infrared as what it absorbed. It is not the same intensity as what it absorbed. Most of that energy was lost by convection and conduction.
Can it heat the surface? No. That light is much lower in intensity and in frequency. The surface will not absorb it. It is already too warm. It is the Sun that warms it, not any gas in the atmosphere. That light is simply reflected away again. We can't see it because it's beyond our range of vision, but instruments can.
Why doesn't get as cold as the Moon at night? The surface and the atmosphere both have mass. It takes time to heat and cool them. This is also why we don't get as hot as the Moon during the day. That atmosphere has mass. The oceans not only have mass, but have water in them. It takes a lot more energy to heat and cool water enough to change it by one degree than most other substances on Earth. Water is in the air, too.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 19-10-2018 18:12 |
| 19-10-2018 19:19 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no controversy on the laws of thermodynamics. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just ignore them.
The fact that someone felt the need to write this shows you are wrong
...deleted Holy Quote...
Why do you lie so much?
I don't. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work either. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.
You can't warm a dead body with a blanket. You can't warm a rock with a blanket.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You can't just ignore and deny these laws. They are theories of science. They have not yet been falsified.
The blanket warming a dead body actually raises a fair question...
Seee everyone? I will question ALL sides.
If the center of the earth is lava and hot molten rock, is it comparable to a dead body? Is it not a heat source? You don't need to go down very far to find constant soil temps year round, regardless of season.
If the Sun burned out tomorrow, would the surface temp go to 0 Kelvin?
The geenhouse gas idea is that different wavelengths of light interact differently with the air.
Like radar will go through a cloud but visable light will be bounced around and reflected back down or up.
So high energy UV and visable gets through the CO2 to the ground but the lower energy IR from the surface is reflected back down more.
I have seen a credable argument that this idea is unnecessary to explain the temperatures of all the planets in the solar system and I don't actually care about it as it is all too complex for my level of physics to argue about.
I deleted my reply because I live in the U.S.
Jesus is the answer. As for this world, who cares? Both tin and gasguzzler are probably devout Christians. This is why they have the right answer. The church has always been against anything it can't control. And that's what tin and gasguzzler keep saying, if they're not in control then they're against what they're not in control of.
James,
Have you gone bonkers?
I am an atheist.
What the hell are you talking about? What has all this to do with the church? Why does me saying that I don't have the physics understanding to talk about the interplay of CO2 with the rest of the atmosphere and the degree of transpairancy to various wavelengths of light?????
Oh, I get it! You feel massively belittleled by anybody who has the confidence to admit to any limit of themselves! |
| 20-10-2018 01:37 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
..Tim, I was taking about tin and gasguzzler and said as much.
There is a basic flaw in the IPCC's reasoning that has been missed.
Even comments made by the IPCC in the past were strange considering
the reports they had just released. And all of this could explain why
storms are slightly fewer but are stronger.
..It's just that I've had Christians use the same reasoning as tin and gasguzzler.
An example is that storms are getting stronger while they say they aren't. Christians tell me we're in the end times which I doubt we are. And both are against me pursuing goals which they don't support. |
| 20-10-2018 02:01 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Still waiting for you to show us that storms are fewer but stronger. Give me YOUR reasoning. CNN does not count as data. |
| 20-10-2018 02:23 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Still waiting for you to show us that storms are fewer but stronger. Give me YOUR reasoning. CNN does not count as data.
..I don't watch CNN. Didn't I show you Jesus's quote? The one about casting that which is holy before swine? You haven't shown where you are a reasonable person.
..This is odd in a way because people hold my hearing loss against me. To others it has to represent something other than just a significant hearing loss. The same goes for discussing climate change. If I show a report from the IPCC then I am told I have to support it as well as what scientists with the IPCC have said about it. This keeps any discussion from happening.
..They've basically have said something not in our atmosphere is causing climate change but we can't discuss that. |
| 20-10-2018 05:20 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
If I show a report from the IPCC then I am told I have to support it as well as what scientists with the IPCC have said about it. This keeps any discussion from happening.
OK, then here's this from the IPCC Holy Grail. Line 6???
