Remember me
▼ Content

22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming



Page 3 of 6<12345>>>
21-01-2020 18:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
I believe that the CO2 increase is most likely coming from the oceans, ...
https://www.quora.com/What-if-it-is-warming-that-is-causing-an-increase-in-the-concentration-of-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere-instead-of-the-reverse/answer/Richard-Evans-213
So I don't think this is presented as a "chicken or egg" theory correct?, but one where there is a different source other than CO2 that is causing warming.

No gas or vapor can cause warming. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:...the high-temperatures on Venus need to be accounted for by something else other than solar radiation which is supposedly very weak on Venus despite it being closer to the Sun.
Weak at ground level but the atmosphere is getting that radiance right? I personally think Venus is the place to study to really figure out what the deal is.

What's to figure out? A way to dismiss the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics?
tmiddles wrote:
Why wouldn't the gases of the atmosphere be free to accumulate thermal energy absorbed from solar radiance?

Sure. Just like on Earth. They also dissipate it.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you consider the oceans of Earth to be a "heat trap"?
...deleted Holy Link...

It is not possible to trap heat.
tmiddles wrote:
Why wouldn't an atmosphere as incredibly dense as what you find of Venus do the same?

It is not possible to trap heat.
tmiddles wrote:
It's like if I put a pot on the stove full of say refried beans and don't stir it (acts like a solid) the edges will burn while the middle is comparatively cool. If I stir it continuously (acts like a liquid) the entire mix will rise in temperature together. Different portions of the mix will take turns being the outer surface before flowing back into the middle. Doesn't it make sense that thick mix of matter that is free to flow and convect will soak up a lot of energy and that Venus is proof?

Welcome to the concept of convective heating.


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
21-01-2020 19:41
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Carbon cycle.
When the co2 in the atmosphere increases that increase stays there for 100's to 1000's of years. It is true that a given co2 molecule will only stay in the atmosphere for a much shorter length of time but the increase in total will stay for 100's to 1000's of years. The reason for this non intuitive discrepancy is because in the carbon cycle and circulation of co2 that gets in the atmosphere, that co2 is cycled out at a certain rate which is dominated by the earth's and ocean's ability to accept the co2 back (by mechanisms such as ocean absorption and rock and earth reabsorption) when rain falls and then drains to the oceans. The earth can only absorb so much at a time so if there is too much put into the atmosphere it has to wait there for the other carbon to sink to the bottom of the ocean and then slide under the adjacent tectonic plates and thereby become sequestered for a long time. When that happens then more co2 can be accepted by the earth and ocean. Meanwhile the co2 builds up and the sun keeps pouring thermal energy onto the earth.
Edited on 21-01-2020 19:44
21-01-2020 20:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
Carbon cycle.
When the co2 in the atmosphere increases that increase stays there for 100's to 1000's of years. It is true that a given co2 molecule will only stay in the atmosphere for a much shorter length of time but the increase in total will stay for 100's to 1000's of years. The reason for this non intuitive discrepancy is because in the carbon cycle and circulation of co2 that gets in the atmosphere, that co2 is cycled out at a certain rate which is dominated by the earth's and ocean's ability to accept the co2 back (by mechanisms such as ocean absorption and rock and earth reabsorption) when rain falls and then drains to the oceans. The earth can only absorb so much at a time so if there is too much put into the atmosphere it has to wait there for the other carbon to sink to the bottom of the ocean and then slide under the adjacent tectonic plates and thereby become sequestered for a long time. When that happens then more co2 can be accepted by the earth and ocean. Meanwhile the co2 builds up and the sun keeps pouring thermal energy onto the earth.


CO2 does not have the magick ability to trap thermal energy.


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
21-01-2020 20:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit wrote: When the co2 in the atmosphere increases that increase stays there for 100's to 1000's of years.

Oh really? Is this divine information from your Christian God or from your goddess Climate?

Despite there being quite a large number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, I totally believe that you tracked them over thousands of years. I will also totally believe you when you tell me that whenever there is an increase in atmospheric CO2 that plants around the globe will nonetheless NOT take in any more than they had been taking previously because they maintain a certain discipline of avoiding additional CO2 if they can help it.

keepit wrote: that co2 is cycled out at a certain rate which is dominated by the earth's and ocean's ability to accept the co2 back (by mechanisms such as ocean absorption and rock and earth reabsorption)

You've got to be out of your scientifically-illiterate warmizombie-indoctrinated mind. Any atmospheric CO2 that makes it into the ocean is almost immediately released back into the atmosphere when ocean water EVAPORATES. I don't know if anyone ever pulled you aside and mentioned it to you but ocean water evaporation is kind of an ongoing thing.


keepit wrote: The earth can only absorb so much at a time

I hear what you're saying. There's no way that there are enough plants to absorb some more CO2. Yeah, you're absolutely right. That can't happen.


