Remember me
▼ Content

22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming



Page 1 of 6123>>>
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming16-12-2019 11:52
One Punch ManProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(134)
Below is an article I wrote (updated) explaining (with 22 arguments) why the CAGW-theory is wrong and misleading: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/20-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made.html


Nathan-D
16-12-2019 15:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
One Punch Man wrote:
Below is an article I wrote (updated) explaining (with 22 arguments) why the CAGW-theory is wrong and misleading: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/20-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made.html


Clickable link:
https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/20-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made.html

Really solid and well written stuff! I like it a lot. My questions in bold.
1. Very little CO2 creates very little effect
2. CO2 is trivial compared to Water, the big boss of greenhouse gases
3. CO2 put into the air doesn't last that long: how long though?
4. A huge spike in CO2 has not produced a spike in temp. What about theory the effect is delayed?
5. CO2 has diminishing effects beyond 20 ppmv. Is ppmv the same as ppm?
6. Ice core data skews to showing there was less CO2 than there was.
7. We are warming as much now as in the 1800s. Yes! See my post: Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?
8. Clouds cause global warming. Yes! see Leitwolfs post: Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs
The CO2 mania could be a bit like the fat guy trying to argue his drinking diet coke is the lynch pin in the strategy to stay slim.
9. There is an unknown source of CO2. Couldn't it just be positive feedback (plant growth) and the fluctuations you get with anything in the real world?
10. CO2 will leave the atmosphere in 10-20 years
11. Oops there is no 11
12. So far the predictions have been wrong
13. The Climate is far less sensitive than the IPCC claims
14. Dumb people think Hurricanes are now worse, they aren't.
15. CO2 is good for plants
16. Historical data on a greenhouse effect may not show it more minimal in the past than now
17. The sea is rising, now as in the past, so no news there (same as #7).
18. IPCC models overstate the degree to which GHGs are trapping radiance.
19. VENUS, almost pure CO2, doesn't only show a GHG effect. Wouldn't it be fair to say that VENUS shows us something other than a simple greenhouse effect is playing a major roll in it's temperature? Also you say: "Venus is actually 740K, requiring a radiative-enhancement by the atmospheric CO2-greenhouse of ~16,000 W/m2 (by the S-B law*1)." Are you saying that CO2 would have to account for the increase in temp instantaneously? That there couldn't be a gradual accumulation of thermal energy? VENUS just as hot at night so of course the thermal energy is accumulated. So that math doesn't sound right to me.
20. Methane doesn't have much impact
21. ACIDIFICATION! of the oceans is not out of the normal range
22. link to video https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=46&v=3PWtaackIJU Bjorn Lomborg ! talks about how droughts, hurricanes and other things are not increasing. I love this guy!

So I didn't read everything carefully yet but I really like your work.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
16-12-2019 17:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
One Punch Man wrote:
Below is an article I wrote (updated) explaining (with 22 arguments) why the CAGW-theory is wrong and misleading: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/20-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made.html


You should have run your article by me before going final. I could have pointed out some errors that need to be fixed:


This post lists 22 scientific reasons

You really don't use science in your post as a basis for your arguments.

It's my opinion that anthropogenic global warming is minuscule at 0.0018°C per 1ppmv of CO2

There is no such relationship. No such AGW formula exists in science.

1) CO2 has quite a trivial warming effect.

CO2 does not have a trivial warming effect. It has no warming effect at all.

The effects of CO2 are overwhelmed by water vapour.

Water vapor has no effect either. The zero effect of water vapor cannot overwhelm the zero effect of CO2.

The 13C/12C ratio confirms that CO2 has a small life-time and because of this short life-time there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere.

CO2 molecules does not contain metadata tags specifying whether the chemical events that caused their individual creation involved undefined "human activity."

The demonstrable impotence of atmospheric CO2 as the driver of global warming is evidenced by the fact that from 1998 to 2012 the global temperature increased at the risible rate of 0.05°C per decade

We cannot calculate the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy, much less to within far less than one degree Celsius. There's no way for any human to ascertain a change in the earth's average global temperature.

CO2 behaves somewhat logarithmically and the more of it there is in the atmosphere the less warming each molecule should have.

There is no effect, much less a logarithmic one.

THE FORCING FROM ATMOSPHERIC CO2 DECAYS LOGARITHMICALLY

There is no such thing as a "forcing" or a "miracle" in science.

The ice-core data is not representative of true paleo-climate CO2 levels.

This statement is correct, except that the entire section that follows needs to specify that any conclusions drawn can only be about CO2 levels at some point upstream from flow of the ice ... with huge gaps missing in the record, i.e. huge uncertainty as to when anything happened regarding that CO2.

Any conclusions outside of that are totally bogus.

The rate of warming is not unusual.

The rate of warming, or of cooling, is imperceptible and not measurable. We cannot classify it in any way other than "negligible."

Global warming is explainable by clouds.

... only by means of voodoo magic.

The mathematical properties of the growth curves for the human CO2-emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the anthropogenic one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise.

Unfortunately we do not know the earth's average atmospheric levels of CO2. CO2 is distributed very unevenly throughout the atmosphere and is absorbed by plantlife which, as of the last check, is rather abundant on the planet. Places that claim to measure atmospheric CO2 can only measure at one particular point. Places like Mauna Loa that happen to be near an active volcano irreparably skew the data. Unfortunately, places like Mauna Loa decide to go for broke and actively fudge data, and any data that isn't sufficiently fudged is fabricated. Ergo, we don't have the means to know the earth's average global atmospheric CO2 levels, it is unevenly distributed, it is transparent so we can't see it, and the data we have is bogus.

Anthropogenic CO2 should not take hundreds or thousands of years to be removed from the atmosphere.

CO2 molecules does not contain metadata tags specifying whether the chemical events that caused their individual creation involved undefined "human activity."

The predictive performance of the CAGW-models have been completely refuted by real-world observations.

It is a myth that there are actually any "climate models" ... ergo it is simply an urban legend that CAGW-models have been completely refuted. There aren't any CAGW-modles in the first place.

According to the IPCC, in AR5, the solar forcing since pre-industrial times has been small, amounting to only 0.05 W/m2. However, there are various reconstructions that show a large increase in TSI since pre-industrial times.

So what? All you have said is that there has been at least one person who has speculated a large TSI increase in recent years. Big deal. You didn't even name this/these person/people.

The global sea level has been rising long before human CO2-emissions became a significant factor — post-1950 (see graph below).

It is a myth that the ocean is somehow known to be rising. There has not been any such measurements. In fact, there are simple things that any rational person can do to convince oneself that the ocean has not, in fact, risen perceptibly since 1950.

Compelling evidence the IPCC's models misrepresent the Earth's climate is shown in the graph below.

Nothing can misprepresent the earth's Climate because there is no such thing. No human has ever unambiguously defined "Climate" such that physics can apply to it. In fact, all humans who insist that there is such a thing as a "global climate" refuse to unambiguously define it, preferring to leave it as the logical contradiction that it is. Ergo, it cannot be "misrepresented."

