Remember me
▼ Content

climate



Page 2 of 3<123>
20-12-2020 01:23
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(434)
I only commented about the cloud thing because some say here that they cause warmer weather. My observations considering clouds have been as already said controversial. In the the winter with a clear sky we have had the coldest nights when temperatures could drop to even -35 degrees celsius. Usually, when there are a lot of clouds, the weather is much more milder. In summer with the clear sky we could get even +35 degrees celsius. If the sky is cloudy then usually the temperature would not be so high. I would prefer clear sky every day in the summer because I like very warm weather. With clouds the weather is usually quite cold for me.
Those are just observations and being controversial should in my opinion show that clouds by themselves will not rise the temperature. One more time to be clear, those are my personal observations of the weather , clouds , and temperature during the summer and winter. This is not a theory to be falsified.
So in overall I think it comes down to air pressure. With higher air pressure we get clean sky and the weather happens to be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. With low air pressure the sky would be cloudy and the weather happens to be milder in the winter and colder in the summer. Things happened to be like that in our climate zone. I am not sure but maybe there are places where things are vice versa.
Edited on 20-12-2020 01:46
20-12-2020 01:33
James___
★★★★★
(4478)
duncan61 wrote:
It has been bought to my attention that urbanisation and paved roads have absorbed energy that a forest would have reflected.Again the amounts are miniscule



So why do you care? In maybe 3 or 400 years Russia will cool and will have no resources to help them. Ever been there? In February -20º C. isn't unheard of. When I was there, -22º C. was the daily low while -14º C. was the daily high.
With Canada, they like many Americans will flee to Mexico or to the "Sunbelt states". But right now it's warming. It's not understood how glaciers and astrophysics regulates the temperatures on the Earth. Kind of why there are ice ages as well as interglacial periods. This goes into understanding the details but we needn't discuss that.


I must really be bored. Sorry guys.

Edited on 20-12-2020 01:33
20-12-2020 01:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
Xadoman wrote: In the the winter with a clear sky we have had the coldest nights when temperatures could drop to even -35 degrees celsius.

... hence not the right conditions for clouds to form.

It is not the case that clouds simply didn't show up to magically create warmer temperatures.


Xadoman wrote: In summer with the clear sky we could get even +35 degrees celsius.

... hence not the right conditions for clouds to form.

It is not the case that clouds simply didn't show up to magically create cooler temperatures.

.


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
20-12-2020 01:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
CLIMATE.
The long term weather patterns in a certain area

This is not my work but I feel it is a good description
Rainforest do not generally vary a lot in temperature but have massive ranges in humidity yet deserts do vary in temperature but traditionally do not have a lot of humidity.It can be monitored over time.I live in a temperate clime some even dare say Mediterranian and it will be cold and wet in July and hot and clear in January.I have had over 50 years to observe this in person.Have a good think about it before you blow me out the water


All irrelevant points and denial

These gas lighters will never acknowledge that greater humidity causes warmer weather in a cold climate.

Humidity is not temperature, thought it is dependent on temperature. Reversal fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It goes against their religion to acknowledge that.

No, you are making a reversal fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They must never go outside and don't know how to read weather forecasts.

Inversion fallacy. That would be you. Why do you think humidity is expressed either as a percentage or as a temperature/dew point spread?


It is not a "reversal fallacy." You must be in denial.

It is. You are denying logic. Fallacy fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You say humidity is dependent on temperature, and imply temperature cannot be dependent on humidity.

That is correct.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This is a false dichotomy.

Fallacy fallacy. It is not a dichotomy at all.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You appear to be fabricating an either/or situation where such situation does not exist.

Nope. No dichotomy at all.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Clouds have an effect on temperature.

No, they don't. Temperature has an effect on clouds. Reversal fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Xadoman just summed it up basically.

He is making the same fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
And since you are so rigid you can't even acknowledge this, it suggests that it goes against your religion and must be denied with rabid zeal.

Physics is not a religion.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-12-2020 01:42
James___
★★★★★
(4478)
duncan61 wrote:
Spongy.Arctic ice is not receding.Every year it freezes over do not believe NASA.I am with you on the cloud cover effect on atmospheric temperature.I have been in direct sunlight and a cloud creates shade and it is cooler in that spot.There are so many variables to the temperature in every scenario which is why we claim the average global temperature can not be known.I have been in a plane landing in winter here and above the clouds it is sunny then as you descend it is darker and raining.To say clouds have no effect on temperature because of physics is as nuts as claiming CO2 is warming the planet and that is bad.Why is warming not good?


This is an Australian tourism commercial, enjoy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhO7wSAoQCI
20-12-2020 01:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:Spend some time outside. Follow the weather through the seasons.

Spend some time with a physics textbook.

Really, how does Greenhouse Effect supposedly increase earth's average temperature without additional energy? Your claim that clouds have miraculous superpowers to control temperature all rest on your answer to this question.

.


Increased atmospheric CO2 would increase atmospheric density.

Imagine if you pump up a tire, it generates heat.

Not possible. There is not enough carbon dioxide to significantly alter anything. It also cycles in and out of the atmosphere. We aren't talking about 1% of the atmosphere here. The atmosphere is not a closed container. It is not like a tire. To pump up a tire requires energy.


I'm pretty sure what you are explicitly saying here is false.