.


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
21-01-2020 22:21
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN and IBDM,
Sorry for the amateurish description of the carbon cycle. I'm just an amateur scientist (but i did stay at a Holiday Inn).
Anyway, no one is claiming CO2 traps the flow of thermal energy to outer space. Get over it. What it does is slow it.
No one is claiming that ocean water doesn't evaporate either. Get over it.
Also, i didn't mention anything about plants.
Re: CO2 going back and forth between that atmosphere and the ocean. Noone is claiming that CO2 isn't always going back and forth. The issue is the net flow.
I don't know how anyone figured out about the 1000 years except from proxies like ice cores.
The point is that large amounts of CO2 get moved under tectonic plates and that is a net decrease in surface CO2 but it is a slower process than the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2.
No need for complaints about english (subjunctives and the like) here and no need for semantic discussions. Better to address the general idea.
By the way, venus doesn't have tectonic plates and that is why the CO2 built up to such a high level.
21-01-2020 22:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
ITN and IBDM,
Sorry for the amateurish description of the carbon cycle. I'm just an amateur scientist (but i did stay at a Holiday Inn).
Anyway, no one is claiming CO2 traps the flow of thermal energy to outer space. Get over it. What it does is slow it.

That is the same as trapping it. Which is it, dude?
keepit wrote:
No one is claiming that ocean water doesn't evaporate either. Get over it.

Contextomy fallacy.
keepit wrote:
Also, i didn't mention anything about plants.

Contextomy fallacy.
keepit wrote:
Re: CO2 going back and forth between that atmosphere and the ocean. Noone is claiming that CO2 isn't always going back and forth. The issue is the net flow.

Zero. Guess why.
keepit wrote:
I don't know how anyone figured out about the 1000 years

They didn't. It's a made up number.
keepit wrote:
except from proxies like ice cores.

Proxies are not used in science.
keepit wrote:
The point is that large amounts of CO2 get moved under tectonic plates and that is a net decrease in surface CO2

Argument from randU fallacy. You don't know how much CO2 is below any tectonic plate.
keepit wrote:
but it is a slower process than the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2.

Argument from randU fallacy. False dichotomy fallacy. It is not possible to measure where CO2 comes from. It makes no difference. CO2 is CO2. There is no magick label on it.
keepit wrote:
No need for complaints about english (subjunctives and the like) here and no need for semantic discussions. Better to address the general idea.

Okay. Your general ideas are bogus. They are based on argument from randU fallacies and false dichotomies.
keepit wrote:
By the way, venus doesn't have tectonic plates

Irrelevance fallacy. Venus does have tectonic plates, though interaction between plates is different than on Earth, due to the high temperatures.
keepit wrote:
and that is why the CO2 built up to such a high level.

You have no idea where the CO2 on Venus came from.


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
21-01-2020 23:00
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
That's a whole lot of misinterpretation ITN. I bet you do it on purpose.

If i remember correctly, the CO2 on venus came from volcanic outgassing.

I don't have a clue what randU is.
Edited on 21-01-2020 23:18
21-01-2020 23:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
That's a whole lot of misinterpretation ITN.
I'm not interpreting anything. YOU are. Inversion fallacy.
keepit wrote:
If i remember correctly, the CO2 on venus came from volcanic outgassing.
I bet you were there to watch it happen too. :laugh:
keepit wrote:
I don't have a clue what randU is.

A randU is a type of random number thought up out of someone's head, or numbers from an algorithm thought up out of someone's head to produce random numbers. It is also known as the 'psuedo' random number. It is one of three types of random numbers.

The term comes from random number mathematics. The other types are:
randR, or the type of random number similar to what dice produce. It has no memory.
randN, or the type of random number similar to what cards produces. It has a memory.

Using random numbers as 'data' is an argument from randU fallacy.

The number need not be an actual number. Psuedo values like 'everyone' or 'most' or 'no one' are often used in a similar way. They are also randU values.


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
Edited on 21-01-2020 23:49
22-01-2020 00:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:
Carbon cycle....co2 is cycled out at a certain rate which is dominated by the earth's and ocean's ability to accept the co2 back ....


That makes sense. Let's find some citation and study on that.
22-01-2020 00:23
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Tmid,
I read it somewhere. I didn't make it up. I'll try to find something.

