Remember me
▼ Content

both sides are wrong


both sides are wrong10-01-2016 18:22
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Alarmists used e = 1.0 to calculate -18 C as Earth's temperature without atmosphere. Bad science. e should be about 0.6 not 1.0

Deniers say greenhouse effect violates the first and second laws. Bad science. A new equilibrium is reached whenever the atmosphere is altered.

Both sides lied to make money.

The correct thing is, CO2 does have a small effect, but hardly noticeable. The only thing that CO2 and H2O can do that O2 and N2 cannot do, is they can absorb heat through radiation. The atmosphere functions almost entirely by conduction and convection, not by radiation. Doubling CO2 likely increases temperature by 0.1 C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ55koi7vaA
Edited on 10-01-2016 19:04
10-01-2016 22:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Alarmists used e = 1.0 to calculate -18 C as Earth's temperature without atmosphere. Bad science. e should be about 0.6 not 1.0

Deniers say greenhouse effect violates the first and second laws. Bad science. A new equilibrium is reached whenever the atmosphere is altered.

Both sides lied to make money.

The correct thing is, CO2 does have a small effect, but hardly noticeable. The only thing that CO2 and H2O can do that O2 and N2 cannot do, is they can absorb heat through radiation. The atmosphere functions almost entirely by conduction and convection, not by radiation. Doubling CO2 likely increases temperature by 0.1 C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ55koi7vaA


I make no money by espousing my position. Many scientists that come out against the 'consensus' find they have to get another job. It doesn't change their opinion.

If 'greenhouse' gases add to the temperature of the Earth, where is that energy coming from? The gas itself is not an energy source. For all practical purposes, the Earth isn't either.

If outside energy continuously adds to the energy trap, why does the trap not eventually destroy itself? Any amount of energy retained forms the trap. A trap is not equilibrium, nor can it form one (except by destruction of the trap).

All gases absorb energy. There are no exceptions. The surface absorbs energy better than any gas.

Convection only works in the troposphere and the mesosphere. It does not work in the stratosphere. Conduction and emission are prevalent there.

Maybe you should look at just how 'bad' the science really is.


The Parrot Killer
11-01-2016 01:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: The correct thing is, CO2 does have a small effect, but hardly noticeable.]


It is not possible for any substance to increase temperature without a chemical reaction.

Ergo it is not possible for CO2 to have even a small effect.

That reason it is not noticeable is because it is purely imaginary.


.


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
11-01-2016 01:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Alarmists used e = 1.0 to calculate -18 C as Earth's temperature without atmosphere. Bad science. e should be about 0.6 not 1.0

Deniers say greenhouse effect violates the first and second laws. Bad science. A new equilibrium is reached whenever the atmosphere is altered.

Both sides lied to make money.

The correct thing is, CO2 does have a small effect, but hardly noticeable. The only thing that CO2 and H2O can do that O2 and N2 cannot do, is they can absorb heat through radiation. The atmosphere functions almost entirely by conduction and convection, not by radiation. Doubling CO2 likely increases temperature by 0.1 C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ55koi7vaA
Only extreme nutters who have no clue about the laws of thermodynamics, the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect claim it violates the LOT when it clearly doesn't. Even 'skeptics' or 'deniers' of AGW think they are looney and distance themselves from them. Latour is one of a handful SKy Dragon Slayer loons from principia scientific international. If you want to learn "bad science", you've found the right person. Or just read the the rubbish pseudoscience IbDaMann posts all the time. All you are doing is parroting rubbish words and phrases that make no sense.
Edited on 11-01-2016 02:18
11-01-2016 01:56
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Into the Night wrote:
If 'greenhouse' gases add to the temperature of the Earth, where is that energy coming from? The gas itself is not an energy source. For all practical purposes, the Earth isn't either.

If outside energy continuously adds to the energy trap, why does the trap not eventually destroy itself? Any amount of energy retained forms the trap. A trap is not equilibrium, nor can it form one (except by destruction of the trap).

All gases absorb energy. There are no exceptions. The surface absorbs energy better than any gas.

Convection only works in the troposphere and the mesosphere. It does not work in the stratosphere. Conduction and emission are prevalent there.

Maybe you should look at just how 'bad' the science really is.


All gases in the air are greenhouse gases, because they absorb heat from the ground and radiate heat in all directions, some of that radiation go down. CO2 and H2O may be better greenhouse gases than O2 and N2 in that they can be heated not only by conduction but also by radiation. That's the only difference.

Let's take oxygen as an example. Suppose the Earth has no atmosphere, then the ground radiates IR to space. Nothing can slow this radiation. Suppose the Earth's atmosphere is entirely oxygen. Oxygen molecules absorb heat from the ground and from each other by conduction. Heated oxygen molecules emit IR radiation in all directions. About half of the emitted IR radiation go down to the ground and heat the ground. With an atmosphere that's entirely oxygen, the ground retains heat much better compared to the case if Earth has no atmosphere.
Edited on 11-01-2016 02:08
11-01-2016 04:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If 'greenhouse' gases add to the temperature of the Earth, where is that energy coming from? The gas itself is not an energy source. For all practical purposes, the Earth isn't either.

If outside energy continuously adds to the energy trap, why does the trap not eventually destroy itself? Any amount of energy retained forms the trap. A trap is not equilibrium, nor can it form one (except by destruction of the trap).

All gases absorb energy. There are no exceptions. The surface absorbs energy better than any gas.

Convection only works in the troposphere and the mesosphere. It does not work in the stratosphere. Conduction and emission are prevalent there.

Maybe you should look at just how 'bad' the science really is.


All gases in the air are greenhouse gases, because they absorb heat from the ground and radiate heat in all directions, some of that radiation go down. CO2 and H2O may be better greenhouse gases than O2 and N2 in that they can be heated not only by conduction but also by radiation. That's the only difference.

Let's take oxygen as an example. Suppose the Earth has no atmosphere, then the ground radiates IR to space. Nothing can slow this radiation. Suppose the Earth's atmosphere is entirely oxygen. Oxygen molecules absorb heat from the ground and from each other by conduction. Heated oxygen molecules emit IR radiation in all directions. About half of the emitted IR radiation go down to the ground and heat the ground. With an atmosphere that's entirely oxygen, the ground retains heat much better compared to the case if Earth has no atmosphere.

This violates the 2nd LOT. Warmer ground heats the air, the air does not heat the ground unless the ground is colder than the air. The medium (whether heat or light) doesn't matter.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate both sides are wrong:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
climate change is wrong grammer910-04-2019 21:57
Angstrom is right. Arrhenius is wrong.218-03-2019 19:43
This experiment is close, but still wrong018-03-2019 15:09
So if Angstrom already proven Arrhenius wrong, then what's the problem?314-03-2019 02:07
Trump's UN nominee Kelly Craft says she believes 'both sides' of climate change science1503-03-2019 23:09
▲ 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