Carbon dioxide increases the rate of water evaporation,

Carbon dioxide does not affect the temperature or rate that water evaporates.
Spongy Iris wrote:
and probably has lead to a cloudier world.

It is not possible to measure the cloud cover of Earth.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This would explain why the surface extent of ice in the Arctic has decreased substantially in the past 30 years.

It hasn't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Clouds effect warmer temperatures in a cold climate.

No, they don't. It's the other way around. Reversal fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually I think the atmosphere is more like a refrigerator / freezer, which must necessarily be closed container to function properly.

Denial of the ideal gas law. The atmosphere is not in a closed container.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-12-2020 01:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:Imagine if you pump up a tire, it generates heat.

The pumping requires energy which ultimately changes form into thermal energy which increases the temperature. No one questions matter's ability to increase in temperature with additional energy.

Where you crash and burn is when you claim that the earth somehow spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. Don't pump up a tire. Notice that it doesn't spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy.

Your WACKY religion is just that, i.e. a religion. I hate to break it to you but your religion is not supported by any science. In fact, it specifically runs counter to science. Your religion is one big violation of physics.

Clouds do NOT have magical superpowers to control temperature and they cannot create energy out of nothing.

Sorry.


.


The energy added (pumping of the tire) is 1) breathing 2) burning.


No. Breathing does not generate thermal energy.
Burning does, but that is dissipated into space along with the rest of any thermal energy the Earth has.

No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
You can't trap heat.
You can't trap light.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Burning doesn't add energy to Earth. Neither does breathing. The energy is already on Earth in the form of chemical energy (a type of potential energy). Potential energy has no temperature.

You are warm blooded. You get that energy keep your body warm by using the energy it takes to grow a plant.

It is still energy from the Sun. Nothing has increased energy anywhere except the Sun. Nothing has prevented that energy from being lost to space. The Earth stays the same temperature (assuming the Sun has the same output).


Copper shields against UV radiation effectively.

So?
Spongy Iris wrote:
Glass slows down UV radiation.

So? It slows down all light. It doesn't trap it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Water is a good insulator.

WRONG. Water is a good conductor of thermal energy. That's why you want to wear DRY clothes in the winter.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A freezer traps cold in a box.

You can't trap cold. Cold is a lack of energy. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Unplug that freezer and it will warm to room temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you have a cloud cover, the clouds must be acting like insulation, from either hot sun or cold atmosphere.

Clouds are not insulation. You can't trap light. You can't trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't decrease entropy.
You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't trap light.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-12-2020 02:05
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(434)
ITN, I remember you have mentioned that not all of the energy that comes from the sun gets converted into thermal energy. Some of that is going into the chemical reactions in photosynthesis. Does it mean that when the amount of "green" decreases( cutting down trees etc) the temperature of earth would increase?
20-12-2020 02:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:These gas lighters will never acknowledge that greater humidity causes warmer weather in a cold climate.

You will never admit that you believe in violations of physics.

How does Greenhouse Effect supposedly increase earth's average temperature without additional energy?

Admitting the faith-based nature of your WACKY religion goes against your religious dogma's assertion that your religion is somehow not a religion and is instead "thettled thienth."

Really, how does Greenhouse Effect supposedly increase earth's average temperature without additional energy? Your claim that clouds have miraculous superpowers to control temperature all rest on your answer to this question.

.


Spend some time outside. Follow the weather through the seasons.

Let's count this year in my Mediterranean climate at 38 N. We had frosts in 4 mornings this late fall so far. So there were freezing temps. It was cold enough to snow. This happens pretty much every year a few times, if it's a clear night and if wind speed is high enough.

But when was the last time it snowed? 1976. Just about every single time, in all of winter history, when the clouds roll in, it gets too warm to snow.

Go figure...


how exactly do we get snow, without clouds? Snow clouds were pretty distinctive, where I grew up. No clouds, no snow, no freezing rain (worse than snow).


That's the point dude! Whenever there are clouds it's too warm to snow. It rains.

If it's often cold enough to snow, why doesn't it ever snow?

It does snow. You said so yourself.


Denial of probability statistics.

There is no such thing. Denial of probability math. Denial of statistical math.
Spongy Iris wrote:
NOT a reversal fallacy.

Correct. A denial of mathematics, and of course, the math error that results.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It freezes 5 or 10 times a year and hasn't snowed in almost 50 years.

So? It has snowed there. You said so yourself.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You are making an argument which is basically saying it's possible to roll a dice randomly 1000 times and never land on a 6!

Die, actually. Dice is the plural of die. Yes, it is possible. Denial of probability math.
The chances of rolling a six sided die 1000 times and never landing on a 6 is 1:1200, assuming a straight die.

A die is a randR generator.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 20-12-2020 02:15
20-12-2020 02:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Spongy.Arctic ice is not receding.Every year it freezes over do not believe NASA.I am with you on the cloud cover effect on atmospheric temperature.I have been in direct sunlight and a cloud creates shade and it is cooler in that spot.There are so many variables to the temperature in every scenario which is why we claim the average global temperature can not be known.I have been in a plane landing in winter here and above the clouds it is sunny then as you descend it is darker and raining.To say clouds have no effect on temperature because of physics is as nuts as claiming CO2 is warming the planet and that is bad.Why is warming not good?


I believe the satellite data... Not NASA!