This claim is dubious and due to Venus' high albedo,

You don't know what Venus' albedo is, nobody does.

The threat from methane has been overblown.

This implies that a threat from methane has actually been established. Besides a threat of bad odor, no other threat has been established with respect to methane.

Firstly, the term 'acidify' is a misnomer, because the current average ocean pH is assumed to be between 7.9 to 8.0 (depending on the source) below an assumed pre-industrial level of 8.2 and that is very much alkaline. Secondly, while humans are assumed to have contributed to the change in ocean pH, it can change naturally, and has done so in the past, due to things such as temperature, eutrophication and biological activity.

The ocean's average pH is no known. Ergo, no one can validly claim that the ocean's pH has risen. Natural geological activity is responsible for the ocean being alkaline to the extent that it is (~8.1, +/- 0.2) and unless you can show that geological activity has ceased, you would have a difficult time making a convincing argument that the ocean pH is decreasing.


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
16-12-2019 21:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
One Punch Man wrote:
Below is an article I wrote (updated) explaining (with 22 arguments) why the CAGW-theory is wrong and misleading: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/20-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-man-made.html


A blog made by idiots for idiots, full of misrepresentations and downright lies, and an assault against basic scientific understanding.

I feel dumber for having read it.

You will feel right at home here.


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.
16-12-2019 22:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
spot wrote:...misrepresentations and downright lies, ...
The thing about lying (and I didn't see any) is that you can prove someone is lying by showing just one lie. So you don't even have to have a cogent argument against 22 points Spot. Pick one.

IBdaMann wrote:
No human has ever unambiguously defined "Climate"
And I wouldn't waste too much time on this guy One Punch Man, he doesn't believe the temperature of Denver is knowable. ITN/IBD never make a point other than that no one is allowed to talk about these things.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 16-12-2019 23:44
16-12-2019 23:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:...misrepresentations and downright lies, ...
The think about lying (and I didn't see any) is that you can prove someone is lying by showing just one lie. So you don't even have to have a cogent argument against 22 points Spot. Pick one.

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
16-12-2019 23:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:...misrepresentations and downright lies, ...
The think about lying (and I didn't see any) is that you can prove someone is lying by showing just one lie. So you don't even have to have a cogent argument against 22 points Spot. Pick one.


I doubt the poster complied it

Claim 1) The claim that trivial warming effect, The warming effects of CO2 vs water vapour are well understood. CO2 remains in the atmosphere and is well mixed so it effects places such as the arctic regions that have very little water vapour. the word logarithmic is used with no attempt to say whether we are near a point where that is becoming an issue.

Claim 2) again the effects of water vapour and CO2 are well understood, increased C02 allows for increased water vapour this is basic atmospheric physics if you read Tyndall you will know that this has been known for a long time.


Claim 3) there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere. pre-industral levels of CO2 were 280 ppm its currently 410.ppm that is 46%

claim 4) more stuff about logarithmic forcing, we are no where near saturation and we dont want to be.

Claim 5) its depending on a graph by Geroge Beck, this graph is considered a joke. if its not a joke where did all the carbon come from and go too just before we systemically looked at it. why did it fluctuate wildly when instruments were not so good stabilize a bit and then go to shit during the disruption of the WWII?
Why are other sources of estimating the pre war CO2 levels so different?

I would love to go through and do all the claims but time is against me.


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.
17-12-2019 00:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
spot wrote:
Claim 1) ...CO2 vs water vapour...Claim 2) again the effects of water vapour and CO2 ...
The amount of water vapor in the air is massive compared with the amount of CO2 though. This is certainly not a lie.

spot wrote: Claim 3) there is only a tiny percentage of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere. pre-industral levels of CO2 were 280 ppm its currently 410.ppm that is 46%...
Good point!

spot wrote:
claim 4) ...logarithmic ...saturation and we dont want to be. ...
Yes but many of the points are about how future predictions, not the present day, are off base in the IPCC and other's assessments.

spot wrote:
Claim 5) its depending on a graph by Geroge Beck, this graph is considered a joke.
OK why don't we dig into this one. It's claimed that the data is reliable:


I've certainly never seen this graph before. I would think looking at 1940 having over 400 PPMV should be pretty justifiable. I know the 22 points include the claim that ice core data understates ancient CO2 levels and most graphs prior to having Moana Loa just use ice cores.

The graphs certainly don't agree.

Question is how was the Beck graph's data obtained.

Thank you spot.
17-12-2019 21:11
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
7) The rate of warming is not unusual;

The fact is most record years are recent

Top 10 warmest years (NOAA)
(1880–2018)
Rank Year Anomaly °C
1 2016 0.94
2 2015 0.90
3 2017 0.84
4 2018 0.77
5 2014 0.74
6 2010 0.70
7 2013 0.66
8 2005 0.65
9 2009 0.64
10 1998 0.63

I would argue its not the rate but the warming itself that is the prime issue

8)Global warming is explainable by clouds:

Perhaps changes in cloud cover do affect temperature. that begs the question what is driving those changes. CO2 is the only driver that explains that.

9)The mathematical properties of the growth curves for the human CO2-emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the anthropogenic one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise.

Yes not all the CO2 rise is due to fossil fuels its due to things like forest fires and land use changes and melting perma-frost. except for land use these things are because its getting hotter. they are positive feedbacks we know about them and its not good news.

10) I don't really have the expertise or have heard of the study cited but considering the quality of the rest of the blog I would have to look into it in detail I hope it's right, I doubt it is.

11) What is a citizen audit? do citizens audit papers on exoplanets as well?

12) The predictive performance of the CAGW-models have been completely refuted by real-world observations. No it was predicted to get hotter, it is getting hotter.

13) The IPCC may have overestimated climate sensitivity. you can point to papers that say that, most recent ones seem to say they got it about right or underestimated it. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/08/sensible-questions-on-climate-sensitivity/

14) A widespread misconception disseminated by the media is that humans are making hurricanes worse.


Its not unreasonable to think putting more energy in a system makes the system more energetic Refuting that point is beyond my expertise and requires alot of detail.


15) Far from being environmentally deleterious, CO2 is a vital requirement for all life on the Earth The forests around Sidney are loving this extra CO2. at the moment .Life is adapted to the conditions we have changing that is not going to be a benefit. it might possibly benefit some species but they might be pest species. CO2 is not the limiting factor anyway in plants growth. you can have as much CO2 as you like but if its too hot and too dry the plant is going to die.


16) According to the IPCC, in AR5, the solar forcing since pre-industrial times has been small, amounting to only 0.05 W/m2

changes in solar output makes sense but we have no evidence and we know that CO2 levels are increasing, sounds like wishful thinking.

Times running out tonight for an indepth post.