Moreover,
3 studies that have used more homogeneous records but that were consequently limited to rather short periods
4 of 20 to 25 years in length, have reported no statistically significant trends or decreases in the global number
5 of these systems (Kamahori et al., 2006; Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015). CMIP5 model simulations of the
6 historical period have also not produced anthropogenically induced trends in very intense tropical cyclones
7 (Bender et al., 2010; Knutson et al., 2010, 2013; Camargo, 2013; Christensen et al., 2013), consistent with
8 the findings of Klotzbach and Landsea (2015). There is consequently low confidence in the larger number of
9 studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones
Edited on 20-10-2018 05:20 |
| 20-10-2018 06:51 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
If I show a report from the IPCC then I am told I have to support it as well as what scientists with the IPCC have said about it. This keeps any discussion from happening.
OK, then here's this from the IPCC Holy Grail. Line 6???
Moreover,
3 studies that have used more homogeneous records but that were consequently limited to rather short periods
4 of 20 to 25 years in length, have reported no statistically significant trends or decreases in the global number
5 of these systems (Kamahori et al., 2006; Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015). CMIP5 model simulations of the
6 historical period have also not produced anthropogenically induced trends in very intense tropical cyclones
7 (Bender et al., 2010; Knutson et al., 2010, 2013; Camargo, 2013; Christensen et al., 2013), consistent with
8 the findings of Klotzbach and Landsea (2015). There is consequently low confidence in the larger number of
9 studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones
...All you proved is you can't discuss something.
An example, CMIP5 model simulations
Why use model simulations when real data is available?
.What you don't realize is what you're missing. I'll let you figure it out for yourself.
Edited on 20-10-2018 07:06 |
| 20-10-2018 12:38 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
James___ wrote:
..Tim, I was taking about tin and gasguzzler and said as much.
There is a basic flaw in the IPCC's reasoning that has been missed.
Even comments made by the IPCC in the past were strange considering
the reports they had just released. And all of this could explain why
storms are slightly fewer but are stronger.
..It's just that I've had Christians use the same reasoning as tin and gasguzzler.
An example is that storms are getting stronger while they say they aren't. Christians tell me we're in the end times which I doubt we are. And both are against me pursuing goals which they don't support.
Oh, ITN.
To be honest I find Gasguzzler fine. I think he is very quick at learning and understanding stuff.
He is a small businessman. That means he is naturally and occupationally good at dealing with a high degree of risk in his life. He must have a high degree of internal confidence. No choice about it.
Such people who are not risk averse can look at the threat of climate change and judge it without panicing.
I think that is the primary difference between the Alarmists and the Skeptics. |
| 20-10-2018 16:09 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
..Tim, I was taking about tin and gasguzzler and said as much.
There is a basic flaw in the IPCC's reasoning that has been missed.
Even comments made by the IPCC in the past were strange considering
the reports they had just released. And all of this could explain why
storms are slightly fewer but are stronger.
..It's just that I've had Christians use the same reasoning as tin and gasguzzler.
An example is that storms are getting stronger while they say they aren't. Christians tell me we're in the end times which I doubt we are. And both are against me pursuing goals which they don't support.
Oh, ITN.
To be honest I find Gasguzzler fine. I think he is very quick at learning and understanding stuff.
He is a small businessman. That means he is naturally and occupationally good at dealing with a high degree of risk in his life. He must have a high degree of internal confidence. No choice about it.
Such people who are not risk averse can look at the threat of climate change and judge it without panicing.
I think that is the primary difference between the Alarmists and the Skeptics.
..Both gasguzzler and tin have said that warmer water doesn't increase the strength of hurricanes. This kind of attitude doesn't allow for a discussion. It seems all they want is to get someone to react to their comments.
..With me, it's possible that some of what I'd like considered goes into theoretical physics. This isn't the place to discuss something like that. At the same time it is possible to determine precisely how much of an influence co2 has on our atmospheres ability to increase It's heat content.
..This hasn't happened yet because of computer modeling. And at the end of the day the part of the troposphere that we live in is a body 1/1000 as dense as water. This reference allows for it to become an engineering problem. This could also show whether or not the absorption frequency of co2 matters.
