climate

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

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.

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

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You say humidity is dependent on temperature, and imply temperature cannot be dependent on humidity.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This is a false dichotomy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You appear to be fabricating an either/or situation where such situation does not exist.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Clouds have an effect on temperature.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Xadoman just summed it up basically.

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.

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?

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,

Spongy Iris wrote:
and probably has lead to a cloudier world.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This would explain why the surface extent of ice in the Arctic has decreased substantially in the past 30 years.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Clouds effect warmer temperatures in a cold climate.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually I think the atmosphere is more like a refrigerator / freezer, which must necessarily be closed container to function properly.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Glass slows down UV radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Water is a good insulator.

Spongy Iris wrote:
A freezer traps cold in a box.

Spongy Iris wrote:
If you have a cloud cover, the clouds must be acting like insulation, from either hot sun or cold atmosphere.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
NOT a reversal fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It freezes 5 or 10 times a year and hasn't snowed in almost 50 years.

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!

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!

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
is just a confirmation of the effect of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

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.

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

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

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.

Xadoman wrote:
ITN, I remember you have mentioned that not all of the energy that comes from the sun gets converted into thermal energy.

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

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.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
A freezer traps cold in a box.

You can't trap cold.

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.

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.

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.

.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:More repetitious garbage summarily dismissed, implausible deniability of known data.

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.

.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
6 observations where The Parrot, and anyone who agrees with him, buries their heads in the sand.

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
2. Satellite observations of the north pole.

Spongy Iris wrote:
3. The effect of cold on air pressure.

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
5. The frequency of rain, frost, and snow in San Francisco winters..

Spongy Iris wrote:
6. The freezing rate of lakes in Minnesota

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.

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.