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.
17-12-2019 21:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
spot wrote:
7) The rate of warming is not unusual;

The temperature of Earth is unknown. We don't know if it's warming, cooling, or just staying the same.
spot wrote:
I would argue its not the rate but the warming itself that is the prime issue

From when to when? Define 'global warming'.
spot wrote:
8)Global warming is explainable by clouds:

Define 'global warming'. Earth's cloud coverage constantly changes. There is no fixed global cloud cover.
spot wrote:
Perhaps changes in cloud cover do affect temperature. that begs the question what is driving those changes. CO2 is the only driver that explains that.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from Earth's surface. You can't create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
9)The mathematical properties of the growth curves for the human CO2-emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the anthropogenic one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise.

The atmosphere is not rising. It's rather stuck on Earth due to Earth's gravity.
spot wrote:
Yes not all the CO2 rise is due to fossil fuels

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
spot wrote:
its due to things like forest fires and land use changes and melting perma-frost.

Perma frost isn't 'melting' (the top layer melts and refreezes seasonally).
spot wrote:
except for land use these things are because its getting hotter.

The temperature of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
they are positive feedbacks we know about them and its not good news.

There are no feedbacks. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
12) The predictive performance of the CAGW-models have been completely refuted by real-world observations. No it was predicted to get hotter, it is getting hotter.

The temperature of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
13) The IPCC may have overestimated climate sensitivity. you can point to papers that say that, most recent ones seem to say they got it about right or underestimated it. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/08/sensible-questions-on-climate-sensitivity/

'Climate' is a subjective word. It has no 'sensitivity' or even a value of any kind.
spot wrote:
14) A widespread misconception disseminated by the media is that humans are making hurricanes worse.

The data at the National Hurricane Center notes no marked increase in the frequency or strength of storms.
spot wrote:
Its not unreasonable to think putting more energy in a system makes the system more energetic Refuting that point is beyond my expertise and requires alot of detail.

Fine. Assuming the Sun's output is constant, where is all this extra energy coming from?
spot wrote:
15) Far from being environmentally deleterious, CO2 is a vital requirement for all life on the Earth The forests around Sidney are loving this extra CO2. at the moment .Life is adapted to the conditions we have changing that is not going to be a benefit. it might possibly benefit some species but they might be pest species. CO2 is not the limiting factor anyway in plants growth. you can have as much CO2 as you like but if its too hot and too dry the plant is going to die.

Plants are not sensitive to temperature (other than freezes). They are sensitive only to light and availability of water and soil nutrients.
spot wrote:
16) According to the IPCC, in AR5, the solar forcing since pre-industrial times has been small, amounting to only 0.05 W/m2

The IPCC is full of shit.
spot wrote:
changes in solar output makes sense but we have no evidence

No? We actually CAN get a rough idea of the power emitted by the Sun. We have also noted that polar ice caps on Mars wax and wane just like Earth's, and at the same time.
spot wrote:
and we know that CO2 levels are increasing, sounds like wishful thinking.

It actually is not possible to measure a global atmospheric CO2 content. A few dozen stations are not enough, and CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Further, the Mauna Loa data is cooked. It's useless.


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
18-12-2019 00:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
7) The rate of warming is not unusual;

The temperature of Earth is unknown. We don't know if it's warming, cooling, or just staying the same.
spot wrote:
I would argue its not the rate but the warming itself that is the prime issue

From when to when? Define 'global warming'.
spot wrote:
8)Global warming is explainable by clouds:

Define 'global warming'. Earth's cloud coverage constantly changes. There is no fixed global cloud cover.
spot wrote:
Perhaps changes in cloud cover do affect temperature. that begs the question what is driving those changes. CO2 is the only driver that explains that.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from Earth's surface. You can't create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
9)The mathematical properties of the growth curves for the human CO2-emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the anthropogenic one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise.

The atmosphere is not rising. It's rather stuck on Earth due to Earth's gravity.
spot wrote:
Yes not all the CO2 rise is due to fossil fuels

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
spot wrote:
its due to things like forest fires and land use changes and melting perma-frost.

Perma frost isn't 'melting' (the top layer melts and refreezes seasonally).
spot wrote:
except for land use these things are because its getting hotter.

The temperature of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
they are positive feedbacks we know about them and its not good news.

There are no feedbacks. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
12) The predictive performance of the CAGW-models have been completely refuted by real-world observations. No it was predicted to get hotter, it is getting hotter.

The temperature of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
13) The IPCC may have overestimated climate sensitivity. you can point to papers that say that, most recent ones seem to say they got it about right or underestimated it. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/08/sensible-questions-on-climate-sensitivity/

'Climate' is a subjective word. It has no 'sensitivity' or even a value of any kind.
spot wrote:
14) A widespread misconception disseminated by the media is that humans are making hurricanes worse.

The data at the National Hurricane Center notes no marked increase in the frequency or strength of storms.
spot wrote:
Its not unreasonable to think putting more energy in a system makes the system more energetic Refuting that point is beyond my expertise and requires alot of detail.

Fine. Assuming the Sun's output is constant, where is all this extra energy coming from?
spot wrote:
15) Far from being environmentally deleterious, CO2 is a vital requirement for all life on the Earth The forests around Sidney are loving this extra CO2. at the moment .Life is adapted to the conditions we have changing that is not going to be a benefit. it might possibly benefit some species but they might be pest species. CO2 is not the limiting factor anyway in plants growth. you can have as much CO2 as you like but if its too hot and too dry the plant is going to die.

Plants are not sensitive to temperature (other than freezes). They are sensitive only to light and availability of water and soil nutrients.
spot wrote:
16) According to the IPCC, in AR5, the solar forcing since pre-industrial times has been small, amounting to only 0.05 W/m2

The IPCC is full of shit.
spot wrote:
changes in solar output makes sense but we have no evidence

No? We actually CAN get a rough idea of the power emitted by the Sun. We have also noted that polar ice caps on Mars wax and wane just like Earth's, and at the same time.
spot wrote:
and we know that CO2 levels are increasing, sounds like wishful thinking.

It actually is not possible to measure a global atmospheric CO2 content. A few dozen stations are not enough, and CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Further, the Mauna Loa data is cooked. It's useless.


If nothing is knowable there is no point discussing anything then.

Nice chat now **** off


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.
18-12-2019 01:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
7) The rate of warming is not unusual;

The temperature of Earth is unknown. We don't know if it's warming, cooling, or just staying the same.
spot wrote:
I would argue its not the rate but the warming itself that is the prime issue

From when to when? Define 'global warming'.
spot wrote:
8)Global warming is explainable by clouds:

Define 'global warming'. Earth's cloud coverage constantly changes. There is no fixed global cloud cover.
spot wrote:
Perhaps changes in cloud cover do affect temperature. that begs the question what is driving those changes. CO2 is the only driver that explains that.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from Earth's surface. You can't create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
9)The mathematical properties of the growth curves for the human CO2-emissions and atmospheric CO2 contents are unequivocal in showing that some source other than the anthropogenic one must be contributing significantly to the atmospheric rise.

