22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming
| 24-01-2020 01:20 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
keepit wrote: If they actually wanted to engage to topic they could explain the emissivity of snow as they understand it. They won't because they don't understand it. Why on Earth would someone getting it wrong mean you can't get it right? But nope, they just pretend it makes sense to only point out their theory on how many mistakes you made without offering a correct answer to anything. Edited on 24-01-2020 01:22 |
| 24-01-2020 01:51 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
And - the SB law isn't a relativistic law and what i said was just an analogy. The fact remains that frequency influences emissivity as the snow graph shows. If one uses the term emissivity one has to accept the factors that influence it (snow graph). By the way, there is no word "radiativity" in wiki. Did you make that word up as part of your semantics ruse or what? I should have used F=ma. If one talks about "F", does that mean that mass has no influence in "F"? Edited on 24-01-2020 02:07 |
| 24-01-2020 02:11 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote:...frequency influences emissivity...Or you could say that the absorptivity and reflectivity of a material is not the same at every wavelength. That's of course what we are talking about. emissivity is technically just dealing with the radiance coming off an object. While it corresponds to the albedo they aren't the same thing. |
| 24-01-2020 02:12 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21599) |
tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote: Already did. RDCF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: We both understand it. RDCF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: We are right, you are wrong. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: Lie. Answer was provided. RDCF. RQAA. 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:14 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: There is no frequency term in emissivity. keepit wrote: There is no frequency term in emissivity. keepit wrote: Wikipedia summarily dismissed as a reference. keepit wrote: No. 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:14 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
I don't think you have answer. |
| 24-01-2020 02:15 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote:...frequency influences emissivity...Or you could say that the absorptivity and reflectivity of a material is not the same at every wavelength. That's of course what we are talking about. One is the inversion of the other. There is no frequency term in emissivity (or albedo). 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:16 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: To what? 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:16 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote: Yeah they got nothing |
| 24-01-2020 02:17 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote: Void argument 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:17 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
You're just dodging. That wasn't an answer. |
| 24-01-2020 02:18 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote: Got any explanation of snow ITN? |
| 24-01-2020 02:21 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: To what? Void argument 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:22 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:keepit wrote: Got any explanation of snow ITN? It has a high emissivity to infrared but it's clearly bright wight to visible light. |
| 24-01-2020 02:23 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
IBDM -"and the radiativity of substances that varies by substance and wavelength". Your words. |
| 24-01-2020 02:23 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote: A form of precipitation consisting of frozen water forming flakes of ice at or near subdroplet accretion, or the flakes themselves after they have fallen. 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:24 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:keepit wrote: Emissivity has no frequency term. 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:25 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: So? Are you attempting a contextomy 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:28 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
I don't even know what a contextotomy fallacy is. It sounds like you're dodging (strawmanning"". There was a really good physicist that once said,"My formula is smarter than i am". I think it was Paul Dirac. Don't feel bad ITN. You're in good company. It might have been Richard Feynman. Edited on 24-01-2020 02:35 |
| 24-01-2020 02:31 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote: Yeah ITN, I'd like to look up that fallacy. Where would you recommend I look it up. Can the emissivity of snow be measured ITN? Has it ever been successfully measured? |
| 24-01-2020 02:37 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: It is removing or changing the context of an argument, as if the argument originally belonged to the new context. keepit wrote:Nope. Not a strawman fallacy at all. I just answered your question. Fallacy fallacy. keepit wrote:Formulas don't think. keepit wrote: Irrelevance 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:39 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
You didn't answer anything, you just made false claims, that's all. |
| 24-01-2020 02:39 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote: RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Tricky, since snow is constantly changing during the measurement. tmiddles wrote: I can't recall that it has. 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:39 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: You didn't ask anything. 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 |
| 24-01-2020 02:41 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
You said, "RQAA'. |
| 24-01-2020 03:13 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14414) |