ITN,
Thanks for explaining randU. It sounds like just various people's opinions. Claiming that isn't any kind of evidence of anything though.
22-01-2020 00:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I read it somewhere. I didn't make it up. I'll try to find something.

ITN,
Thanks for explaining randU. It sounds like just various people's opinions. Claiming that isn't any kind of evidence of anything though.


It is largely used to embellish someone's opinion. Using a random number as 'data' is the 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
22-01-2020 00:58
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
It sounds like using the word "fact" to embellish one's own opinion. thanks for the explanation.
22-01-2020 01:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
It sounds like using the word "fact" to embellish one's own opinion. thanks for the explanation.


Heh. In a lot of ways, it is. Nice comparison!


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
22-01-2020 01:41
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
Carbon cycle....co2 is cycled out at a certain rate which is dominated by the earth's and ocean's ability to accept the co2 back ....


That makes sense. Let's find some citation and study on that.



It depends on how you consider it. Deforestation reduces the ability of forests to absorb CO2. The oceans are considered a carbon sink.
This might be a good place for you to start;

The ocean, a carbon sink
03/12/2016

A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that absorbs and stores the atmosphere's carbon with physical and biological mechanisms. Coal, oil, natural gases, methane hydrate and limestone are all examples of carbon sinks. After long processes and under certain conditions, these sinks have stored carbon for millennia. On the contrary, the use of these resources, considered as fossil, re-injects the carbon they hold into the atmosphere. Nowadays, other carbon sinks come into play: humus storing soils (such as peatlands), some vegetalizing environments (such as forming forests) and of course some biological and physical processes which take place in a marine environment.
https://ocean-climate.org/?p=3896&lang=en
22-01-2020 04:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I read it somewhere. I didn't make it up. I'll try to find something.
Didn't doubt you for a moment. And that's not all on you I'll try to look for stuff too. It's interesting.
Good start:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

keepit wrote:
It sounds like using the word "fact" to embellish one's own opinion. thanks for the explanation.
When a word is used incorrectly or false claims are made we should always point that out.
Edited on 22-01-2020 04:18
22-01-2020 05:17
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Tmid,
I found several sources saying CO2 last hundreds to thousands of years in the atmosphere but no explanation of why.
Maybe it's as simple as the earth can only reabsorb so much CO2 in a given amount of time.


I think when the temp goes up for whatever reason, CO2 quickly increase and then there is a snowball effect.
Edited on 22-01-2020 05:17
22-01-2020 05:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit wrote: Anyway, no one is claiming CO2 traps the flow of thermal energy to outer space.

I so totally believe you when you pretend to speak for everyone.

keepit wrote: What it does is slow it.

I so totally believe you when you tell me that earth's thermal radiation is "slowed" to something less than the speed of light. It's all so obvious now that you cleared that up.

keepit wrote: No one is claiming that ocean water doesn't evaporate either.

You did. Your words only make sense within the context of the ocean absorbing and accumulating that "additional CO2." You clearly have no understanding that there is a rapid cycle with CO2 being released immediately upon evaporation of the water. You are a moron, plain and simple. To this day I can't recall anything that you have gotten right. And to this day you continue to take pride in getting everything wrong.

keepit wrote: Also, i didn't mention anything about plants.

That's exactly my point. You should have. Apparently the concept of plants never occurred to you.

keepit wrote: I don't know how anyone figured out about the 1000 years except from proxies like ice cores. The point is that large amounts of CO2 get moved under tectonic plates and that is a net decrease in surface CO2 but it is a slower process than the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2.

WACKY religious dogma, nothing more. You are not an amateur scientist, you are street corner preacher of Global Warming. If you ever wonder why people are avoiding you it's because they don't want verbal labotomy.

keepit wrote: Noone is claiming ...

I'm not reading any more of your post. You don't speak for anyone but yourself, and you're a moron.


.


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
22-01-2020 06:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:...when the temp goes up for whatever reason, CO2 quickly increase and then there is a snowball effect.
Most feedback counteracts an event so I don't think is "pure snowball" so to speak : )
Like radiance in general is the 4th power of temperature so the hotter something is the more rapidly it loses that extra energy.

It makes sense that if you toss in an extra dose of something into a cycle it will take a while for it to totally return to normal. It doesn't have to be the same CO2 molecules of course but the total being being impacted by the extra dose.