What satellite data?
Spongy Iris wrote:
IMO the warming, which the data gathered indicates,

There is no data for Earth's temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
is just a confirmation of the effect of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2 either. Argument from randU fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I happen to believe it's alarming because I think the earth's atmosphere is a freezer, and the fusion of the sun is with the earth.

You obviously have no idea how a refrigerator works. Buzzword fallacies.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-12-2020 02:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
Who supplies the satellite data?The temperature measuring device at the end of the runway at Amberley airforce base shows at that point it is a full degree cooler now than 1942.We do have a consensus that based on the few readings that can be taken of average temperatures around the world the warming has paused and will most likely reverse.China has refused to take Australian coal because we dared question the Covid situation now South China is on power rations and they are having a very cold time.The sea is not rising.Not even a little bit anywhere and the ice melts and refoms every year just like it always has.Russia does not give a toss because they take their own readings and have their own modelling and there is no problem

Math does not use consensus. Neither does statistical 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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-12-2020 02:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
It has been bought to my attention that urbanisation and paved roads have absorbed energy that a forest would have reflected.Again the amounts are miniscule


So a forest isn't absorbing energy??? What are the trees growing on? Magick???


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-12-2020 02:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Xadoman wrote:
I only commented about the cloud thing because some say here that they cause warmer weather. My observations considering clouds have been as already said controversial. In the the winter with a clear sky we have had the coldest nights when temperatures could drop to even -35 degrees celsius. Usually, when there are a lot of clouds, the weather is much more milder. In summer with the clear sky we could get even +35 degrees celsius. If the sky is cloudy then usually the temperature would not be so high. I would prefer clear sky every day in the summer because I like very warm weather. With clouds the weather is usually quite cold for me.
Those are just observations and being controversial should in my opinion show that clouds by themselves will not rise the temperature. One more time to be clear, those are my personal observations of the weather , clouds , and temperature during the summer and winter. This is not a theory to be falsified.
So in overall I think it comes down to air pressure. With higher air pressure we get clean sky and the weather happens to be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. With low air pressure the sky would be cloudy and the weather happens to be milder in the winter and colder in the summer. Things happened to be like that in our climate zone. I am not sure but maybe there are places where things are vice versa.

Clouds to not affect temperature. It's the other way around. Reversal 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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-12-2020 02:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Xadoman wrote:
ITN, I remember you have mentioned that not all of the energy that comes from the sun gets converted into thermal energy.

That is correct.
Xadoman wrote:
Some of that is going into the chemical reactions in photosynthesis.

That is also correct.
Xadoman wrote:
Does it mean that when the amount of "green" decreases( cutting down trees etc) the temperature of earth would increase?

No. New vegetation (and trees) will grow to replace what you cut down.

If you burned all the trees, you could temporarily increase the temperature of the Earth, but it's only temporary.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-12-2020 10:50
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(434)
No. New vegetation (and trees) will grow to replace what you cut down.


Quite often there will be a road, a house, a factory( I read about Tesla s new megafactory for which they cut down a large amount of trees) or some other man made building. So it seems to me that in those cases the temperature of earth would rise a bit.
20-12-2020 11:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
A freezer traps cold in a box.
You can't trap cold.

I thought I had nipped all such discussions in the bud when I included this in my Sig.

.


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
20-12-2020 21:47
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3368)
Xadoman wrote:
No. New vegetation (and trees) will grow to replace what you cut down.


Quite often there will be a road, a house, a factory( I read about Tesla s new megafactory for which they cut down a large amount of trees) or some other man made building. So it seems to me that in those cases the temperature of earth would rise a bit.


California burns about a million acres a year, doesn't seem to have a huge effect, or they'd spend a couple bucks, trying to mitigate, or prosecute the arsonists.

Wood, has been a construction material for a very long time, also the main source of fuel, before coal and oil. Burning was the quickest/cheapest means for clearing land. It was still used a lot by farmers, when I was young, to prepare fields, for the next planting. Sometime in the 70s, the practice was mostly banned, over air quality concerns, in some areas, not to mention a few wildfires.

Mostly, we knock down large areas of trees, to make room for solar and wind farms. Which, is absurd, since we want to reduce CO2, and trees do a good job of it, naturally. To knock down, clear the land, they need to use a lot of heavy, diesel burning equipment. Really defies all logic, yet people buy into the saving the planet, by destroying it thing, like it somehow makes good sense. Why don't we just harness the energy-creating property of CO2, and use it for our needs, rather than let it go to waste, burning up the planet, causing a crisis?
20-12-2020 22:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Xadoman wrote:
No. New vegetation (and trees) will grow to replace what you cut down.


Quite often there will be a road, a house, a factory( I read about Tesla s new megafactory for which they cut down a large amount of trees) or some other man made building. So it seems to me that in those cases the temperature of earth would rise a bit.


Nope. Those trees became lumber or were burned. A tiny little megafactory is nothing.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
20-12-2020 22:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
A freezer traps cold in a box.
You can't trap cold.

I thought I had nipped all such discussions in the bud when I included this in my Sig.

.

Unfortunately, no.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. You can't kill it, no matter what you include in your sig.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
21-12-2020 11:18
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(434)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
No. New vegetation (and trees) will grow to replace what you cut down.


Quite often there will be a road, a house, a factory( I read about Tesla s new megafactory for which they cut down a large amount of trees) or some other man made building. So it seems to me that in those cases the temperature of earth would rise a bit.