..The last part has never been verified. |
| 20-10-2018 17:54 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
..Since gasguzzler brought President Trump into this;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/19/nikki-haley-joins-growing-list-trump-officials-who-criticize-trump-their-way-out-door/?utm_term=.387fd62581b8&wpisrc=nl_az_most&wpmk=1 |
| 20-10-2018 18:26 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Only thing I said about Trump was that he severely hurt my foreclosure business. That is a GOOD thing! It only means that money has shifted the pockets of the private sector. I'd rather get it there than from HUD. Either way I will work and I will earn.
Edited on 20-10-2018 18:31 |
| 20-10-2018 18:31 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
As far as warm water for hurricanes go...
It's kind of comparable to combustion fuel.
High quality fuel ain't going help a piece of shit engine.
High quality fuel in a strong engine and now you've got something. |
| 20-10-2018 20:11 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
..Tim, I was taking about tin and gasguzzler and said as much.
There is a basic flaw in the IPCC's reasoning that has been missed.
Even comments made by the IPCC in the past were strange considering
the reports they had just released. And all of this could explain why
storms are slightly fewer but are stronger.
..It's just that I've had Christians use the same reasoning as tin and gasguzzler.
An example is that storms are getting stronger while they say they aren't. Christians tell me we're in the end times which I doubt we are. And both are against me pursuing goals which they don't support.
Oh, ITN.
To be honest I find Gasguzzler fine. I think he is very quick at learning and understanding stuff.
He is a small businessman. That means he is naturally and occupationally good at dealing with a high degree of risk in his life. He must have a high degree of internal confidence. No choice about it.
Such people who are not risk averse can look at the threat of climate change and judge it without panicing.
I think that is the primary difference between the Alarmists and the Skeptics.
..Both gasguzzler and tin have said that warmer water doesn't increase the strength of hurricanes. This kind of attitude doesn't allow for a discussion. It seems all they want is to get someone to react to their comments.
..With me, it's possible that some of what I'd like considered goes into theoretical physics. This isn't the place to discuss something like that. At the same time it is possible to determine precisely how much of an influence co2 has on our atmospheres ability to increase It's heat content.
..This hasn't happened yet because of computer modeling. And at the end of the day the part of the troposphere that we live in is a body 1/1000 as dense as water. This reference allows for it to become an engineering problem. This could also show whether or not the absorption frequency of co2 matters.
..The last part has never been verified.
I differ from the other 2 by asking for some sort of mechanism to explain the idea that warmer oceans will cause stronger wind speeds.
Winds are driven by pressure differences which are the result of temperature differences.
If the warming happens as shouted about, more in the cooler places, then there will surely be less in the way of wind. |
| 20-10-2018 20:13 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Only thing I said about Trump was that he severely hurt my foreclosure business. That is a GOOD thing! It only means that money has shifted the pockets of the private sector. I'd rather get it there than from HUD. Either way I will work and I will earn.
From over here the idea that his economic impact can be seen in the fist 2 years is odd. The first 2 years are the after effects of the last one.
He is also seen as a complete dick. |
|
| 20-10-2018 20:19 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
..Tim, I was taking about tin and gasguzzler and said as much.
There is a basic flaw in the IPCC's reasoning that has been missed.
Even comments made by the IPCC in the past were strange considering
the reports they had just released. And all of this could explain why
storms are slightly fewer but are stronger.
..It's just that I've had Christians use the same reasoning as tin and gasguzzler.
An example is that storms are getting stronger while they say they aren't. Christians tell me we're in the end times which I doubt we are. And both are against me pursuing goals which they don't support.
Oh, ITN.
To be honest I find Gasguzzler fine. I think he is very quick at learning and understanding stuff.
He is a small businessman. That means he is naturally and occupationally good at dealing with a high degree of risk in his life. He must have a high degree of internal confidence. No choice about it.
Such people who are not risk averse can look at the threat of climate change and judge it without panicing.
I think that is the primary difference between the Alarmists and the Skeptics.
