Remember me
▼ Content

based on the satellite measurements of the world, the Earth seems to be colder than normal


based on the satellite measurements of the world, the Earth seems to be colder than normal29-12-2015 22:46
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Suggesting the Earth is heading into the next little or big ice age.

You can drag and click any location to get real time weather.

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-98.86,29.78,274/loc=-111.534,40.068
Edited on 29-12-2015 22:58
29-12-2015 23:27
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Suggesting the Earth is heading into the next little or big ice age.

You can drag and click any location to get real time weather.

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-98.86,29.78,274/loc=-111.534,40.068


Really? real time weather suggests where the Earth is going in terms of climate? Hmmmm

Ok, how about this?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-162.80,-4.16,274/loc=-111.534,40.068

Does this suggests we're heading to an extremelly warm period?

How about this?

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-18.93,2.85,274/loc=-111.534,40.068

I'm confused..
29-12-2015 23:47
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Barts wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Suggesting the Earth is heading into the next little or big ice age.

You can drag and click any location to get real time weather.

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-98.86,29.78,274/loc=-111.534,40.068


Really? real time weather suggests where the Earth is going in terms of climate? Hmmmm

Ok, how about this?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-162.80,-4.16,274/loc=-111.534,40.068

Does this suggests we're heading to an extremelly warm period?

How about this?

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-18.93,2.85,274/loc=-111.534,40.068

I'm confused..


The Holocene warm period is already 12,000 years. We are already due for the next big ice age. The Sun is shutting down. Without the Sun's power, Earth will go into glaciation no matter how much CO2 is in the air. If climate scientists do not apologize, they could very well be dragged through the streets by mobs and burned alive at the stakes like what happened during the Inquisition.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEcxMn832e8
Edited on 29-12-2015 23:53
30-12-2015 00:14
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
Noticed you changing the subject (the real time weather map you said suggested something) so promptly. That's funny.

Shutting down? The Sun? So soon? Oh boy, we're in real trouble now..
Inquisition? Aimed to scientists? At this day and age?

And you call us alarmists
30-12-2015 00:25
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Barts wrote:
Noticed you changing the subject (the real time weather map you said suggested something) so promptly. That's funny.

Shutting down? The Sun? So soon? Oh boy, we're in real trouble now..
Inquisition? Aimed to scientists? At this day and age?

And you call us alarmists


The Sun shuts down within a decade when it shuts down. We shall see. Who will have the last laugh.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObn2Sk7tVg
30-12-2015 00:38
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
A decade, hein?

What do you think is the reason? It will have consumed all its fuel?

How do you think it will go? Straight to white dwarf without passing through the other stages? maybe a Supernova? (the Sun turning out to be a different kind of Star we previously thought, uau, that would be a surprise)
30-12-2015 01:13
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Barts wrote:
A decade, hein?

What do you think is the reason? It will have consumed all its fuel?

How do you think it will go? Straight to white dwarf without passing through the other stages? maybe a Supernova? (the Sun turning out to be a different kind of Star we previously thought, uau, that would be a surprise)


The Sun has cycles of varying length. The shortest Sun cycle is 11 years. The Sun's output varies over its cycles. Only the Sun's output determines Earth's temperature. Nothing else is a driver of Earth's temperature.
30-12-2015 02:17
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Only the Sun's output determines Earth's temperature. Nothing else is a driver of Earth's temperature.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change


Wiki
Factors that can shape climate are called climate forcings or "forcing mechanisms". These include processes such as variations in solar radiation, variations in the Earth's orbit, variations in the albedo or reflectivity of the continents and oceans, mountain-building and continental drift and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.


Either you're hopeless (denying such basic scientific knowledge) or you're just ignorant.. You have now an opportunity to get updated on this..
30-12-2015 20:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Barts wrote:
Really? real time weather suggests where the Earth is going in terms of climate? Hmmmm

Do you dispute the assertion that "climate" is just weather?

Is the basis for your dispute science that you have reviewed and understand or is it some WACKY religion that has a full control over your cognitive faculties?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-12-2015 20:41
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote:
Really? real time weather suggests where the Earth is going in terms of climate? Hmmmm

Do you dispute the assertion that "climate" is just weather?

Sure, that's by definition.

Is the basis for your dispute science that you have reviewed and understand or is it some WACKY religion that has a full control over your cognitive faculties?