Nope. Those trees became lumber or were burned. A tiny little megafactory is nothing.


I do not understand. There is more energy available now for direct warming because there is no photosythesis going on in those trees. This effect could be very small but it still is there.
21-12-2020 12:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
Xadoman wrote:I do not understand. There is more energy available now for direct warming because there is no photosythesis going on in those trees. This effect could be very small but it still is there.

Why do you believe that the amount of photosynthesis occurring somehow affects the temperature of the tree?

.


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
21-12-2020 14:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
No. New vegetation (and trees) will grow to replace what you cut down.


Quite often there will be a road, a house, a factory( I read about Tesla s new megafactory for which they cut down a large amount of trees) or some other man made building. So it seems to me that in those cases the temperature of earth would rise a bit.


Nope. Those trees became lumber or were burned. A tiny little megafactory is nothing.


I do not understand. There is more energy available now for direct warming because there is no photosythesis going on in those trees. This effect could be very small but it still is there.


Not all frequencies of light convert to thermal energy upon absorption. Only infrared light. Photosynthesis requires visible light, which does not heat anything.

Light has no temperature. It is not necessarily heat.

Most of the light coming from the Sun is infrared.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 21-12-2020 14:11
23-12-2020 07:20
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Spongy.Arctic ice is not receding.Every year it freezes over do not believe NASA.I am with you on the cloud cover effect on atmospheric temperature.I have been in direct sunlight and a cloud creates shade and it is cooler in that spot.There are so many variables to the temperature in every scenario which is why we claim the average global temperature can not be known.I have been in a plane landing in winter here and above the clouds it is sunny then as you descend it is darker and raining.To say clouds have no effect on temperature because of physics is as nuts as claiming CO2 is warming the planet and that is bad.Why is warming not good?


This is an Australian tourism commercial, enjoy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhO7wSAoQCI


It looks like a German investment banking commercial.

But I love that Electro Swing...


23-12-2020 07:34
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Spongy.Arctic ice is not receding.Every year it freezes over do not believe NASA.I am with you on the cloud cover effect on atmospheric temperature.I have been in direct sunlight and a cloud creates shade and it is cooler in that spot.There are so many variables to the temperature in every scenario which is why we claim the average global temperature can not be known.I have been in a plane landing in winter here and above the clouds it is sunny then as you descend it is darker and raining.To say clouds have no effect on temperature because of physics is as nuts as claiming CO2 is warming the planet and that is bad.Why is warming not good?


I believe the satellite data... Not NASA!

What satellite data?
Spongy Iris wrote:
IMO the warming, which the data gathered indicates,

There is no data for Earth's temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
is just a confirmation of the effect of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2 either. Argument from randU fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I happen to believe it's alarming because I think the earth's atmosphere is a freezer, and the fusion of the sun is with the earth.

You obviously have no idea how a refrigerator works. Buzzword fallacies.


More repetitious garbage summarily dismissed, implausible deniability of known data.

And you obviously don't appreciate the genius of Mel Brooks' masterpiece Space Balls!

https://youtu.be/lTSWdHY9Ny4

There is more than 1 way to make a freezer

https://youtu.be/x5DRuPuzqKI


23-12-2020 07:48
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:These gas lighters will never acknowledge that greater humidity causes warmer weather in a cold climate.

You will never admit that you believe in violations of physics.

How does Greenhouse Effect supposedly increase earth's average temperature without additional energy?

Admitting the faith-based nature of your WACKY religion goes against your religious dogma's assertion that your religion is somehow not a religion and is instead "thettled thienth."

Really, how does Greenhouse Effect supposedly increase earth's average temperature without additional energy? Your claim that clouds have miraculous superpowers to control temperature all rest on your answer to this question.

.


Spend some time outside. Follow the weather through the seasons.

Let's count this year in my Mediterranean climate at 38 N. We had frosts in 4 mornings this late fall so far. So there were freezing temps. It was cold enough to snow. This happens pretty much every year a few times, if it's a clear night and if wind speed is high enough.

But when was the last time it snowed? 1976. Just about every single time, in all of winter history, when the clouds roll in, it gets too warm to snow.

Go figure...


how exactly do we get snow, without clouds? Snow clouds were pretty distinctive, where I grew up. No clouds, no snow, no freezing rain (worse than snow).


That's the point dude! Whenever there are clouds it's too warm to snow. It rains.

If it's often cold enough to snow, why doesn't it ever snow?

It does snow. You said so yourself.


Denial of probability statistics.

There is no such thing. Denial of probability math. Denial of statistical math.
Spongy Iris wrote:
NOT a reversal fallacy.

Correct. A denial of mathematics, and of course, the math error that results.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It freezes 5 or 10 times a year and hasn't snowed in almost 50 years.

So? It has snowed there. You said so yourself.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You are making an argument which is basically saying it's possible to roll a dice randomly 1000 times and never land on a 6!

Die, actually. Dice is the plural of die. Yes, it is possible. Denial of probability math.
The chances of rolling a six sided die 1000 times and never landing on a 6 is 1:1200, assuming a straight die.

A die is a randR generator.


There might be close to a 1 in 100 chance it will snow in winter in San Francisco, but probably about 9 in 10 chance it will rain in winter, and a 9 in 10 chance you will see frost in winter.

Do you see the difference???