The atmosphere is not rising. It's rather stuck on Earth due to Earth's gravity.
spot wrote:
Yes not all the CO2 rise is due to fossil fuels

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
spot wrote:
its due to things like forest fires and land use changes and melting perma-frost.

Perma frost isn't 'melting' (the top layer melts and refreezes seasonally).
spot wrote:
except for land use these things are because its getting hotter.

The temperature of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
they are positive feedbacks we know about them and its not good news.

There are no feedbacks. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
12) The predictive performance of the CAGW-models have been completely refuted by real-world observations. No it was predicted to get hotter, it is getting hotter.

The temperature of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
13) The IPCC may have overestimated climate sensitivity. you can point to papers that say that, most recent ones seem to say they got it about right or underestimated it. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/08/sensible-questions-on-climate-sensitivity/

'Climate' is a subjective word. It has no 'sensitivity' or even a value of any kind.
spot wrote:
14) A widespread misconception disseminated by the media is that humans are making hurricanes worse.

The data at the National Hurricane Center notes no marked increase in the frequency or strength of storms.
spot wrote:
Its not unreasonable to think putting more energy in a system makes the system more energetic Refuting that point is beyond my expertise and requires alot of detail.

Fine. Assuming the Sun's output is constant, where is all this extra energy coming from?
spot wrote:
15) Far from being environmentally deleterious, CO2 is a vital requirement for all life on the Earth The forests around Sidney are loving this extra CO2. at the moment .Life is adapted to the conditions we have changing that is not going to be a benefit. it might possibly benefit some species but they might be pest species. CO2 is not the limiting factor anyway in plants growth. you can have as much CO2 as you like but if its too hot and too dry the plant is going to die.

Plants are not sensitive to temperature (other than freezes). They are sensitive only to light and availability of water and soil nutrients.
spot wrote:
16) According to the IPCC, in AR5, the solar forcing since pre-industrial times has been small, amounting to only 0.05 W/m2

The IPCC is full of shit.
spot wrote:
changes in solar output makes sense but we have no evidence

No? We actually CAN get a rough idea of the power emitted by the Sun. We have also noted that polar ice caps on Mars wax and wane just like Earth's, and at the same time.
spot wrote:
and we know that CO2 levels are increasing, sounds like wishful thinking.

It actually is not possible to measure a global atmospheric CO2 content. A few dozen stations are not enough, and CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Further, the Mauna Loa data is cooked. It's useless.


If nothing is knowable there is no point discussing anything then.

Never said anything of the sort. Compositional error fallacy.
spot wrote:
Nice chat now **** off

You don't get to order me around. You are not the king.


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
18-12-2019 02:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...Earth is unknown.

If nothing is knowable there is no point discussing anything then.
Nice chat now **** off
Well said spot.

Sometimes it's like trying to discuss satellites on a forum overrun by flat earthers.

ITN you repeat yourself incessantly. We aren't interested in hearing the same thing over and over again.

spot wrote:
7) The rate of warming is not unusual;
The fact is most record years are recent
Top 10 warmest years (NOAA)
(1880–2018)


So this was the question I had in my first topic here about Tangier Island. Of course it's relevant that we have hit records but we were also hitting records in the 1800s which were warmer than the 1700s:

And of course the data is less reliable prior to the last 100 years. However it's very safe to say that we saw a run up in temperature in the first part of the 1900s that would not have been caused by increased CO2 because it hadn't increased yet.

So my perspective on record temps is it's consistent with unusual warming but it's not proof because there is natural warming combining with AGW if we have that. We would be in a better position to know if the trend was a reversal. Like the Earth had be gradually cooling for 500 years and right when CO2 started to increase it reversed and started warming.

So it is fair to say that it's not "unusual" to see record temps since we saw them in the 1930s.

spot wrote:
8)Global warming is explainable by clouds:
Perhaps changes in cloud cover do affect temperature. that begs the question what is driving those changes. CO2 is the only driver that explains that.
We had clouds before so I don't really think 8 is a very useful point in the first place. It should be worded "the importance of CO2 is in doubt as cloud cause a lot of the forced radiation we see"

spot wrote:
9) ... some source other than the anthropogenic

Yes not all the CO2 rise is due to fossil fuels its due to things like forest fires and land use changes and melting perma-frost
Yeah I agree. There are other activities that have to contribute. Removing a CO2 sink like a forest has the same impact as burning fossil fuel with less CO2 being pulled out of the air.

spot wrote:
12) The predictive performance of the CAGW-models have been completely refuted by real-world observations. No it was predicted to get hotter, it is getting hotter.
Yeah I think everyone can agree you can't make precise predictions. You can't have it both ways. If your premise is that you can't make a precise prediction even if you are right it makes no sense to call something wrong because the prediction didn't precisely match the outcome. I think the point made which is fair is that those believing in the ability to make a precise predicition are wrong.

spot wrote:
14) ...humans are making hurricanes worse.
Its not unreasonable to think putting more energy in a system...
Here's one where people embarrass themselves IMO. The amount of energy that's has theoretically been added by AGW would have no significant impact of hurricane strength so it's a point no one should ever try to make. Just a matter of scale. Like someone saying not to surf on the west coast after Fukashima.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 18-12-2019 02:10
18-12-2019 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...Earth is unknown.

If nothing is knowable there is no point discussing anything then.
Nice chat now **** off
Well said spot.

Not really.
tmiddles wrote:
Sometimes it's like trying to discuss satellites on a forum overrun by flat earthers.

Non-sequitur fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
ITN you repeat yourself incessantly. We aren't interested in hearing the same thing over and over again.

Lie. YOU keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and YOU keep asking the same questions that have already been answered over and over again. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
7) The rate of warming is not unusual;
The fact is most record years are recent
Top 10 warmest years (NOAA)
(1880–2018)


So this was the question I had in my first topic here about Tangier Island. Of course it's relevant that we have hit records but we were also hitting records in the 1800s which were warmer than the 1700s:

The temperature of Earth is unknown. There are no record temperatures of Earth. There is no record.
tmiddles wrote:

And of course the data is less reliable prior to the last 100 years. However it's very safe to say that we saw a run up in temperature in the first part of the 1900s that would not have been caused by increased CO2 because it hadn't increased yet.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
So my perspective on record temps is it's consistent with unusual warming

The temperature of the Earth is unknown. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
but it's not proof because there is natural warming combining with AGW if we have that.

Define 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
We would be in a better position to know if the trend was a reversal.

Word salad. Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
Like the Earth had be gradually cooling for 500 years and right when CO2 started to increase it reversed and started warming.

CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
So it is fair to say that it's not "unusual" to see record temps since we saw them in the 1930s.