I wouldn't call it a Religion, it's just science, solid science. No need for me to review it nor even understand it: I leave that to the experts. And then listen to what they say.
30-12-2015 20:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Barts wrote:I wouldn't call it a Religion,

I know. Your religion preaches that it is "science, solid science." That's why your congregation of scientific illiterates are more screwed up than those of most other fanatical religions. Your religion even calls its WACKY dogma "The Science" and you call people who aren't believers of your dogma "Deniers who don't accept The Science."

Barts wrote: No need for me to review it nor even understand it: I leave that to the experts. And then listen to what they say.

...and herein have demonstrated that you cannot discern science from religion...that you believe whatever you are told to believe without question. With you it is purely a matter of faith. In this case, faith in your chosen clergy.

Science, on the other hand, is all about doubting and questioning, i.e. something you will never do.

Barts wrote: it's just science, solid science.

If it were actual science, you would be EVADING it like you just did above. Science requires thinking, which is too much work for you apparently. You just want to be told what to believe, whether it is true or not.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-12-2015 21:56
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote:I wouldn't call it a Religion,

I know. Your religion preaches that it is "science, solid science." That's why your congregation of scientific illiterates are more screwed up than those of most other fanatical religions. Your religion even calls its WACKY dogma "The Science" and you call people who aren't believers of your dogma "Deniers who don't accept The Science."

I would say you're confused: it seems it you distinguish religion from science.. I recommend some basic reading regarding the definitions of both..


Barts wrote: No need for me to review it nor even understand it: I leave that to the experts. And then listen to what they say.

...and herein have demonstrated that you cannot discern science from religion...that you believe whatever you are told to believe without question. With you it is purely a matter of faith. In this case, faith in your chosen clergy.

Nope, you're confused, I think. What I said is that science has a trustable system, based on evidence and mutual checking between the experts. Being a non-expert there's no need for me to become one just to say I trust it. Religion is very different and has no place in this discussion (at least regarding to the way I see it)

Science, on the other hand, is all about doubting and questioning,

Agree

i.e. something you will never do.

What gave you that idea?

Barts wrote: it's just science, solid science.

If it were actual science, you would be EVADING it like you just did above. Science requires thinking, which is too much work for you apparently. You just want to be told what to believe, whether it is true or not.

Why would you say thinking is too much work for me, sir? I beg to disagree!
Not really that I "want to be told what to believe".. I have general trust in science and, if I care enough, try to understand the basics from a non-expert perspective.
30-12-2015 23:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Barts wrote: What I said is that science has a trustable system, based on evidence and mutual checking between the experts.

That's not what you said and that's not how it is.

You said, and demonstrated that you are essentially brain-dead when it comes to matters of science but that you don't think it matters because you select clergy you trust, whom you call "experts", to tell you what to believe.

You have also demonstrated that you won't accept what actual experts tell you about science if what you are being told runs counter to your religion. Instead, you will brand such experts as "non-experts" solely on the basis of your religious beliefs.

You are not one to be calling others "confused."

Barts wrote: Being a non-expert there's no need for me to become one just to say I trust it.

You have just described religious devotion. Thank you. Instead of doubting and questioning the WACKY dogma you are being fed, you simply "trust it" because the faith gives you some level of comfort.

Barts wrote:
Why would you say thinking is too much work for me, sir? I beg to disagree!

In less time than you have devoted to all your posts, and with far less effort than you have dedicated to defending your baseless beliefs, you could have studied Planck's Law and learned what it means. You could have learned why your gibberish about "heat retention" is utter nonsense.

...but obviously just that little bit of learning would require what you consider to be an unacceptable level of effort.

Case closed.

Barts wrote:I have general trust in science and, if I care enough, try to understand the basics from a non-expert perspective.

But you cannot discern science from religious hogwash. You just believe whatever anyone tells you is "The Science" without doubting or questioning, and you distrust those who try to explain actual science to you.

You have a problem.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-12-2015 00:58
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote: What I said is that science has a trustable system, based on evidence and mutual checking between the experts.

That's not what you said and that's not how it is.

Yes it is and yes it is.

You said, and demonstrated that you are essentially brain-dead when it comes to matters of science but that you don't think it matters because you select clergy you trust, whom you call "experts", to tell you what to believe.

That's false: I would never refer to myself in those terms. I'm beginning to think you read stuff that's not there. Just for fairness purposes, can you provide the quote where I said I'm "essentially brain-dead"?


You have also demonstrated that you won't accept what actual experts tell you about science if what you are being told runs counter to your religion. Instead, you will brand such experts as "non-experts" solely on the basis of your religious beliefs.

I'm still waiting for you to present your experts. I have the feeling I'll be waiting all night...


You are not one to be calling others "confused."

Why not? It's very clear you're confused.

Barts wrote: Being a non-expert there's no need for me to become one just to say I trust it.

You have just described religious devotion. Thank you. Instead of doubting and questioning the WACKY dogma you are being fed, you simply "trust it" because the faith gives you some level of comfort.

Nope, you're confused again. Nothing to do with religion, but to the scientific process which is trustable: scientists, journals, peer review, scientific method, evidence, fact. All that stuff I've already said.

Barts wrote:
Why would you say thinking is too much work for me, sir? I beg to disagree!

In less time than you have devoted to all your posts, and with far less effort than you have dedicated to defending your baseless beliefs, you could have studied Planck's Law and learned what it means. You could have learned why your gibberish about "heat retention" is utter nonsense.

Does that mean you're not going to explain how that relates to global warming and how it would disprove the heat retention mechanism of greenhouse gases?? I'm disappointed



...but obviously just that little bit of learning would require what you consider to be an unacceptable level of effort.

Please don't question my level of effort, sir. I'll decide for myself what effort I put in!

Case closed.

hehehehe, it has been closed for a while now, sir.

Barts wrote:I have general trust in science and, if I care enough, try to understand the basics from a non-expert perspective.

But you cannot discern science from religious hogwash. You just believe whatever anyone tells you is "The Science" without doubting or questioning, and you distrust those who try to explain actual science to you.

I think you're the one who can't: I've been very clear in what the distinction is. You of course couldn't handle addressing it, so you ignore it and returned back to say I'm the one that can't distinguish, even though I had distinguished them


You have a problem.

Ohh, do I?


.

!
31-12-2015 02:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Barts wrote:That's false: I would never refer to myself in those terms.

Right. I was just paraphrasing.

Barts wrote:
Does that mean you're not going to explain how that relates to global warming and how it would disprove the heat retention mechanism of greenhouse gases?? I'm disappointed

I can't be more specific if you can't be more specific about what you think you mean.

Go ahead and write out for me, in your own words, your understanding of "greenhouse effect" and how it increases temperature, making sure to clearly define all your terms, and I'll match your level of specificity with the violations of physics you are describing, citing all necessary science.

Barts wrote: Please don't question my level of effort, sir. I'll decide for myself what effort I put in!

Your avoidance of effort has never been questioned. That you are the one to decide how you avoid effort has also never been questioned.

Barts wrote: I've been very clear in what the distinction is.

You definition of "clear" apparently differs greatly with the common English usage.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-12-2015 03:11
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote:That's false: I would never refer to myself in those terms.

Right. I was just paraphrasing.

Nope. I didn't say that, not in those words nor in any other words. You fail. Just accept you made up I said I was brain-dead or quote me doing that in whatever words led you to think I said that


Barts wrote:
Does that mean you're not going to explain how that relates to global warming and how it would disprove the heat retention mechanism of greenhouse gases?? I'm disappointed

I can't be more specific if you can't be more specific about what you think you mean.

Sure you can: if you think you have a case, you can be specific (and clear) instead of saying "Planck" or "thermodynamics". And quote someone, anyone saying something even remotely similar. Except you can't because it's nonsense.


Go ahead and write out for me, in your own words, your understanding of "greenhouse effect" and how it increases temperature, making sure to clearly define all your terms, and I'll match your level of specificity with the violations of physics you are describing, citing all necessary science.

Nope, sorry, I've done it already: in my own words, using Wikipedia and linking to scientific papers. If you don't accept it that's your problem.

Barts wrote: Please don't question my level of effort, sir. I'll decide for myself what effort I put in!

Your avoidance of effort has never been questioned. That you are the one to decide how you avoid effort has also never been questioned.

you kinda did, by your remark implying it was up to me to make an effort by myself to "learn" what's obviously a lunatic theory. You've put forward your "theory" not known to science or anyone meaningful, for that matter, I've asked you to elaborate, to justify your claim and you refused, therefore I'm satisfied with my level of effort, sir.

You fail, again.

Barts wrote: I've been very clear in what the distinction is.

You definition of "clear" apparently differs greatly with the common English usage.

No, it's not. Just point out where I haven't been clear, what confuses you about my explanation of the scientific process and how can you possible conflate that with religion.

.