I vaguely recall atmospheric nuclear testing being a source of evidence on the half life for extra CO2 bucause an isotope was produced.
22-01-2020 07:02
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Tmid,
Climate has positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks. The co2 in water is expelled when the temp of the water goes up and the opposite when it goes down.
22-01-2020 07:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
Climate has positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks. The co2 in water is expelled when the temp of the water goes up and the opposite when it goes down.
Yes indeed. But there are both.

Most of the "tipping point" stuff seems to be about melting ice raising the emissivity of Earth right?

The ocean may degass more CO2 as it heats up but it will also absorb more if more is present.
22-01-2020 07:07
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
IBDM,
That last post of yours was another one where you got almost everything wrong, even simple sentences that weren't of science. I think you deliberately misinterpret just like ITN. It's annoying. I hope you do ignore my posts so that you'll quit annoying me.
ITN has aviation in common with me so i kind of like that.
22-01-2020 07:12
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Tmid,
I'm still trying to understand the ramifications of emissivity. I do know that emissivity is correlated with wavelength.
I agree with what you said about CO2 and the ocean. I just don't know the magnitude of the opposing effects. You being a mathematician might be able to calculate better on that.
22-01-2020 07:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I'm still trying to understand the ramifications of emissivity. I do know that emissivity is correlated with wavelength.
I agree with what you said about CO2 and the ocean. I just don't know the magnitude of the opposing effects. You being a mathematician might be able to calculate better on that.
Woah! I'm no mathematician. Just some High School level skills.

Emissivity is just how much radiance is not reflected so it's the opposite of albedo. White and shiny is a high albedo and a low emissivity, black velvet the opposite.

But yeah it can be very different for visible light and infrared
22-01-2020 07:36
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
It seems like you're right about melting ice causing the emissivity to get closer to 1.

I'm not sure though. Less albedo would seem to make earth more of a black body?
Edited on 22-01-2020 07:38
22-01-2020 18:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit wrote:
Tmid, Climate has positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks. The co2 in water is expelled when the temp of the water goes up and the opposite when it goes down.

You have to admit that there is no unambiguously defined "Climate" that has any feedbacks.

keepit wrote: The co2 in water is expelled when the temp of the water goes up and the opposite when it goes down.

What is the "opposite"? Does the CO2 expel the water when the temperature goes down?

I'm wondering if Branner hired the comedy-writers guild to post here and you are their avatar.


.


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
22-01-2020 19:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
Climate has positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks. The co2 in water is expelled when the temp of the water goes up and the opposite when it goes down.


Climate has no magick 'feedbacks'. Climate has no quantitative values.


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
22-01-2020 19:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
Climate has positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks. The co2 in water is expelled when the temp of the water goes up and the opposite when it goes down.
Yes indeed. But there are both.

Most of the "tipping point" stuff seems to be about melting ice raising the emissivity of Earth right?

The ocean may degass more CO2 as it heats up but it will also absorb more if more is present.


There is no 'tipping point'. Unstable systems would have triggered long ago.


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
22-01-2020 19:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
That last post of yours was another one where you got almost everything wrong, even simple sentences that weren't of science. I think you deliberately misinterpret just like ITN. It's annoying. I hope you do ignore my posts so that you'll quit annoying me.
ITN has aviation in common with me so i kind of like that.


Inversion 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
22-01-2020 19:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I'm still trying to understand the ramifications of emissivity. I do know that emissivity is correlated with wavelength.

There is no frequency term in emissivity.
keepit wrote:
I agree with what you said about CO2 and the ocean. I just don't know the magnitude of the opposing effects. You being a mathematician might be able to calculate better on that.

He is not a mathematician. He denies mathematics.


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
22-01-2020 19:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I'm still trying to understand the ramifications of emissivity. I do know that emissivity is correlated with wavelength.
I agree with what you said about CO2 and the ocean. I just don't know the magnitude of the opposing effects. You being a mathematician might be able to calculate better on that.
Woah! I'm no mathematician. Just some High School level skills.

Emissivity is just how much radiance is not reflected so it's the opposite of albedo. White and shiny is a high albedo and a low emissivity, black velvet the opposite.

But yeah it can be very different for visible light and infrared

Emissivity has no frequency term. You are again denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


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
22-01-2020 19:26
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
You're funny IBDM. I guess you're not aggravating all the time.
22-01-2020 22:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:black body?
Black body is just an emissivity of 1.0, perfectly absorptive at all frequencies. So yeah we'd get close to absorbing more with dark blue ocean water or dirt replacing bright white ice and snow for the visible light spectrum.
22-01-2020 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:black body?
Black body is just an emissivity of 1.0, perfectly absorptive at all frequencies. So yeah we'd get close to absorbing more with dark blue ocean water or dirt replacing bright white ice and snow for the visible light spectrum.