There is no record of global temperature. The temperature of the Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
8)Global warming is explainable by clouds:
Perhaps changes in cloud cover do affect temperature. that begs the question what is driving those changes. CO2 is the only driver that explains that.
We had clouds before so I don't really think 8 is a very useful point in the first place. It should be worded "the importance of CO2 is in doubt as cloud cause a lot of the forced radiation we see"

Zero.
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
9) ... some source other than the anthropogenic

Yes not all the CO2 rise is due to fossil fuels its due to things like forest fires and land use changes and melting perma-frost
Yeah I agree. There are other activities that have to contribute. Removing a CO2 sink like a forest has the same impact as burning fossil fuel with less CO2 being pulled out of the air.

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
12) The predictive performance of the CAGW-models have been completely refuted by real-world observations. No it was predicted to get hotter, it is getting hotter.
Yeah I think everyone can agree you can't make precise predictions.

There are no observations. The models are built out of random numbers. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. Predictions are not possible from random numbers.
tmiddles wrote:
You can't have it both ways.

Yet you argue just exactly that. You still have not cleared this paradox.
tmiddles wrote:
If your premise is that you can't make a precise prediction even if you are right it makes no sense to call something wrong because the prediction didn't precisely match the outcome.

If a prediction doesn't match the outcome, it's wrong.
tmiddles wrote:
I think the point made which is fair is that those believing in the ability to make a precise predicition are wrong.

Prediction based on what? Random numbers. A useless prediction.
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
14) ...humans are making hurricanes worse.
Its not unreasonable to think putting more energy in a system...
Here's one where people embarrass themselves IMO. The amount of energy that's has theoretically been added by AGW

Define 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
would have no significant impact of hurricane strength so it's a point no one should ever try to make. Just a matter of scale.

Zero is zero is zero, regardless of the scale.
tmiddles wrote:
Like someone saying not to surf on the west coast after Fukashima.

Non-sequitur 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
18-12-2019 23:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'climate change'.
TROLL

No one is asking you ITN. You're just trying to clog up threads with spam. Go away.
18-12-2019 23:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'climate change'.
TROLL

No one is asking you ITN. You're just trying to clog up threads with spam. Go away.


No spam. YOU are just clogging up the threads asking questions over and over that have already been answered, and making the same fallacies over and over. Apparently you can't learn. Inversion fallacy. You don't get to order me around. You are not the king.


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 18-12-2019 23:50
18-12-2019 23:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
Into the Night wrote:YOU are just clogging up the thread
No ITN, Spot and I are actually debating some great points raised in this thread. You want to debate the dictionary.
Please go play with yourself.
19-12-2019 00:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:YOU are just clogging up the thread
No ITN, Spot and I are actually debating some great points raised in this thread.


No, you are just patting each other on the back for your religion and making up random numbers and calling it 'data', like usual.


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
19-12-2019 00:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
Into the Night wrote:
No, you are just patting each other on the back...
OK leave us to it
BYE
19-12-2019 05:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
This says it all:

Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:TROLL


You never had any intention of discussing anything on this board.


tmiddles wrote: No one is asking you ITN.

Too funny! He's the one making the request you moron. What kind of stupid response is that? You respond to a request with "No one is asking you." You are the troll you accuse others of being.

Clearly your intention is to shut down all discussions and to ruin this board. If Branner is fine with it then great, more power to you.


.


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
19-12-2019 10:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:If Branner is fine with it ...
Ha! Totally unregulated board sadly.

For the record IBD I've responded as I intend to to all of your repetitions posts. I'm not interested in debating the dictionary with you or trying to get a discussion started you dodge.
19-12-2019 16:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If Branner is fine with it ...
Ha! Totally unregulated board sadly.

You consider it sad because you want to silence any views opposed to Marxism and/or Global Warming.

... and if the moderators/censors won't, then you will.

tmiddles wrote: For the record IBD I've responded as I intend to to all of your repetitions posts.

Translation: "For the record, I fully intend to continue preaching my religious views and seeking to silence all evil discussions that do not glorify Marxism and/or Global Warming, forever and ever, amen."

Good luck with that.

tmiddles wrote: I'm not interested in debating the dictionary with you or trying to get a discussion started you dodge.

I'm not the one who tries to use the dictionary as a physics textbook. I'm not the one avoiding unambiguously defining the key terms that I use. I am not the religious preacher intent on shutting down discussions that I consider sacrilegious. I'm not the one refusing to answer legitimate questions to my assertions. I'm not the one perpetually asking the same questions and ignoring the answers because they are considered sacrilegious.

In case you are confused, that would be you. But you're not confused on this issue. It has been your intended tactic all along. You are not honest.

Nonethless, I appreciate you being here. You are a constant reminder of some very important things.


.


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
19-12-2019 17:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:I appreciate you being here.
Thanks! Please do so succinctly
19-12-2019 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If Branner is fine with it ...
Ha! Totally unregulated board sadly.

For the record IBD I've responded as I intend to to all of your repetitions posts. I'm not interested in debating the dictionary with you or trying to get a discussion started you dodge.

Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or 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
Edited on 19-12-2019 20:33
19-12-2019 22:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I appreciate you being here.
Thanks! Please do so succinctly

I never use a big word where a diminutive one will do.

.


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
21-12-2019 00:54
James___
★★★★★
(3185)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If Branner is fine with it ...
Ha! Totally unregulated board sadly.

For the record IBD I've responded as I intend to to all of your repetitions posts. I'm not interested in debating the dictionary with you or trying to get a discussion started you dodge.

Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



The Stefan-Boltzmann principle does not apply to our atmosphere. Tu sais, может быть. It's something like eбT^4A.
It would depend on what the atmosphere is doing. When it's excited then the Earth might be absorbing heat like during the day. Then at night, the atmosphere can draw heat from the Earth.
The momentum of atmospheric gases would determine if its radiating or absorbing electromagnetic radiation. That's where the Earth's momentum is constant while the momentum of atmospheric gases have fluctuates between the day and into the night where it's basically non-existent. LMAO

Edited on 21-12-2019 00:56
21-12-2019 01:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If Branner is fine with it ...
Ha! Totally unregulated board sadly.

For the record IBD I've responded as I intend to to all of your repetitions posts. I'm not interested in debating the dictionary with you or trying to get a discussion started you dodge.

Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



The Stefan-Boltzmann principle does not apply to our atmosphere.

It applies to all mass, everywhere. Even an atmosphere.


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
21-12-2019 01:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
James___ wrote: The Stefan-Boltzmann principle does not apply to our atmosphere.

Do you say this because you don't believe the atmosphere is comprised of matter?


.


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
22-12-2019 18:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented

Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea. again allot of waffel but the fact is that basic physics says warmer things are bigger that coupled with the melting ice that is happening means that sea levels will rise. You can argue about what adverbs to use all you like, it doesent change the facts.

18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof. the lines represent nothing real but have been put there by people on very few data points. The ERBE satellites are now defunct I have heard that the reason why they are against all other data is because they did not account for the deterioration in the orbit of the satellites If you are really interested you could look into this.