!
31-12-2015 03:18
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:


You have also demonstrated that you won't accept what actual experts tell you about science if what you are being told runs counter to your religion.

.


I'm still waiting for your "experts", IB. I am going to have to wait all night, aren't I? I mean, I can't imagine you making a quotation from someone that's not also an "expert" in "Lizards-control-the-world" theory trying to argue what you've been arguing here regarding climate change...
31-12-2015 04:24
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Barts wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


You have also demonstrated that you won't accept what actual experts tell you about science if what you are being told runs counter to your religion.

.


I'm still waiting for your "experts", IB. I am going to have to wait all night, aren't I? I mean, I can't imagine you making a quotation from someone that's not also an "expert" in "Lizards-control-the-world" theory trying to argue what you've been arguing here regarding climate change...


IB apparently sincerely believes HE is an 'expert' and that whatever he claims, no matter how ridiculous, is 'citing science'. It's one of the symptoms of his mental illness.

This coexists with another symptom - an extreme aversion to science textbooks, especially those on atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. This also goes for any published research papers. He has stated he believes that 'evidence plays no role in science', so if you ask him for published evidence or you present any evidence published in textbooks or research papers that expose his irrational beliefs, he has a mental breakdown, rants about religion even more than usual, flings childish insults and posts pictures of drooling babies. This appears to be a classic threat response to anything that threatens to expose his delusional beliefs.

Ironically, on one of the very rare occasions that IB did actually provide a link to a source to support his views, he linked to a crackpot blog written by someone with zero background in science who claims he can 'predict' the climate using the Bible.



31-12-2015 04:32
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Satellite data don't lie. You can clearly see, as CO2 is increasing, temperature is decreasing, if we take out this year's big el nino effect. Of course, this does not prove that CO2 does not increase temperature. It likely does, but it shows that CO2 is a very weak factor, if it affects temperature at all.
Edited on 31-12-2015 04:33
31-12-2015 08:19
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Satellite data don't lie. You can clearly see, as CO2 is increasing, temperature is decreasing, if we take out this year's big el nino effect. Of course, this does not prove that CO2 does not increase temperature. It likely does, but it shows that CO2 is a very weak factor, if it affects temperature at all.


Oh please. Don't even try to claim you have even the remotest clue what satellites actually measure and how.


Go find out about Spencer and Christie's UAH data from the 1990's. It took them almost 10 years to correct their mistakes until they were forced to do so, and their refusal to allow other scientists to see their data and adjustment methods and algorithms slowed down the science.

"Once we realized that the diurnal correction being used by Christy and Spencer for the lower troposphere had the opposite sign from their correction for the middle troposphere sign, we knew that something was amiss. Clearly, the lower troposphere does not warm at night and cool in the middle of the day. We question why Christy and Spencer adopted an obviously wrong diurnal correction in the first place. They first implemented it in 1998 in response to Wentz and Schabel, which found a previous error in their methodology: neglecting the effects of orbit decay."

Mears, Carl A., and Frank J. Wentz. "The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature." Science 309.5740 (2005): 1548-1551.

Wentz, Frank J., and Matthias Schabel. "Effects of orbital decay on satellite-derived lower-tropospheric temperature trends." Nature 394.6694 (1998): 661-664.


"From 1979 to 2001, temperatures observed globally by the mid-tropospheric channel of the satellite-borne Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU channel 2), as well as the inferred temperatures in the lower troposphere, show only small warming trends of less than 0.1 K per decade (refs 1–3). Surface temperatures based on in situ observations however, exhibit a larger warming of ~0.17 K per decade (refs 4, 5), and global climate models forced by combined anthropogenic and natural factors project an increase in tropospheric temperatures that is somewhat larger than the surface temperature increase6, 7, 8. Here we show that trends in MSU channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend9 offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming.

We quantify the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures. The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from satellite data is physically consistent with the observed surface temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is ~1.6 times the surface warming, as expected for a moist adiabatic lapse rate."


Fu, Q., Johanson, C. M., Warren, S. G., & Seidel, D. J. (2004). Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature, 429(6987), 55-58.



Edited on 31-12-2015 08:25
31-12-2015 08:20
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Satellite data don't lie. You can clearly see, as CO2 is increasing, temperature is decreasing, if we take out this year's big el nino effect. Of course, this does not prove that CO2 does not increase temperature. It likely does, but it shows that CO2 is a very weak factor, if it affects temperature at all.