23-12-2020 07:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
Spongy Iris wrote:More repetitious garbage summarily dismissed, implausible deniability of known data.

Whoaa, easy there Tiger.

You are the one making the affirmative claim. You bear the burden to make your case. No one else has any responsibility to prove your silly claims false.

Where is this valid dataset of which you speak? Just post the data here in this thread. Branner won't mind.

If you don't have any data then your assertions are dismissed.

That's how it works.

.


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
23-12-2020 08:18
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:More repetitious garbage summarily dismissed, implausible deniability of known data.

Whoaa, easy there Tiger.

You are the one making the affirmative claim. You bear the burden to make your case. No one else has any responsibility to prove your silly claims false.

Where is this valid dataset of which you speak? Just post the data here in this thread. Branner won't mind.

If you don't have any data then your assertions are dismissed.

That's how it works.

.


I have already posted the 40 year time lapse of surface ice extent at the north pole many times.


23-12-2020 08:54
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
Xadoman wrote:
I only commented about the cloud thing because some say here that they cause warmer weather. My observations considering clouds have been as already said controversial. In the the winter with a clear sky we have had the coldest nights when temperatures could drop to even -35 degrees celsius. Usually, when there are a lot of clouds, the weather is much more milder. In summer with the clear sky we could get even +35 degrees celsius. If the sky is cloudy then usually the temperature would not be so high. I would prefer clear sky every day in the summer because I like very warm weather. With clouds the weather is usually quite cold for me.
Those are just observations and being controversial should in my opinion show that clouds by themselves will not rise the temperature. One more time to be clear, those are my personal observations of the weather , clouds , and temperature during the summer and winter. This is not a theory to be falsified.
So in overall I think it comes down to air pressure. With higher air pressure we get clean sky and the weather happens to be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. With low air pressure the sky would be cloudy and the weather happens to be milder in the winter and colder in the summer. Things happened to be like that in our climate zone. I am not sure but maybe there are places where things are vice versa.


This is exactly the kind of thing I observe.

But I think it should be made clear... Cooler temperatures cause air pressure to drop... It is not usually dropping air pressure which leads to cooler temperatures, but cooler temperatures which lead to dropping air pressure...

Here check out this picture this past Dec 21.



This was at sunrise. All night, with clear sky, cold descended on the land. There was little wind at night time. Most all cold was coming from above. When the low pressure air above met the higher pressure air close to the ground, we got some pretty fog.


23-12-2020 09:05
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:Imagine if you pump up a tire, it generates heat.

The pumping requires energy which ultimately changes form into thermal energy which increases the temperature. No one questions matter's ability to increase in temperature with additional energy.

Where you crash and burn is when you claim that the earth somehow spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. Don't pump up a tire. Notice that it doesn't spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy.

Your WACKY religion is just that, i.e. a religion. I hate to break it to you but your religion is not supported by any science. In fact, it specifically runs counter to science. Your religion is one big violation of physics.

Clouds do NOT have magical superpowers to control temperature and they cannot create energy out of nothing.

Sorry.


.


The energy added (pumping of the tire) is 1) breathing 2) burning.


No. Breathing does not generate thermal energy.
Burning does, but that is dissipated into space along with the rest of any thermal energy the Earth has.

No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
You can't trap heat.
You can't trap light.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Burning doesn't add energy to Earth. Neither does breathing. The energy is already on Earth in the form of chemical energy (a type of potential energy). Potential energy has no temperature.

You are warm blooded. You get that energy keep your body warm by using the energy it takes to grow a plant.

It is still energy from the Sun. Nothing has increased energy anywhere except the Sun. Nothing has prevented that energy from being lost to space. The Earth stays the same temperature (assuming the Sun has the same output).


Copper shields against UV radiation effectively.

So?
Spongy Iris wrote:
Glass slows down UV radiation.

So? It slows down all light. It doesn't trap it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Water is a good insulator.

WRONG. Water is a good conductor of thermal energy. That's why you want to wear DRY clothes in the winter.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A freezer traps cold in a box.

You can't trap cold. Cold is a lack of energy. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Unplug that freezer and it will warm to room temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you have a cloud cover, the clouds must be acting like insulation, from either hot sun or cold atmosphere.

Clouds are not insulation. You can't trap light. You can't trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't decrease entropy.
You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't trap light.


Dude! The top water of a lake in Minnesota will freeze in the winter. But the water won't freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake!

Therefore the water does insulate against cold.


23-12-2020 10:49
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:Spend some time outside. Follow the weather through the seasons.

Spend some time with a physics textbook.

Really, how does Greenhouse Effect supposedly increase earth's average temperature without additional energy? Your claim that clouds have miraculous superpowers to control temperature all rest on your answer to this question.

.


Increased atmospheric CO2 would increase atmospheric density.

Imagine if you pump up a tire, it generates heat.

Not possible. There is not enough carbon dioxide to significantly alter anything. It also cycles in and out of the atmosphere. We aren't talking about 1% of the atmosphere here. The atmosphere is not a closed container. It is not like a tire. To pump up a tire requires energy.


I'm pretty sure what you are explicitly saying here is false.

Carbon dioxide increases the rate of water evaporation,

Carbon dioxide does not affect the temperature or rate that water evaporates.
Spongy Iris wrote:
and probably has lead to a cloudier world.