Agreed. He is very quick at learning and understanding stuff. Being a small businessman certainly helps, but that is not required. I have seen this sort of understanding in people all across the spectrum.
Mostly what it takes is someone that can look at it without panicking and who has an open mind (is not a fundamentalist).
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-10-2018 20:34 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
..Tim, I was taking about tin and gasguzzler and said as much.
There is a basic flaw in the IPCC's reasoning that has been missed.
Even comments made by the IPCC in the past were strange considering
the reports they had just released. And all of this could explain why
storms are slightly fewer but are stronger.
..It's just that I've had Christians use the same reasoning as tin and gasguzzler.
An example is that storms are getting stronger while they say they aren't. Christians tell me we're in the end times which I doubt we are. And both are against me pursuing goals which they don't support.
Oh, ITN.
To be honest I find Gasguzzler fine. I think he is very quick at learning and understanding stuff.
He is a small businessman. That means he is naturally and occupationally good at dealing with a high degree of risk in his life. He must have a high degree of internal confidence. No choice about it.
Such people who are not risk averse can look at the threat of climate change and judge it without panicing.
I think that is the primary difference between the Alarmists and the Skeptics.
..Both gasguzzler and tin have said that warmer water doesn't increase the strength of hurricanes.
That's right. What increases the strength of hurricanes is a temperature difference, not just warmer water.
James___ wrote:
This kind of attitude doesn't allow for a discussion.
That is what drives a hurricane (and any storm). There is no room for discussion, unless, of course, you think you can falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
James___ wrote:
It seems all they want is to get someone to react to their comments.
Paranoia.
James___ wrote:
..With me, it's possible that some of what I'd like considered goes into theoretical physics. This isn't the place to discuss something like that.
You have to learn the physics first, dude. You can't just cast aside current theories.
James___ wrote:
At the same time it is possible to determine precisely how much of an influence co2 has on our atmospheres ability to increase It's heat content.
It doesn't. Heat is not a 'content'. CO2 does not have the capability to create energy, reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time, or make heat flow backwards.
James___ wrote:
..This hasn't happened yet because of computer modeling.
Computer modelling does not inhibit the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James___ wrote:
And at the end of the day the part of the troposphere that we live in is a body 1/1000 as dense as water. This reference allows for it to become an engineering problem.
Density of atmosphere does not make an engineering problem possible.
James___ wrote:
This could also show whether or not the absorption frequency of co2 matters.
..The last part has never been verified.
We know the frequencies of light that CO2 absorbs. It has been verified. We can even identify the presence of CO2 by looking solely at these absorption lines.
Like I said. If you want to discuss theoretical (or any other) physics, you are going to have to learn what the theories of science are concerning physics in the first place. You can't just discard them and go off into worlds of imagination like they weren't there.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-10-2018 20:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Only thing I said about Trump was that he severely hurt my foreclosure business. That is a GOOD thing! It only means that money has shifted the pockets of the private sector. I'd rather get it there than from HUD. Either way I will work and I will earn.
I have no doubt about that! I celebrate your successful attitude!
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-10-2018 20:41 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Only thing I said about Trump was that he severely hurt my foreclosure business. That is a GOOD thing! It only means that money has shifted the pockets of the private sector. I'd rather get it there than from HUD. Either way I will work and I will earn.
From over here the idea that his economic impact can be seen in the fist 2 years is odd. The first 2 years are the after effects of the last one.
He is also seen as a complete dick.
I think you forgot Obama's vision of the economic future, calling the poor economy as the 'new normal'. Trump has turned that around.
Yeah, he can be abrasive. He says it like it is. He doesn't pull any punches. I don't mind that. He gets things done.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-10-2018 22:59 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Only thing I said about Trump was that he severely hurt my foreclosure business. That is a GOOD thing! It only means that money has shifted the pockets of the private sector. I'd rather get it there than from HUD. Either way I will work and I will earn.
From over here the idea that his economic impact can be seen in the fist 2 years is odd. The first 2 years are the after effects of the last one.
He is also seen as a complete dick.
...where do hurricanes and cyclones start and where do they die?