If you want to 'take out' this year's 'big' El Nino effect, then you would have to 'take out' the 1998 'big' El Nino effect as well. And why not 'take out' the other El Nino years and the La Nina years too while you're cherry-picking.

It didn't take long for the climate science know-nothings to start squawking "but El Nino!". After being told over and over again for years that starting a 'trend' from the anomalously high 1997-1998 El Nino was dishonest cherry-picking, now they want to keep in the 1997-1998 El Nino but 'take out' the 2015-2016 El Nino. Could you get any more obvious about scientific dishonesty?



Edited on 31-12-2015 08:21
31-12-2015 08:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Barts wrote:I'm still waiting for your "experts", IB. I am going to have to wait all night, aren't I?

Please hold your breath while you do.

I provided the science for you to verify yourself that you are mistaken. If you have specific questions then you need to be more specific than the vague gibberish you spilled.

You still haven't explained, in your own words, how "greenhouse gas" causes "greenhouse effect" such that temperature increases...in such a way that it doesn't violate physics. I'll be happy to help understand the science involved but you have to be a little more detailed in what you believe.

I'm not going to be holding my breath.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-12-2015 15:09
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
IBdaMann wrote:
Barts wrote:I'm still waiting for your "experts", IB. I am going to have to wait all night, aren't I?

Please hold your breath while you do.

I provided the science for you to verify yourself that you are mistaken. If you have specific questions then you need to be more specific than the vague gibberish you spilled.

How more specific can I be? I just want you to explain how the greenhouse effect fails because of thermodynamics. Just use words, sentences and logic. Provide a scientific paper that demonstrates that. It's a reasonable request, since everywhere I looked talks about the greenhouse effect being proved.


You still haven't explained, in your own words, how "greenhouse gas" causes "greenhouse effect" such that temperature increases...in such a way that it doesn't violate physics. I'll be happy to help understand the science involved but you have to be a little more detailed in what you believe.

Yes, I have. I rather use other people's words, specifically scientists or knowledge gatherers, because I view them as more authoritative than my own. But I'll try again.

Greenhouse gases are radiatevely active, which means they radiate the radiation they receive in all directions. When the sun's energy is reflected by the planet's surface back into space, part of that energy is radiated back to the planet, which wouldn't happen if those gases wouldn't be present on the athmosfere, therefore causing warming of the planet. Duhh.

Kinda like a blanket: if you cover yourself with a blanket some of the heat from your body (surface) is retained. Without the blanket it would irradiate (thermodynamics, boy) easier, cooling you down. Simples.



I'm not going to be holding my breath.


.

You could have. you're just making yourself difficulty. I understand: being repeatedly reamed on a public forum can't be easy.
Edited on 31-12-2015 15:15
31-12-2015 21:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Barts wrote:How more specific can I be?

Just because you haven't thought it through very well doesn't absolve you of your obligation to clearly detail your assertion.

Please go to the Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There? thread, append a post detailing your understanding of how "greenhouse gas" causes "greenhouse effect" such that temperature is increased. I'll reply with a detailed explanation of how it violates the laws of physics.

Until you do, I can't know what concept you have floating around in your mind. I can extrapolate an educated guess from your previous errors but I can't specify anything until you nail down an exact model behind which you stand.

Barts wrote: Greenhouse gases are radiatevely active, which means they radiate the radiation they receive in all directions.

All substances do this.

Barts wrote: When the sun's energy is reflected by the planet's surface back into space, part of that energy is radiated back to the planet, which wouldn't happen if those gases wouldn't be present on the athmosfere, therefore causing warming of the planet. Duhh.

This is a woefully incomplete model of what is transpiring with all of the photons originating from the sun.

Barts wrote:Kinda like a blanket:

Nope. Not at all. I forgot to mention that you need to review thermal convection and thermal radiation. You are conflating the two. The blanket imagery applies to convection and conduction but thermal radiation is governed by temperature according to Planck's Law. No substance has any magical superpower to regulate thermal radiation outside of Planck's Law. Nothing can act like a thermal radiation "blanket."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-12-2015 21:15
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't greenhouse gases take up heat during the day when there is sunlight, vibrating faster and faster as they convert more and more heat energy into kinetic energy, which is why during the day, even in summer, Earth is rather cool? It seems greenhouse gases spread the heat around, so to speak, resulting in warmer temperature near the surface and cooler temperature higher up. Without greenhouse gases, wouldn't Earth's surface surpass boiling point like what happens on the Moon's surface during day time?
Edited on 31-12-2015 21:17
02-01-2016 01:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't greenhouse gases take up heat during the day when there is sunlight, vibrating faster and faster as they convert more and more heat energy into kinetic energy, which is why during the day, even in summer, Earth is rather cool?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but don't all atmospheric gases get warmer during the daylight hours? What is "greenhouse gas" anyway? It isn't defined anywhere in the body of science.