It is not possible to measure the cloud cover of Earth.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This would explain why the surface extent of ice in the Arctic has decreased substantially in the past 30 years.

It hasn't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Clouds effect warmer temperatures in a cold climate.

No, they don't. It's the other way around. Reversal fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually I think the atmosphere is more like a refrigerator / freezer, which must necessarily be closed container to function properly.

Denial of the ideal gas law. The atmosphere is not in a closed container.


Oh also...

"In order to test the effect of overlying gases on the
evaporation rate of water, two identical 'Lucite' chambers
were constructed to house shallow brass evaporation
dishes 2 cm in diameter. Under uniform ambient condi-
tions this would ensure equal evaporation from both
dishes. The diminishing height of the water meniscus
over the dishes filled with distilled water provided a
measure of evaporation rate; the menisci were optically
projected on to a grid on which the lowering of the meniscus
apex was recorded every 15 or 30 min, depending on the
evaporation rate, for periods of 3-4 h.
Initially, one chamber was ventilated with carbon
dioxide, the other with air. The water sample in the
chamber containing carbon dioxide was observed to
evaporate most rapidly...
As a result of fifteen sets of observations, the water containing the dissolved carbon dioxide consistently evaporated more rapidly than the control water sample. The
increase in evaporation varied between 15 and 50 per cent"

https://www.nature.com/articles/199899a0


23-12-2020 13:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Spongy.Arctic ice is not receding.Every year it freezes over do not believe NASA.I am with you on the cloud cover effect on atmospheric temperature.I have been in direct sunlight and a cloud creates shade and it is cooler in that spot.There are so many variables to the temperature in every scenario which is why we claim the average global temperature can not be known.I have been in a plane landing in winter here and above the clouds it is sunny then as you descend it is darker and raining.To say clouds have no effect on temperature because of physics is as nuts as claiming CO2 is warming the planet and that is bad.Why is warming not good?


I believe the satellite data... Not NASA!

What satellite data?
Spongy Iris wrote:
IMO the warming, which the data gathered indicates,

There is no data for Earth's temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
is just a confirmation of the effect of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2 either. Argument from randU fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I happen to believe it's alarming because I think the earth's atmosphere is a freezer, and the fusion of the sun is with the earth.

You obviously have no idea how a refrigerator works. Buzzword fallacies.


More repetitious garbage summarily dismissed, implausible deniability of known data.


Science is not garbage. Neither is mathematics.
There is no 'known data'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global atmospheric content of CO2, the global sea level, nor the global amount of snow and ice on Earth.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 23-12-2020 13:32
23-12-2020 13:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:These gas lighters will never acknowledge that greater humidity causes warmer weather in a cold climate.

You will never admit that you believe in violations of physics.

How does Greenhouse Effect supposedly increase earth's average temperature without additional energy?

Admitting the faith-based nature of your WACKY religion goes against your religious dogma's assertion that your religion is somehow not a religion and is instead "thettled thienth."

Really, how does Greenhouse Effect supposedly increase earth's average temperature without additional energy? Your claim that clouds have miraculous superpowers to control temperature all rest on your answer to this question.

.


Spend some time outside. Follow the weather through the seasons.

Let's count this year in my Mediterranean climate at 38 N. We had frosts in 4 mornings this late fall so far. So there were freezing temps. It was cold enough to snow. This happens pretty much every year a few times, if it's a clear night and if wind speed is high enough.

But when was the last time it snowed? 1976. Just about every single time, in all of winter history, when the clouds roll in, it gets too warm to snow.

Go figure...


how exactly do we get snow, without clouds? Snow clouds were pretty distinctive, where I grew up. No clouds, no snow, no freezing rain (worse than snow).


That's the point dude! Whenever there are clouds it's too warm to snow. It rains.

If it's often cold enough to snow, why doesn't it ever snow?

It does snow. You said so yourself.


Denial of probability statistics.

There is no such thing. Denial of probability math. Denial of statistical math.
Spongy Iris wrote:
NOT a reversal fallacy.

Correct. A denial of mathematics, and of course, the math error that results.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It freezes 5 or 10 times a year and hasn't snowed in almost 50 years.

So? It has snowed there. You said so yourself.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You are making an argument which is basically saying it's possible to roll a dice randomly 1000 times and never land on a 6!

Die, actually. Dice is the plural of die. Yes, it is possible. Denial of probability math.
The chances of rolling a six sided die 1000 times and never landing on a 6 is 1:1200, assuming a straight die.

A die is a randR generator.


There might be close to a 1 in 100 chance it will snow in winter in San Francisco, but probably about 9 in 10 chance it will rain in winter, and a 9 in 10 chance you will see frost in winter.

Do you see the difference???


Math errors: Failure to specify boundary. Failure to specify randX.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
23-12-2020 13:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:More repetitious garbage summarily dismissed, implausible deniability of known data.

Whoaa, easy there Tiger.

You are the one making the affirmative claim. You bear the burden to make your case. No one else has any responsibility to prove your silly claims false.

Where is this valid dataset of which you speak? Just post the data here in this thread. Branner won't mind.

If you don't have any data then your assertions are dismissed.

That's how it works.

.


I have already posted the 40 year time lapse of surface ice extent at the north pole many times.

Then you know that the winter ice extent at the North pole has expanded and contracted. You would also know that the 2014 winter ice extent at the South pole was the largest EVER RECORDED.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
23-12-2020 13:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
I only commented about the cloud thing because some say here that they cause warmer weather. My observations considering clouds have been as already said controversial. In the the winter with a clear sky we have had the coldest nights when temperatures could drop to even -35 degrees celsius. Usually, when there are a lot of clouds, the weather is much more milder. In summer with the clear sky we could get even +35 degrees celsius. If the sky is cloudy then usually the temperature would not be so high. I would prefer clear sky every day in the summer because I like very warm weather. With clouds the weather is usually quite cold for me.
Those are just observations and being controversial should in my opinion show that clouds by themselves will not rise the temperature. One more time to be clear, those are my personal observations of the weather , clouds , and temperature during the summer and winter. This is not a theory to be falsified.
So in overall I think it comes down to air pressure. With higher air pressure we get clean sky and the weather happens to be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. With low air pressure the sky would be cloudy and the weather happens to be milder in the winter and colder in the summer. Things happened to be like that in our climate zone. I am not sure but maybe there are places where things are vice versa.


This is exactly the kind of thing I observe.

But I think it should be made clear... Cooler temperatures cause air pressure to drop... It is not usually dropping air pressure which leads to cooler temperatures, but cooler temperatures which lead to dropping air pressure...

Here check out this picture this past Dec 21.



This was at sunrise. All night, with clear sky, cold descended on the land. There was little wind at night time. Most all cold was coming from above. When the low pressure air above met the higher pressure air close to the ground, we got some pretty fog.

Cooler temperatures do not cause air pressure to drop.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
23-12-2020 13:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:Imagine if you pump up a tire, it generates heat.

The pumping requires energy which ultimately changes form into thermal energy which increases the temperature. No one questions matter's ability to increase in temperature with additional energy.

Where you crash and burn is when you claim that the earth somehow spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. Don't pump up a tire. Notice that it doesn't spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy.

Your WACKY religion is just that, i.e. a religion. I hate to break it to you but your religion is not supported by any science. In fact, it specifically runs counter to science. Your religion is one big violation of physics.

Clouds do NOT have magical superpowers to control temperature and they cannot create energy out of nothing.

Sorry.


.


The energy added (pumping of the tire) is 1) breathing 2) burning.


No. Breathing does not generate thermal energy.
Burning does, but that is dissipated into space along with the rest of any thermal energy the Earth has.

No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
You can't trap heat.
You can't trap light.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Burning doesn't add energy to Earth. Neither does breathing. The energy is already on Earth in the form of chemical energy (a type of potential energy). Potential energy has no temperature.

You are warm blooded. You get that energy keep your body warm by using the energy it takes to grow a plant.

It is still energy from the Sun. Nothing has increased energy anywhere except the Sun. Nothing has prevented that energy from being lost to space. The Earth stays the same temperature (assuming the Sun has the same output).


Copper shields against UV radiation effectively.

So?
Spongy Iris wrote:
Glass slows down UV radiation.

So? It slows down all light. It doesn't trap it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Water is a good insulator.

WRONG. Water is a good conductor of thermal energy. That's why you want to wear DRY clothes in the winter.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A freezer traps cold in a box.

You can't trap cold. Cold is a lack of energy. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Unplug that freezer and it will warm to room temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you have a cloud cover, the clouds must be acting like insulation, from either hot sun or cold atmosphere.

Clouds are not insulation. You can't trap light. You can't trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't decrease entropy.
You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't trap light.


Dude! The top water of a lake in Minnesota will freeze in the winter. But the water won't freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake!

Therefore the water does insulate against cold.

Given long enough, the water will freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake.
A Minnesota winter isn't long enough.

Ice forms on top of water because ice has less density than liquid water.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
23-12-2020 13:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:Spend some time outside. Follow the weather through the seasons.

Spend some time with a physics textbook.

Really, how does Greenhouse Effect supposedly increase earth's average temperature without additional energy? Your claim that clouds have miraculous superpowers to control temperature all rest on your answer to this question.

.


Increased atmospheric CO2 would increase atmospheric density.

Imagine if you pump up a tire, it generates heat.

Not possible. There is not enough carbon dioxide to significantly alter anything. It also cycles in and out of the atmosphere. We aren't talking about 1% of the atmosphere here. The atmosphere is not a closed container. It is not like a tire. To pump up a tire requires energy.


I'm pretty sure what you are explicitly saying here is false.

Carbon dioxide increases the rate of water evaporation,

Carbon dioxide does not affect the temperature or rate that water evaporates.
Spongy Iris wrote:
and probably has lead to a cloudier world.

It is not possible to measure the cloud cover of Earth.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This would explain why the surface extent of ice in the Arctic has decreased substantially in the past 30 years.

It hasn't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Clouds effect warmer temperatures in a cold climate.

No, they don't. It's the other way around. Reversal fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually I think the atmosphere is more like a refrigerator / freezer, which must necessarily be closed container to function properly.

Denial of the ideal gas law. The atmosphere is not in a closed container.


Oh also...