I've read some of gasguzzler's early posts and all he does is argue. Same with itn. Spot used to ask gasguzzler if all he wanted to do was get people wound up. That's all IMHO those 2 want to do.
..and Tim, my concerns are different. I'll give you an example. CO2 helps to prevent further depletion of the ozone layer. I'm the only person in this forum that will say that matters. If the ozone layer became more depleted then crops could start failing as the ozone layer became more depleted.
..itn says this isn't possible. Gasguzzler is his friend. Why anymore I am better off staying out of here. There's nothing to be gained by arguing with 2 people that are content with their lives.
..Besides, what if I don't like Pres. Trump while they do?
Edited on 20-10-2018 23:16 |
| 21-10-2018 00:06 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
http://www.ozonedepletion.co.uk/how-ozone-depletion-will-affect-global-plant-life.html |
| 21-10-2018 01:30 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.
Scroll down and click on Chapter 5
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/:
..if you take the time to read both the UK and NOAA reports Tim you'll see why I have my own opinion. |
| 21-10-2018 03:13 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy
..and Tim, gasguzzler is a Trump supporter. What we've learned from the NFL is that if a team mortgages it's future to win today then in the future it will lose because it can't afford to pay it's players. This only means that the U.S. needs to be fiscally responsible which it isn't.
.Whether a person supports climate change or doesn't resources still need to be managed. Oil like coal is a finite resource. There's no telling for how long we'll need them.
Edited on 21-10-2018 03:41 |
| 21-10-2018 14:26 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
..Tim, I was taking about tin and gasguzzler and said as much.
There is a basic flaw in the IPCC's reasoning that has been missed.
Even comments made by the IPCC in the past were strange considering
the reports they had just released. And all of this could explain why
storms are slightly fewer but are stronger.
..It's just that I've had Christians use the same reasoning as tin and gasguzzler.
An example is that storms are getting stronger while they say they aren't. Christians tell me we're in the end times which I doubt we are. And both are against me pursuing goals which they don't support.
Oh, ITN.
To be honest I find Gasguzzler fine. I think he is very quick at learning and understanding stuff.
He is a small businessman. That means he is naturally and occupationally good at dealing with a high degree of risk in his life. He must have a high degree of internal confidence. No choice about it.
Such people who are not risk averse can look at the threat of climate change and judge it without panicing.
I think that is the primary difference between the Alarmists and the Skeptics.
Agreed. He is very quick at learning and understanding stuff. Being a small businessman certainly helps, but that is not required. I have seen this sort of understanding in people all across the spectrum.
Mostly what it takes is someone that can look at it without panicking and who has an open mind (is not a fundamentalist).
Competence in one area does not mean competence in another area. I've known consultant surgeons who can't wire a plug.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 21-10-2018 17:31 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Only thing I said about Trump was that he severely hurt my foreclosure business. That is a GOOD thing! It only means that money has shifted the pockets of the private sector. I'd rather get it there than from HUD. Either way I will work and I will earn.
From over here the idea that his economic impact can be seen in the fist 2 years is odd. The first 2 years are the after effects of the last one.
He is also seen as a complete dick.
...where do hurricanes and cyclones start and where do they die?
I've read some of gasguzzler's early posts and all he does is argue. Same with itn. Spot used to ask gasguzzler if all he wanted to do was get people wound up. That's all IMHO those 2 want to do.
..and Tim, my concerns are different. I'll give you an example. CO2 helps to prevent further depletion of the ozone layer. I'm the only person in this forum that will say that matters. If the ozone layer became more depleted then crops could start failing as the ozone layer became more depleted.
..itn says this isn't possible. Gasguzzler is his friend. Why anymore I am better off staying out of here. There's nothing to be gained by arguing with 2 people that are content with their lives.
..Besides, what if I don't like Pres. Trump while they do?
As warm air rises above a warm sea, the Carribean, the rotation of the earth causes the whole lot to swirl around.
This is then driven around by other winds and picks up more of the same.
The point is however, that the warm air bit is warm by comparison with the air around it. If you have a general heating then I don't see any difference.
Feel free to cite some physics that explains the mechanism to me. |