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
22-01-2020 23:59
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
wiki says that emissivity is influenced by wavelength.
23-01-2020 00:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
wiki says that emissivity is influenced by wavelength.

Wiki is wrong, like usual. Reference dismissed. You cannot use Wikipedia with me.


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
23-01-2020 04:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
wiki says that emissivity is influenced by wavelength.

If you want proof of that just take snow, very on topic here. Ask yourself what the emissivity of snow is to visible light? 96%? Of course not. Black bodies are, after all, black.

But look at it's emissivity to infrared light on this table:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-emissivity-d_432.html

"Snow 0.969 - 0.997"

This is what I found confusing at first before I realized when they don't tell you what wavelength they are measuring at it's infrared (I think).

Here they specify:
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table

"Infrared Emissivity Table
Snow 0.80"

So it can be frustrating to lookup online.

Here you see the albedo charted:


As you get to the infra red you can see even pure white snow is almost completely absorpitive, as good as black paint.
Edited on 23-01-2020 04:02
23-01-2020 20:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
ITN, wiki says that emissivity is influenced by wavelength.

If you want proof of that just take snow, very on topic here.


Let's look at what we know, shall we?

1) keepit has yet to get anything right.
2) Wikipedia is awash in errors, and keepit insists on treating it like an authoritative source. That explains a lot.
3) tmiddles only wants to disrupt conversations and here he is rushing to agree with keepit to perpetuate errors promulgated in Wikipedia.
4) both keepit and tmiddles are scientifically illiterate morons who only want to sow confusion and to glorify the physics violations of their Climate Change religion so they are happy amplify Wikipedia's gross conflation of blackbody "emissivity" which has no wavelength term, and the radiativity of substances that varies by substance and by wavelength.

Ergo, the preceding post is summarily dismissed in its entirely.


.


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
23-01-2020 22:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
ITN,
wiki says that emissivity is influenced by wavelength.

If you want proof of that just take snow, very on topic here. Ask yourself what the emissivity of snow is to visible light? 96%? Of course not. Black bodies are, after all, black.

Emissivity has no frequency term.
tmiddles wrote:
But look at it's emissivity to infrared light on this table:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-emissivity-d_432.html

"Snow 0.969 - 0.997"

This is what I found confusing at first before I realized when they don't tell you what wavelength they are measuring at it's infrared (I think).

Emissivity has no frequency term.
tmiddles wrote:
Here they specify:
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table

"Infrared Emissivity Table
Snow 0.80"

So it can be frustrating to lookup online.

Emissivity has no frequency term. Snow varies in its emissivity.
tmiddles wrote:
Here you see the albedo charted:

Emissivity has no frequency term.
tmiddles wrote:
As you get to the infra red you can see even pure white snow is almost completely absorpitive, as good as black paint.

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
23-01-2020 23:33
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN and IBDM,
You both keep saying countless times that emissivity has no frequency term.
Nevertheless frequency influences emissivity.
It's kind of like this - the velocity of a wave is influenced by frequency yet when you calculate the time it takes for the wave to get to a certain place you use the term velocity without discussing the wavelength.
It is similar to emissivity and SB law. Emissivity was influenced by wavelengh in coming to the SB conclusions.
24-01-2020 00:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
ITN and IBDM,
You both keep saying countless times that emissivity has no frequency term.
Because it doesn't, and people keep trying to add it, including you. Attempting to add additional terms to emissivity or the Stefan-Boltzmann law is denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
keepit wrote:
Nevertheless frequency influences emissivity.

Emissivity has no frequency term.
keepit wrote:
It's kind of like this - the velocity of a wave is influenced by frequency yet when you calculate the time it takes for the wave to get to a certain place you use the term velocity without discussing the wavelength.
The speed of light is not influenced by its frequency.
keepit wrote:
It is similar to emissivity and SB law.
Neither has a frequency term.
keepit wrote:
Emissivity was influenced by wavelengh in coming to the SB conclusions.

Emissivity has not frequency term. The Stefan-Boltzmann law 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
Page 3 of 6<12345>>>





Join the debate 22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming16103-06-2020 20:20
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
man made or natural31527-01-2020 21:32
The Only Way To End The Economic Trade War Is Avoid The "Currency Middle Man"120-01-2020 06:06
Best place to live in Europe( could also recommend some other place) for health reasons?1901-01-2020 10:33
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact