Alarmists are wrong. The debate is over.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Alarmists are wrong. The debate is over.

Alarmists are wrong. The debate is over.11-01-2016 02:26
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Earth's surface does not have an emissivity of 1.0. Earth's surface has an emissivity of about 0.6. As derived by the distinguished Dr. Pierre Latour, Earth's surface temperature is nearly 15 C if there is no atmosphere. The -18 C number that James Hansen derived with e = 1.0 is wrong. Starts at the 39:00 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ55koi7vaA Edited on 11-01-2016 02:38
11-01-2016 03:14
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Another factor is clouds. While clouds reduce sunlight at day, they are sources of heat at night. As such, clouds do not have a net effect on surface temperatures. As you can see in the thermal image below, clouds absorb light, heat up, and emit IR radiation at the surface. http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/521fc8126bb3f77d6de58aba/thermal-images-of-new-york-city-show-why-cities-are-so-much-hotter-than-suburbs.jpg Therefore, suppose Earth has no atmosphere but has clouds, then Earth's surface, with has emissivity about 0.6, would have temperature about 15 C, not the -18 C number derived by James Hansen using emissivity being 1.0. Edited on 11-01-2016 03:23
11-01-2016 03:33
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Earth's surface does not have an emissivity of 1.0. Earth's surface has an emissivity of about 0.6. As derived by the distinguished Dr. Pierre Latour, Earth's surface temperature is nearly 15 C if there is no atmosphere. The -18 C number that James Hansen derived with e = 1.0 is wrong. Starts at the 39:00 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ55koi7vaA what's Latour distinguished by? Being the only petrochemical engineer in the world who doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics? Or that the earths average surface temperature is about 15C WITH an atmosphere? Edited on 11-01-2016 03:35
11-01-2016 03:37
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Another factor is clouds. While clouds reduce sunlight at day, they are sources of heat at night. As such, clouds do not have a net effect on surface temperatures. As you can see in the thermal image below, clouds absorb light, heat up, and emit IR radiation at the surface. http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/521fc8126bb3f77d6de58aba/thermal-images-of-new-york-city-show-why-cities-are-so-much-hotter-than-suburbs.jpg Therefore, suppose Earth has no atmosphere but has clouds, then Earth's surface, with has emissivity about 0.6, would have temperature about 15 C, not the -18 C number derived by James Hansen using emissivity being 1.0. the earth can have clouds without an atmosphere? Edited on 11-01-2016 03:38
11-01-2016 03:54
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Ceist wrote: Or that the earths average surface temperature is about 15C WITH an atmosphere? As derived from the equation, Earth's average surface temperature WITHOUT atmosphere is 15 C by setting emissivity about 0.6 which is the correct value. Earth's surface is a grey body, not a perfect black body. Earth's surface does not absorb all incoming light, and does not emit light only in the IR spectrum. Of course, if that were the case, Earth's surface would be perfectly black everywhere. Edited on 11-01-2016 04:26

11-01-2016 03:58
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Ceist wrote:the earth can have clouds without an atmosphere? Earth's surface temperature is derived without atmosphere. The equation only works with an object, not many objects, such as clouds above the surface. I made the point that, while clouds reduce day temperature, they increase night temperature, and the net effect of clouds is close to 0 and can be ignored. Using the equation, the derived surface temperature is compared with actual measured temperature to get a difference. This difference is the additional heating done to the surface by the atmosphere. As Dr. Pierre Latour derived, this difference is negligible, about 0.1 C. As expected, clouds are very good at heating, the air, not so much, too sparse and molecules too fast. This is confirmed by thermal imaging. http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/521fc8126bb3f77d6de58aba/thermal-images-of-new-york-city-show-why-cities-are-so-much-hotter-than-suburbs.jpg Edited on 11-01-2016 04:04
11-01-2016 04:10
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	The greenhouse effect theory states that Earth's surface being -18 C if there is no atmosphere. The assumption of Earth's surface being a perfect black body is wrong and that's why the number is wrong because the input e was set at 1.0. I quote. This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php Yes the atmosphere does increase the Earth's surface temperature a little bit, but the effect is not 33 C, the effect is about 0.1 C or less. Edited on 11-01-2016 04:15
11-01-2016 04:23
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	A perfect black body is a theoretical concept. No one has seen one. A black hole comes very very close to being one. A perfect black body is perfectly black, absorbs all light, emits only in the IR spectrum. A perfect black body has emissivity being 1. Put that number in the equation, one obtains an average surface temperature of -18 C as derived by Dr. Pierre Latour in the last slide of his presentation. The assumption is wrong, so the number used by alarmists is wrong. Edited on 11-01-2016 04:36
11-01-2016 04:53
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Someone should tell thus idiot Latour that he should have done his homework before embarrassing himself in public. As he was a chemical engineer he could have gone to the American Chemical Society and found a comprehensive explanation of how the atmosphere works. http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html Note the section on multilayer atmosphere
11-01-2016 06:23
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Ceist wrote: Someone should tell thus idiot Latour that he should have done his homework before embarrassing himself in public. As he was a chemical engineer he could have gone to the American Chemical Society and found a comprehensive explanation of how the atmosphere works. http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html Note the section on multilayer atmosphere I repeated Dr. Latour's calculation of the Earth's average surface temperature without atmosphere. Setting e = 0.612, I get 288 K which rounds to 15 C. Nothing wrong with it. Atmosphere including clouds does not increase Earth's average surface temperature by any noticeable amount. Here's my calculation, which repeats of Dr. Latour's calculation on his slide at 42:45 of his presentation. Only he missed a pair of brackets around 5.67 * 0.612. https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=100++%28239+%2F+%285.67++0.612%29%29+^+0.25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ55koi7vaA I took a look at your link. Their calculations assumed emissivity 1, assuming all those planets are perfect black bodies, which is wrong. Here's my calculation with emissivity set at 1. The result I get is 255 K which rounds to -18 C. https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=100++%28239+%2F+%285.67++1%29%29+^+0.25 In fact, every observable thing in the universe, including Earth, has emissivity less than 1. For any real life thing, you never input 1 for the value of the parameter e. NEVER do that. NEVER EVER do that. Nothing in the universe is a perfect black body. That is a theoretical concept ONLY. Edited on 11-01-2016 06:59
11-01-2016 10:21
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Tai Hai I think your next teaching lesson to us should be from the 'distinguished' Dr Morris http://www.icr.org/article/barrier-evolution and the even more 'distinguished' Dr Humphries http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/ They sound so sciencey, it must be true right?
11-01-2016 14:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	Ceist wrote: Someone should tell thus idiot Latour that he should have done his homework before embarrassing himself in public. Question: How can you tell when Ceist is feeling more insecure than usual and is growing more embarrassed in his position? Answer: He tries to project his embarrassment onto those of differing viewpoints, e.g. see above. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-01-2016 14:43
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	The Stefan–Boltzmann law is incredibly accurate at predicting a planet's average surface temperature. Setting I = 239 and e = 0.612, the equation outputs 288 K which is 15 C. This is exactly the observed value up to 1 C accuracy. Earth's surface's average albedo is found to be 0.30. I in W/m2 is the absorbed solar radiation = incoming solar radiation - reflected solar radiation = 341 - 341 * 0.30 = 239. This is the same value used by alarmists. http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html e is emissivity which is what proportion of emission of radiation is in the IR spectrum. Earth's surface's average emissivity is found to be 0.612. The value of e used by alarmists is 1, the value of a perfect black body. the calculation is as follows https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=100++%28239+%2F+%285.67++0.612%29%29+^+0.25 The greenhouse effect is therefore negligible. This is going to be reported to an accredited climatologist. This is going to come up in the next Senate hearing. The alarmists are going to get hammered for their fraud. Edited on 11-01-2016 15:36
11-01-2016 15:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: The Stefan–Boltzmann law is incredibly accurate at predicting a planet's average surface temperature. Setting I = 239 and e = 0.612, the equation outputs 288 K which is 15 C. . The equation can only be as accurate as the values of the parameters inserted into the equation. Let's just say that there is a degree of error in each of them. Having an overall margin of error +/-20degK would be expected but will anyone admit to as much? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-01-2016 15:49
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: This is going to be reported to an accredited climatologist. This is going to come up in the next Senate hearing. The alarmists are going to get hammered for their fraud. And Sarah Palin is going to be appointed as Science Advisor to the President of the US. Oh wait, that could actually happen if a GOP candidate actually gets elected. If you plug garbage into any equation because you don't have a clue what you're doing (like Latour), you'll get garbage out.
11-01-2016 19:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14842)	Ceist wrote: And Sarah Palin is going to be appointed as Science Advisor to the President of the US. Oh wait, that could actually happen if a GOP candidate actually gets elected. Ceist, I'll just go ahead and congratulate you on your bid to be one of the last to remain clinging to a WACKY religion, gasping for life on its deathbed. You'll be the guy who gets to turn off the lights and secure the doors on your way out. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Join the debate Alarmists are wrong. The debate is over.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
BREAKNG NEWS...With great sadness I am announcing the death of climate debate.com	21	13-08-2024 22:13
Another better way to post on Climate-debate.com	56	15-07-2024 19:09
Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry	331	17-06-2024 21:16
Gravity Has Energy Debate	33	03-02-2024 17:02
Every time I say that this board is dead, someone says something to prove me wrong, but	9	01-01-2024 05:08