tmiddles wrote:If they actually wanted to engage to topic they could explain the emissivity of snow as they understand it. If you were honest you would engage in a discussion. Logic 101: You will not engage in a discussion -> You are not honest There is no point in trying to explain anything to anyone not willing to engage in an honest discussion. Snow is a substance. The term "emissivity" applies to blackbodies and is a constant between 0.0 and 1.0; it has no frequency term. You and keepit are intentionally conflating blackbody emissivity with substance radiativity which depends on the substance, the wavelength and the angle of incidence of the EM. It is stupid to ask about snow (a substance) within the context of blackbody radiation. A substance is not a body. I know, I know, you consider Wikipedia to be inerrant, and the scientifically illiterate leftists who fill Wikipedia with errors make the same conflation you and keepit make so it must be right. I get it. You probably underlined those passages in your Wikipedia. So go on being confused. It's not like you are seeking any clarity in the first place. So what is the emissivity of snow, according to Wikipedia? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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 24-01-2020 03:14 |
| 24-01-2020 03:23 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote: Wait a minute I thought a black body had an emissivity of 1.0 only. We are asking, sincerely, about snow. It's bright white to visible light, so clearly has a high albedo for that wavelength, and it's measured albedo for infrared is very low. Give it a shot IBD. ITN is stumped. |
| 24-01-2020 07:11 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
tmiddles wrote:Wait a minute I thought a black body had an emissivity of 1.0 only. No you didn't. You and I discussed this very point. You know very well that an IDEAL blackbody is one that has an emissivity of 1.0. You know very well that a non-ideal regular blackbody, what we find in reality, has an emissivity strictly less than 1.0 and strictly greater than 0.0. tmiddles wrote: We are asking, sincerely, about snow. Your point has nothing to do with snow. Your point has everything to do with conflating blackbody emissivity with substance radiativity, i.e. two totally different concepts. Emissivity, being just a constant, can't possibly have any "frequency term." But then again, here we are while keepit and yourself insist that it does. Tell me, what does one say to you two? tmiddles wrote: It's bright white to visible light, so clearly has a high albedo for that wavelength, and it's measured albedo for infrared is very low. This statement makes you appear scientifically illiterate ... or should I write "reveals you as"? Snow is a substance. It is not a body. I don't know what else to tell you. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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 |
| 24-01-2020 07:18 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
IBDN, What do you mean when you use term "radiativity"? And where can i look up that term. I can't find it in wiki. In my astronomy encyclopedia the term "radiative transfer" is described as a process that only occurs inside the sun as photons move from the core to the surface. The word radiativity isn't used in that definition. I don't think emissivity is a constant. I think it is a parameter, a constant variable, an independent variable. Edited on 24-01-2020 07:31 |
| 24-01-2020 07:57 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
keepit wrote: You're discussing astrophysics while nemo wants to discuss nuclear physics. With astrophysics, the Sun's gravitational field allows for its corona. The surface of the Sun is cooler. The "light" that warms our planet comes from the corona of the Sun and not the Sun itself. Basic astrophysics. Just thought I'd mention the obvious, the Sun doesn't warm our planet. |
| 24-01-2020 08:00 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
For anyone who wishes to disagree, the Sun's HALO warms our planet. It's corona isn't the Sun. It's of the Sun. 2 completely different things. You guys make this too easy. |
| 24-01-2020 10:32 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:...we find in reality, has an emissivity strictly less than 1.0 and strictly greater than 0.0.Oh right I remember some people like to still call it a black body, others say grey body. Relax. "Grey body" or just "body" is a lot easier to communicate that "non-ideal regular black body" but, tomAito Tomahto, as long as we're clear. IBdaMann wrote:... conflating blackbody emissivity with substance radiativity, i.e. two totally different concepts.... Because only one exists as an identifiable concept?: Google search for ""substance radiativity" yield zero results IBdaMann wrote:How is it possible that something, anything, not be a body? If it has matter, molecules, then it's a body isn't it? Earth is a "body" but the snow on Earth isn't? Edited on 24-01-2020 10:33 |
| 24-01-2020 18:02 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
tmiddles wrote: "Grey body" or just "body" is a lot easier to communicate that "non-ideal regular black body" Agreed. That's why I use the term "body." I presume you noticed. tmiddles wrote: Google search for ""substance radiativity" yield zero results ... and ? Is your belief that since you could not find something in Google that you must therefore not be confused? Is that what you tell yourself to make yourself feel better? You should have spoken up earlier; I can help out there. Watch: tmiddles, you are not confused. You are totally correct, and wise. There! Are we all good? tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Snow is a substance. It is not a body. We have been over this. It's one of the things you have ignored multiple times. Are you wishing you had been paying attention? tmiddles wrote: If it has matter, molecules, then it's a body isn't it? Nope. Everything you listed is required, but alone is insufficient. Are you familiar with the word "discrete"? "Non-discrete"? Your answer lies there. tmiddles wrote:Earth is a "body" but the snow on Earth isn't? Correct! We have a winner. Given your track record, I can't promise that you are going to somehow grasp the concepts needed to reel this fish into the boat, but there's always a first time. I'm pulling for you. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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 |
| 24-01-2020 18:58 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
So IBDM, what do you mean when you use the term "radiativity"?