Also, why are you trying to create a distinction between "heat energy" and "kinetic energy"? Aren't you simply be referring to thermal energy?

Tai Hai Chen wrote: It seems greenhouse gases spread the heat around, so to speak, resulting in warmer temperature near the surface and cooler temperature higher up.

Yes, but no.

Yes, all atmospheric gases transfer heat around the atmosphere via convection, from higher temperature to lower temperature, per the 2nd LoT...

...but no, the warmer lower atmosphere vs. the cooler upper atmosphere is simply a result of Ideal Gas Law, with the weight of the upper atmosphere weighing down the lower atmopshere and thus compressing it to a higher atmopsheric pressure, thus rendering more atmospheric mass per volume, and thus more thermal energy per volume in the lower atmosphere than in the upper atmosphere.

Gases at the very top of the atmopshere, although potentially as hot as the daytime surface of the moon, would nonetheless "feel" cold because there is "so little of it" (being under virtually zero atmospheric pressure), thus having so very little thermal energy per unit volume.

Tai Hai Chen wrote: Without greenhouse gases, wouldn't Earth's surface surpass boiling point like what happens on the Moon's surface during day time?

False. I don't know what you consider to be "greenhouse gas" but if you were to swap out the earth's atmosphere for one of equivalent mass that is strictly 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, the earth's surface would not be like the moon's. In fact, nothing would change temperature-wise if all the "greenhouse gas" were removed.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
04-01-2016 08:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Barts wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I provided the science for you to verify yourself that you are mistaken. If you have specific questions then you need to be more specific than the vague gibberish you spilled.

How more specific can I be? I just want you to explain how the greenhouse effect fails because of thermodynamics. Just use words, sentences and logic. Provide a scientific paper that demonstrates that. It's a reasonable request, since everywhere I looked talks about the greenhouse effect being proved.


There is no proof in science. There is only disproof.
Scientific papers are not needed. Look up thermodynamics at Amazon and buy a book. There are plenty available.


Barts wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You still haven't explained, in your own words, how "greenhouse gas" causes "greenhouse effect" such that temperature increases...in such a way that it doesn't violate physics. I'll be happy to help understand the science involved but you have to be a little more detailed in what you believe.

Yes, I have. I rather use other people's words, specifically scientists or knowledge gatherers, because I view them as more authoritative than my own. But I'll try again.

Up to now you have not. You have only relied on quoting others as 'experts' without even naming the 'experts'.

Barts wrote:
Greenhouse gases are radiatevely active, which means they radiate the radiation they receive in all directions. When the sun's energy is reflected by the planet's surface back into space, part of that energy is radiated back to the planet, which wouldn't happen if those gases wouldn't be present on the athmosfere, therefore causing warming of the planet. Duhh.

Duhh is right. CO2 does not have this magick property any better than any other gas. Neither does H2O or methane. Thank you at least for finally putting it in your own words.

Barts wrote:
Kinda like a blanket: if you cover yourself with a blanket some of the heat from your body (surface) is retained. Without the blanket it would irradiate (thermodynamics, boy) easier, cooling you down. Simples.


The atmosphere is not an insulator. You do not understand why blankets or wall insulation work.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-01-2016 08:23
04-01-2016 08:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't greenhouse gases take up heat during the day when there is sunlight, vibrating faster and faster as they convert more and more heat energy into kinetic energy, which is why during the day, even in summer, Earth is rather cool? It seems greenhouse gases spread the heat around, so to speak, resulting in warmer temperature near the surface and cooler temperature higher up. Without greenhouse gases, wouldn't Earth's surface surpass boiling point like what happens on the Moon's surface during day time?


You are correct for your subset of gases. It is also a correct statement for all other gases.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate based on the satellite measurements of the world, the Earth seems to be colder than normal:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
Satellite Measurements-- Sea Level Rise920-11-2018 19:56
ClimateCoop - Blockchain based collaboration & governance platform enabling dynamic community develop1911-03-2018 17:13
You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.6703-09-2017 10:18
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact