Remember me
▼ Content

But the Climate is Always Changing!



Page 5 of 5<<<345
11-02-2016 21:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
DRKTS wrote:
You put a pot on the stove on a very low heat to simmer and bring the contents to a nice stable temperature. Now put the lid on (without changing the gas/electric settings - so no more energy is going in). Does the temperature go up, stay the same, or go down?

It goes up because less heat is escaping. Does that violate the laws of thermodynamics? If you don't believe me go put on a saucepan of milk and do the experiment. Get some paper towels you'll need to clear up when it boils over after you put the lid on.

You're on dodgy ground using analogies with IBdaMann. He just doesn't get them. His next comment will be asking where the lid is, making fun of you for thinking that the sea is made of milk, or some such idiocy.
11-02-2016 23:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: You're on dodgy ground using analogies with IBdaMann. He just doesn't get them.

One is on dodgy ground using poor analogies with me, and I do understand them. Let's take DRKTS really bad one here:


DRKTS wrote: You put a pot on the stove on a very low heat to simmer and bring the contents to a nice stable temperature. Now put the lid on (without changing the gas/electric settings - so no more energy is going in). Does the temperature go up, stay the same, or go down?

It goes up because less heat is escaping. Does that violate the laws of thermodynamics? If you don't believe me go put on a saucepan of milk and do the experiment. Get some paper towels you'll need to clear up when it boils over after you put the lid on.


With warmizombies, this is completely intentional. It does not matter how often they are reminded that they are once again conflating thermal radiation with thermal convection/conduction, the fact remains that their very dogma, the very foundation of their religious faith and their own self identity, utterly depends on this error being made.

When a wamizombie reaches for his/her conflation error as a lifesaver, it is best to just let him/her wallow in his/her own self-created misery.

Surface Detail wrote:His next comment will be asking where the lid is, making fun of you for thinking that the sea is made of milk, or some such idiocy.

Well, it was not my next comment. Perhaps you should let me speak for me. Oh wait, your religion requires you to routinely pretend to speak for others. Your religion preaches that you somehow get to speak for "science" and for countless, unnamed scientists around the world. You aren't quite able to grasp the notion that you only get to speak for yourself.

I have an idea! Why don't you take another shot at trying to explain your "greenhouse effect" concept in a manner that adheres to physics? I created a thread for you that elaborates how we can use your ideas to generate infinite energy and I even named a "feedback loop" after you. What do you think about it?


.


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
12-02-2016 01:10
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote:Try giving us a single checkable fact (with a reference) to support any of your "scientific" points... cue the crickets.

I'll give you the two facts that destroy your "greenhouse effect" dogma and that you can't seem to overcome:

1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (1st LoT), and

2. Temperature driives thermal radiation (Planck's Law)

These items come from science so you don't get a citation. You're supposed to be a big boy who can verify science on your own or, as you seem want to do, deny the science.

I look forward to your upcoming presentation which, I am guessing, will DODGE the issue of how the above two points are violated while merely stating that they aren't violated.


.


You need to explain how energy being transformed from one form to another is in any way is against the 1st law.

Planck's Law merely says spectral irradiance is related to wavelength and temperature, again how does the greenhouse effect violate that?


DRKTS, for laughs, here's some of the hilariously funny things IB has written about Planck's Law



Mostly from these threads:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/what-would-the-world-be-like-if-every-molecule-in-the-atmosphere-is-a-co2-d6-e1050.php

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-the-greenhouse-effect-does-not-violate-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics-d6-e1016.php

IBdaMann wrote:

I understand Planck's Law very well
...

First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.
Second, this is another point of disagreement between us. I think all matter, even a single molecule, radiates per Planck's Law.
...

If so, do you think Global Warming will falsify Planck's law and require it to be discarded? (that's the one that says the planet's radiation is based solely on temperature and not on any substance's ability to prevent/restrict/modify/block/trap/hinder/reduce thermal radiation)
...

No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.
...

Temperature drives thermal radiation, not the other way around.
...

Nope. Planck's Law is more general. A body's radiation is dependent upon it's temperature. You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable and the "radiation" being the dependent variable
...

Yes, because according to Planck's Law, temperature is the independent variable controlling radiation, so naturally the earth is radiating more energy into space now than when it was cooler, and it is now radiating less energy into space than it did when it was warmer.

You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable, and atmospheric composition (e.g. amount of CO2, amount of water vapor, amount of methane, et. al.) is not even a factor.
...

In our discussions I believe I indicated that earth's thermal radiation adheres to Planck's Law which renders it independent of atmospheric composition (assuming the atmosphere remains equivalently transparent to visible light).
...

No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. Insulation, clothing, etc.. all work in conduction/convection. Planck's Law applies here. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation; particular substance or atmospheric composition plays no role and has no effect.

Yes, Planck's Law applies right here. It blows a gaping hole in most "greenhouse effect" versions.
Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation, both strength and frequency. As you heat metal, the frequency of the thermal radiation will increase until it rises above the infrared and rises into red, thus glowing red.
...

Every substance has its own unique EM absorption signature, along with its own unique EM reflection signature.
All EM energy that is absorbed, regardless of frequency, is converted to thermal energy.
All EM energy that is reflected, regardless of frequency, ceases to be a factor.
...

it does not matter the frequency of the electromagnetic energy that is absorbed.
...

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."
...

...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.
...

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.
...

Earth, as a body, radiates per its temperature. Earth's atmosphere radiates per its temperature. Check Planck's Radiation Law. All things radiate per their temperature per Planck's Radiation Law.

So when someone like you implies that earth's atmosphere somehow radiates differently because of a change in material composition, you are implying that earth's atmospheric radiation is determined by something other than just temperature, which implies that earth's atmosphere does not radiate per Planck's Law.
...

earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law
...

As I explained to you, what CO2, or any substance for that matter, absorbs is a function of its absorption signature, and what is emitted is a function of its temperature, specifically Planck's Law.




Edited on 12-02-2016 01:17
12-02-2016 02:39
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Surface Detail wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
You put a pot on the stove on a very low heat to simmer and bring the contents to a nice stable temperature. Now put the lid on (without changing the gas/electric settings - so no more energy is going in). Does the temperature go up, stay the same, or go down?

It goes up because less heat is escaping. Does that violate the laws of thermodynamics? If you don't believe me go put on a saucepan of milk and do the experiment. Get some paper towels you'll need to clear up when it boils over after you put the lid on.

You're on dodgy ground using analogies with IBdaMann. He just doesn't get them. His next comment will be asking where the lid is, making fun of you for thinking that the sea is made of milk, or some such idiocy.


I don't think he has that much sense of humor!
12-02-2016 05:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Ceist wrote: DRKTS, for laughs, here's some of the hilariously funny things IB has written about Planck's Law


Thank you Ceist for posting those quotes. I'm flattered that you would create a collection of my expressions. I didn't realize you were a fan of mine. I just hope you're not one of those obsessive freaks.


Anyway, I appreciate it.


.


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
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate But the Climate is Always Changing!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Changing Climate of Public Opinion325-07-2019 01:59
The Changing Climate of Social Media012-07-2019 00:49
The Senate Will Reject the Green New Deal. But It's Already Changing the Debate on Climate Change027-03-2019 17:27
This is how our changing climate could increase the risk we face from hurricanes027-03-2019 15:54
Climate Change Is Driving Marine Species North, Changing California's Coast514-03-2019 03:47
▲ 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