19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot due to the radiative-enhancement from its high atmospheric CO2 concentration (96.5%)

Venus is defiantly real its a bright star that can be seen by the the naked eye, not mythical at all the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface. if that was the case the atmosphere would be getting thicker, in fact because Venus has no magnetic field it is losing atmosphere but not at rate that would make any difference anyway. In the final analysis it is a stupid suggestion.

20) Methane is a powerfull greenhouse gas but is present in small amounts

21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify at an unprecedented rate and this will cause harm to coral reefs and marine life. Firstly, the term 'acidify' is a misnomer

In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you can argue with the corals and other sea life that is adapted for a very stable PH in the oceans about adverbs.

22) no droughts according to that study they linked I think Australia is finding out if that is true at the moment.
22-12-2019 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
spot wrote:
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented

Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea.

There is no noted rise in sea level. Atolls in the Pacific ocean during WW2 (we built airports on them) are still there. Nothing's changed.
spot wrote:
again allot of waffel but the fact is that basic physics says warmer things are bigger

Not correct. Not all substances get larger when they get warmer. Rubber is a noted exception, so is the conversion of ice to liquid water. Ice floats, you see.
spot wrote:
that coupled with the melting ice that is happening means that sea levels will rise.

If you melt floating ice, no change in sea level occurs. You can do the experiment yourself with a glass of ice water. Measure the water level, let the ice melt, then measure the water level again. It is the same.
spot wrote:
You can argue about what adverbs to use all you like, it doesent change the facts.

Not facts.
spot wrote:
18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof. the lines represent nothing real but have been put there by people on very few data points. The ERBE satellites are now defunct I have heard that the reason why they are against all other data is because they did not account for the deterioration in the orbit of the satellites If you are really interested you could look into this.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot due to the radiative-enhancement from its high atmospheric CO2 concentration (96.5%)

Venus is defiantly real its a bright star that can be seen by the the naked eye, not mythical at all the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface. if that was the case the atmosphere would be getting thicker, in fact because Venus has no magnetic field it is losing atmosphere but not at rate that would make any difference anyway. In the final analysis it is a stupid suggestion.


Venus DOES have a magnetic field, but it is not generated internally like on Earth. Instead the solar wind itself interacting with the upper atmosphere on Venus induces a magnetic field, much like a planet sized dynamo.

Venus is hot simply because it is closer to the Sun. It is hotter at the surface because the there is simply more stuff to absorb energy from the Sun and convert it to thermal energy.

spot wrote:
20) Methane is a powerfull greenhouse gas but is present in small amounts

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using Earth's own emitted IR. You can't create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify at an unprecedented rate and this will cause harm to coral reefs and marine life. Firstly, the term 'acidify' is a misnomer

In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you can argue with the corals and other sea life that is adapted for a very stable PH in the oceans about adverbs.

Not quite. You can only acidify an acid or a neutral substance (such as water).
spot wrote:
22) no droughts according to that study they linked I think Australia is finding out if that is true at the moment.

Droughts are part of normal weather. So are floods, hail, tornadoes, hurricanes and cyclones, torrential rains, etc.


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 22-12-2019 20:35
22-12-2019 20:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented

Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea.

There is no noted rise in sea level. Atolls in the Pacific ocean during WW2 (we built airports on them) are still there. Nothing's changed.
spot wrote:
again allot of waffel but the fact is that basic physics says warmer things are bigger

Not correct. Not all substances get larger when they get warmer. Rubber is a noted exception, so is the conversion of ice to liquid water. Ice floats, you see.
spot wrote:
that coupled with the melting ice that is happening means that sea levels will rise.

If you melt floating ice, no change in sea level occurs. You can do the experiment yourself with a glass of ice water. Measure the water level, let the ice melt, then measure the water level again. It is the same.
spot wrote:
You can argue about what adverbs to use all you like, it doesent change the facts.

Not facts.
spot wrote:
18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof. the lines represent nothing real but have been put there by people on very few data points. The ERBE satellites are now defunct I have heard that the reason why they are against all other data is because they did not account for the deterioration in the orbit of the satellites If you are really interested you could look into this.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot due to the radiative-enhancement from its high atmospheric CO2 concentration (96.5%)

Venus is defiantly real its a bright star that can be seen by the the naked eye, not mythical at all the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface. if that was the case the atmosphere would be getting thicker, in fact because Venus has no magnetic field it is losing atmosphere but not at rate that would make any difference anyway. In the final analysis it is a stupid suggestion.


Venus DOES have a magnetic field, but it is not generated internally like on Earth. Instead the solar wind itself interacting with the upper atmosphere on Venus induces a magnetic field, much like a planet sized dynamo.

Venus is hot simply because it is closer to the Sun. It is hotter at the surface because the there is simply more stuff to absorb energy from the Sun and convert it to thermal energy.

spot wrote:
20) Methane is a powerfull greenhouse gas but is present in small amounts

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using Earth's own emitted IR. You can't create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify at an unprecedented rate and this will cause harm to coral reefs and marine life. Firstly, the term 'acidify' is a misnomer

In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you can argue with the corals and other sea life that is adapted for a very stable PH in the oceans about adverbs.

Not quite. You can only acidify an acid or a neutral substance (such as water).
spot wrote:
22) no droughts according to that study they linked I think Australia is finding out if that is true at the moment.

Droughts are part of normal weather. So are floods, hail, tornadoes, hurricanes and cyclones, torrential rains, etc.


Since nothing is measurable according to you and no sources are valid according to you there is no point discussing anything

Fly that plane into a hill while your at it.


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.
22-12-2019 21:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented

Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea.

There is no noted rise in sea level. Atolls in the Pacific ocean during WW2 (we built airports on them) are still there. Nothing's changed.
spot wrote:
again allot of waffel but the fact is that basic physics says warmer things are bigger

Not correct. Not all substances get larger when they get warmer. Rubber is a noted exception, so is the conversion of ice to liquid water. Ice floats, you see.
spot wrote:
that coupled with the melting ice that is happening means that sea levels will rise.

If you melt floating ice, no change in sea level occurs. You can do the experiment yourself with a glass of ice water. Measure the water level, let the ice melt, then measure the water level again. It is the same.
spot wrote:
You can argue about what adverbs to use all you like, it doesent change the facts.

Not facts.
spot wrote:
18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof. the lines represent nothing real but have been put there by people on very few data points. The ERBE satellites are now defunct I have heard that the reason why they are against all other data is because they did not account for the deterioration in the orbit of the satellites If you are really interested you could look into this.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot due to the radiative-enhancement from its high atmospheric CO2 concentration (96.5%)

Venus is defiantly real its a bright star that can be seen by the the naked eye, not mythical at all the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface. if that was the case the atmosphere would be getting thicker, in fact because Venus has no magnetic field it is losing atmosphere but not at rate that would make any difference anyway. In the final analysis it is a stupid suggestion.