Edited on 24-01-2020 18:58 |
| 24-01-2020 19:14 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
keepit wrote: Emissivity is a measured constant. That constant is used until you measure it again. 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 |
| 24-01-2020 19:34 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
ITN, You definition sounds like the definition of a parameter. But what do you mean when you use the word radiativity? |
| 24-01-2020 19:51 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414) |
keepit wrote: So IBDM, what do you mean when you use the term "radiativity"? Radiativity is the efficiency with thich a material radiates a particular wavelength at a particular angle. It's counterpart, absorptivity is the efficiency with which a material absorbs a particular wavelength at a particular angle. Kirchoff's law says that radiativity = absorptivity. These are not the same things as the emissivity of a body, which has neither frequency nor angle terms. Emissivity covers all frequencies (and all angles) combined, and is for the entire body as a whole. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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 |
| 24-01-2020 22:28 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
IBDM, I looked up Kirchoffs laws in Wiki. It pertained to electrical circuits and didn't use the word radiativity or absorbtivity. Anywhere else you know of that explains the word radiativity? Edited on 24-01-2020 22:28 |
| 24-01-2020 23:11 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:You used a made up word, fine, it wasn't used or defined elsewhere, ok, the confusion this causes has been pointed out to you several times now, as expected, your response is to offer no clarification...tmiddles wrote: Google search for ""substance radiativity" yield zero results So you goal is to cause confusion. You are lame. And again. Being lame.tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Snow is a substance. It is not a body. IBdaMann wrote: Why the dispute here IBD? Kirchhoff's Law of thermal radiation: emissivity ε = absorptivity α Care to explain why you invented a word to disagree with the rest of the world? nuclear-power.net and the rest of internet uses emissivity. keepit wrote:He was a real badass and has several laws named after him. See above the one IBD is trying to rewrite. Edited on 24-01-2020 23:11 |
| 25-01-2020 00:08 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21599) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:You used a made up word, fine, it wasn't used or defined elsewhere, ok, the confusion this causes has been pointed out to you several times now, as expected, your response is to offer no clarification...tmiddles wrote: Google search for ""substance radiativity" yield zero results I guess your reading comprehension is quite low. tmiddles wrote: Inversion fallacy. tmiddles wrote:And again. Being lame.tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Snow is a substance. It is not a body. No, just another example of your repetitious questions that have already been answered (RQAA). tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Emissivity is not radiativity. tmiddles wrote: He didn't invent the word. tmiddles wrote: Emissivity is not radiativity. tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote: It applies to ALL energy nodes. It doesn't apply just to electrical circuits. 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 |
Join the debate 22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| 22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming | 48 | 26-04-2024 11:06 |
| Pro-Palestinian protester arrested in death of Jewish man Paul Kessler. Told you so. | 0 | 16-11-2023 21:56 |
| BREAKING NEWS- Woody Harrelson voted in as new Worlds smartest man | 0 | 03-03-2023 15:29 |
| Man freed from jail for committing a crime that never even happened. LOL they tried that with me too | 3 | 16-02-2023 19:01 |
| Man's energy use actually does explain climate change | 18 | 09-02-2023 03:27 |