"In order to test the effect of overlying gases on the
evaporation rate of water, two identical 'Lucite' chambers
were constructed to house shallow brass evaporation
dishes 2 cm in diameter. Under uniform ambient condi-
tions this would ensure equal evaporation from both
dishes. The diminishing height of the water meniscus
over the dishes filled with distilled water provided a
measure of evaporation rate; the menisci were optically
projected on to a grid on which the lowering of the meniscus
apex was recorded every 15 or 30 min, depending on the
evaporation rate, for periods of 3-4 h.
Initially, one chamber was ventilated with carbon
dioxide, the other with air. The water sample in the
chamber containing carbon dioxide was observed to
evaporate most rapidly...
As a result of fifteen sets of observations, the water containing the dissolved carbon dioxide consistently evaporated more rapidly than the control water sample. The
increase in evaporation varied between 15 and 50 per cent"

https://www.nature.com/articles/199899a0


I would have to give this paper a fail.

Carbon dioxide is devoid of water. Air is not.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
23-12-2020 19:23
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
6 observations where The Parrot, and anyone who agrees with him, buries their heads in the sand.

1. Temperature of a cloudy winter night versus clear winter night in all climates outside the tropics.

2. Satellite observations of the north pole.

3. The effect of cold on air pressure.

4. Carbon dioxide's effect on water evaporation.

5. The frequency of rain, frost, and snow in San Francisco winters..

6. The freezing rate of lakes in Minnesota

It's like arguing with children, when they deny, or deflect, from every inconvenient truth that opposes their anti climate change religion.



Edited on 23-12-2020 19:26
23-12-2020 21:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
Spongy Iris wrote:I have already posted the 40 year time lapse of surface ice extent at the north pole many times.

You have never posted any valid dataset in any thread on this site for any of your WACKY arguments.

So, you claim that clouds have some magical ability to control temperature as opposed to changing weather conditions forming the clouds. You are on tap to post the valid dataset that supports that argument.

Post it here in this thread. Until then, your claims are summarily dismissed.

.


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
23-12-2020 22:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
6 observations where The Parrot, and anyone who agrees with him, buries their heads in the sand.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.
Spongy Iris wrote:
1. Temperature of a cloudy winter night versus clear winter night in all climates outside the tropics.

You have not observed all climates or all days. You have not observed what the temperature would have been had a cloud that was present had not been there. Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
2. Satellite observations of the north pole.

What about it?
Spongy Iris wrote:
3. The effect of cold on air pressure.

The temperature at a location does not affect it's pressure. Static pressure does not change temperature. Weather observations at weather stations disagree with you.

KSEA 231753Z 33003KT 3SM R16L/3000VP6000FT BR SCT001 BKN150 02/01 A3051 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 7 SLP343 VIS S-W-N 2 T00170011 10017 21006 56004
KSEA 231748Z 00000KT 2SM R16L/2000VP6000FT BR SCT001 BKN150 02/01 A3051 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 7
KSEA 231721Z 00000KT 1/4SM R16L/1200V3500FT FG VV001 01/01 A3051 RMK AO2 T00110011
KSEA 231653Z 04008KT 1/8SM R16L/0800V1600FT FG VV001 01/00 A3051 RMK AO2 SLP343 T00110000
KSEA 231637Z 03008KT 1/4SM R16L/1000V2000FT FG VV001 01/00 A3051 RMK AO2 T00110000
KSEA 231632Z 02007KT 1/2SM R16L/1600VP6000FT FG OVC001 01/00 A3051 RMK AO2 T00110000

KLAS 231956Z 06021G27KT 10SM FEW250 11/M14 A3043 RMK AO2 PK WND 04029/1937 SLP301 T01061139
KLAS 231856Z 04019KT 10SM FEW250 10/M14 A3044 RMK AO2 PK WND 04027/1813 SLP305 T01001139
KLAS 231756Z 05020G26KT 10SM FEW250 09/M14 A3044 RMK AO2 PK WND 05027/1718 SLP309 T00891139 10094 20061 51026
KLAS 231656Z 05018G25KT 10SM FEW250 08/M14 A3043 RMK AO2 SLP303 T00831139

Spongy Iris wrote:
4. Carbon dioxide's effect on water evaporation.

Again, weather stations disagree with you. See above.
Spongy Iris wrote:
5. The frequency of rain, frost, and snow in San Francisco winters..

KSFO 231956Z 12007KT 10SM SCT200 13/M02 A3025 RMK AO2 SLP243 T01331022
KSFO 231856Z 12008KT 10SM FEW200 13/M02 A3026 RMK AO2 SLP245 T01281022
KSFO 231756Z 14011KT 10SM FEW200 12/M03 A3026 RMK AO2 SLP245 T01171028 10117 20078 53013

This weather station disagrees with you.
Spongy Iris wrote:
6. The freezing rate of lakes in Minnesota

What about it? Argument from randU fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It's like arguing with children, when they deny, or deflect, from every inconvenient truth that opposes their anti climate change religion.

Science isn't a religion. Math isn't a religion.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. Inversion 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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
23-12-2020 22:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
Spongy Iris wrote:Dude! The top water of a lake in Minnesota will freeze in the winter. But the water won't freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake!

Therefore the water does insulate against cold.


This is one of the stupidest responses available on the internet.

Technically all matter is an insulator.
Technically all matter is a conductor.
Technically all matter is a resistor.

Just answer the question: When you exit your house to walk around outside on an extremely cold day, do you A) first drench your clothes in water to add extra insulation against the cold ... or do you B) wear them dry because it would stupid to wear them wet considering water's tremendous ability to conduct thermal energy?


Spongy, which is it? ... A) or B)?


.


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
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate climate:

Remember me

▲ 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