Venus DOES have a magnetic field, but it is not generated internally like on Earth. Instead the solar wind itself interacting with the upper atmosphere on Venus induces a magnetic field, much like a planet sized dynamo.

Venus is hot simply because it is closer to the Sun. It is hotter at the surface because the there is simply more stuff to absorb energy from the Sun and convert it to thermal energy.

spot wrote:
20) Methane is a powerfull greenhouse gas but is present in small amounts

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using Earth's own emitted IR. You can't create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify at an unprecedented rate and this will cause harm to coral reefs and marine life. Firstly, the term 'acidify' is a misnomer

In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you can argue with the corals and other sea life that is adapted for a very stable PH in the oceans about adverbs.

Not quite. You can only acidify an acid or a neutral substance (such as water).
spot wrote:
22) no droughts according to that study they linked I think Australia is finding out if that is true at the moment.

Droughts are part of normal weather. So are floods, hail, tornadoes, hurricanes and cyclones, torrential rains, etc.


Since nothing is measurable according to you

Never said any such thing.
spot wrote:
and no sources are valid according to you

Never said any such thing.
spot wrote:
there is no point discussing anything

Compositional error fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
spot wrote:
Fly that plane into a hill while your at it.

Nah. I like my airplane. I see no need to wreck it over the likes of you.


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 22-12-2019 21:47
22-12-2019 21:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented

Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea.

There is no noted rise in sea level. Atolls in the Pacific ocean during WW2 (we built airports on them) are still there. Nothing's changed.
spot wrote:
again allot of waffel but the fact is that basic physics says warmer things are bigger

Not correct. Not all substances get larger when they get warmer. Rubber is a noted exception, so is the conversion of ice to liquid water. Ice floats, you see.
spot wrote:
that coupled with the melting ice that is happening means that sea levels will rise.

If you melt floating ice, no change in sea level occurs. You can do the experiment yourself with a glass of ice water. Measure the water level, let the ice melt, then measure the water level again. It is the same.
spot wrote:
You can argue about what adverbs to use all you like, it doesent change the facts.

Not facts.
spot wrote:
18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof. the lines represent nothing real but have been put there by people on very few data points. The ERBE satellites are now defunct I have heard that the reason why they are against all other data is because they did not account for the deterioration in the orbit of the satellites If you are really interested you could look into this.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot due to the radiative-enhancement from its high atmospheric CO2 concentration (96.5%)

Venus is defiantly real its a bright star that can be seen by the the naked eye, not mythical at all the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface. if that was the case the atmosphere would be getting thicker, in fact because Venus has no magnetic field it is losing atmosphere but not at rate that would make any difference anyway. In the final analysis it is a stupid suggestion.


Venus DOES have a magnetic field, but it is not generated internally like on Earth. Instead the solar wind itself interacting with the upper atmosphere on Venus induces a magnetic field, much like a planet sized dynamo.

Venus is hot simply because it is closer to the Sun. It is hotter at the surface because the there is simply more stuff to absorb energy from the Sun and convert it to thermal energy.

spot wrote:
20) Methane is a powerfull greenhouse gas but is present in small amounts

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using Earth's own emitted IR. You can't create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify at an unprecedented rate and this will cause harm to coral reefs and marine life. Firstly, the term 'acidify' is a misnomer

In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you can argue with the corals and other sea life that is adapted for a very stable PH in the oceans about adverbs.

Not quite. You can only acidify an acid or a neutral substance (such as water).
spot wrote:
22) no droughts according to that study they linked I think Australia is finding out if that is true at the moment.

Droughts are part of normal weather. So are floods, hail, tornadoes, hurricanes and cyclones, torrential rains, etc.


Since nothing is measurable according to you

Never said any such thing.
spot wrote:
and no sources are valid according to you

Never said any such thing.
spot wrote:
there is no point discussing anything

Compositional error fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
spot wrote:
Fly that plane into a hill while your at it.

Nah. I like my airplane. I see no need to wreck it over the likes of you.


Ok; if Venus does have a magnetic field how do you know that? if like me you do not have a private spaceship and are relying on what space agencies tell you why do you trust them on magnetic fields but not on temperature readings?


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.
Edited on 22-12-2019 22:03
22-12-2019 23:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
spot wrote: Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea.

There's no alarm when there are no houses getting swallowed by the sea.

spot wrote: ... but the fact is that basic physics says warmer things are bigger that coupled with the melting ice that is happening means that sea levels will rise.

... but the fact is that basic physics says colder things are smaller, that coupled with the increasing ice sheet ice mass, it means that sea levels will lower.

You can argue about what adverbs to use all you like, it doesent change the facts.

spot wrote: ... the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface. if that was the case the atmosphere would be getting thicker,

Nope. Was it difficult to convince you to regurgitate this laughable claim?

spot wrote: In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic.

Nope.

* In chemistry, when pH moves towards 7.0, the solution is "neutralizing."
* In chemistry, a solution has "acidified" when it was previously alkaline but is now acidic, i.e. pH < 7.0
* The ocean has never acidified.
* Natural geological processes increase the ocean's pH.
* There is no process in nature that is decreasing the ocean's pH in any substantive way.

.


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
23-12-2019 01:06
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea.

There's no alarm when there are no houses getting swallowed by the sea.

spot wrote: ... but the fact is that basic physics says warmer things are bigger that coupled with the melting ice that is happening means that sea levels will rise.

... but the fact is that basic physics says colder things are smaller, that coupled with the increasing ice sheet ice mass, it means that sea levels will lower.

You can argue about what adverbs to use all you like, it doesent change the facts.

spot wrote: ... the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface. if that was the case the atmosphere would be getting thicker,

Nope. Was it difficult to convince you to regurgitate this laughable claim?

spot wrote: In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic.

Nope.

* In chemistry, when pH moves towards 7.0, the solution is "neutralizing."
* In chemistry, a solution has "acidified" when it was previously alkaline but is now acidic, i.e. pH < 7.0
* The ocean has never acidified.
* Natural geological processes increase the ocean's pH.
* There is no process in nature that is decreasing the ocean's pH in any substantive way.

.


Its not getting colder and I don't think you understand what the words mean. Hence a boring conversation.


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.
23-12-2019 06:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
spot wrote: Its not getting colder

... in the same way that it is not getting warmer.


spot wrote: Hence a boring conversation.

Correct. You are not interesting ... except to me. I find you fascinating. You are one of my favorite posters ... ever ... of all time. You totally rock.


.


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
23-12-2019 06:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Its not getting colder

... in the same way that it is not getting warmer.


spot wrote: Hence a boring conversation.

Correct. You are not interesting ... except to me. I find you fascinating. You are one of my favorite posters ... ever ... of all time. You totally rock.


.


IBdaman says its getting colder so all the evidence to the contrary that I have cited before must be wrong.

So glad I give meaning to your life by responding to your inane drivel.


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.
23-12-2019 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented

Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea.

There is no noted rise in sea level. Atolls in the Pacific ocean during WW2 (we built airports on them) are still there. Nothing's changed.
spot wrote:
again allot of waffel but the fact is that basic physics says warmer things are bigger

Not correct. Not all substances get larger when they get warmer. Rubber is a noted exception, so is the conversion of ice to liquid water. Ice floats, you see.
spot wrote:
that coupled with the melting ice that is happening means that sea levels will rise.

If you melt floating ice, no change in sea level occurs. You can do the experiment yourself with a glass of ice water. Measure the water level, let the ice melt, then measure the water level again. It is the same.
spot wrote:
You can argue about what adverbs to use all you like, it doesent change the facts.

Not facts.
spot wrote:
18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof. the lines represent nothing real but have been put there by people on very few data points. The ERBE satellites are now defunct I have heard that the reason why they are against all other data is because they did not account for the deterioration in the orbit of the satellites If you are really interested you could look into this.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot due to the radiative-enhancement from its high atmospheric CO2 concentration (96.5%)

Venus is defiantly real its a bright star that can be seen by the the naked eye, not mythical at all the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface. if that was the case the atmosphere would be getting thicker, in fact because Venus has no magnetic field it is losing atmosphere but not at rate that would make any difference anyway. In the final analysis it is a stupid suggestion.


Venus DOES have a magnetic field, but it is not generated internally like on Earth. Instead the solar wind itself interacting with the upper atmosphere on Venus induces a magnetic field, much like a planet sized dynamo.

Venus is hot simply because it is closer to the Sun. It is hotter at the surface because the there is simply more stuff to absorb energy from the Sun and convert it to thermal energy.

spot wrote:
20) Methane is a powerfull greenhouse gas but is present in small amounts

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using Earth's own emitted IR. You can't create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify at an unprecedented rate and this will cause harm to coral reefs and marine life. Firstly, the term 'acidify' is a misnomer

In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you can argue with the corals and other sea life that is adapted for a very stable PH in the oceans about adverbs.

Not quite. You can only acidify an acid or a neutral substance (such as water).
spot wrote:
22) no droughts according to that study they linked I think Australia is finding out if that is true at the moment.

Droughts are part of normal weather. So are floods, hail, tornadoes, hurricanes and cyclones, torrential rains, etc.


Since nothing is measurable according to you

Never said any such thing.
spot wrote:
and no sources are valid according to you

Never said any such thing.
spot wrote:
there is no point discussing anything

Compositional error fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
spot wrote:
Fly that plane into a hill while your at it.

Nah. I like my airplane. I see no need to wreck it over the likes of you.


Ok; if Venus does have a magnetic field how do you know that? if like me you do not have a private spaceship and are relying on what space agencies tell you why do you trust them on magnetic fields but not on temperature readings?

I trust both of their measurements. The temperature reading they took does not indicate the temperature of the entire planet.

You are still insisting on bad math.


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
23-12-2019 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Its not getting colder

... in the same way that it is not getting warmer.


spot wrote: Hence a boring conversation.

Correct. You are not interesting ... except to me. I find you fascinating. You are one of my favorite posters ... ever ... of all time. You totally rock.


.


IBdaman says its getting colder so all the evidence to the contrary that I have cited before must be wrong.
You have no evidence. You obviously didn't read IBDaMann's last post.
spot wrote:
So glad I give meaning to your life by responding to your inane drivel.

Inversion fallacy. YALIF.


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
24-12-2019 00:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
17) It's often claimed by CAGW-alarmists that the modern sea level rise is alarming and unprecedented

Its alarming if your house gets swallowed by the the sea.

There is no noted rise in sea level. Atolls in the Pacific ocean during WW2 (we built airports on them) are still there. Nothing's changed.
spot wrote:
again allot of waffel but the fact is that basic physics says warmer things are bigger

Not correct. Not all substances get larger when they get warmer. Rubber is a noted exception, so is the conversion of ice to liquid water. Ice floats, you see.
spot wrote:
that coupled with the melting ice that is happening means that sea levels will rise.

If you melt floating ice, no change in sea level occurs. You can do the experiment yourself with a glass of ice water. Measure the water level, let the ice melt, then measure the water level again. It is the same.
spot wrote:
You can argue about what adverbs to use all you like, it doesent change the facts.

Not facts.
spot wrote:
18) This is very esoteric and is supposed to be compelling proof. the lines represent nothing real but have been put there by people on very few data points. The ERBE satellites are now defunct I have heard that the reason why they are against all other data is because they did not account for the deterioration in the orbit of the satellites If you are really interested you could look into this.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
spot wrote:
19)Another widespread misconception is that (the mythical planet) Venus is hot due to the radiative-enhancement from its high atmospheric CO2 concentration (96.5%)

Venus is defiantly real its a bright star that can be seen by the the naked eye, not mythical at all the blog writer suggests that adiabatic compression is responsible for the heat of the surface. if that was the case the atmosphere would be getting thicker, in fact because Venus has no magnetic field it is losing atmosphere but not at rate that would make any difference anyway. In the final analysis it is a stupid suggestion.


Venus DOES have a magnetic field, but it is not generated internally like on Earth. Instead the solar wind itself interacting with the upper atmosphere on Venus induces a magnetic field, much like a planet sized dynamo.

Venus is hot simply because it is closer to the Sun. It is hotter at the surface because the there is simply more stuff to absorb energy from the Sun and convert it to thermal energy.

spot wrote:
20) Methane is a powerfull greenhouse gas but is present in small amounts

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using Earth's own emitted IR. You can't create energy out of nothing.
spot wrote:
21) It's claimed the increase in CO2 is causing the ocean to acidify at an unprecedented rate and this will cause harm to coral reefs and marine life. Firstly, the term 'acidify' is a misnomer

In chemistry acidify means the PH to change away from alkaline to more acidic anyway you can argue with the corals and other sea life that is adapted for a very stable PH in the oceans about adverbs.

Not quite. You can only acidify an acid or a neutral substance (such as water).
spot wrote:
22) no droughts according to that study they linked I think Australia is finding out if that is true at the moment.

Droughts are part of normal weather. So are floods, hail, tornadoes, hurricanes and cyclones, torrential rains, etc.


Since nothing is measurable according to you

Never said any such thing.
spot wrote:
and no sources are valid according to you

Never said any such thing.
spot wrote:
there is no point discussing anything

Compositional error fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
spot wrote:
Fly that plane into a hill while your at it.

Nah. I like my airplane. I see no need to wreck it over the likes of you.


Ok; if Venus does have a magnetic field how do you know that? if like me you do not have a private spaceship and are relying on what space agencies tell you why do you trust them on magnetic fields but not on temperature readings?

I trust both of their measurements. The temperature reading they took does not indicate the temperature of the entire planet.

You are still insisting on bad math.


Who's measurements?


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.
Page 1 of 6123>>>





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