Clouds and temperature

Tim the plumber wrote:
1, You are using only day time highs.

2, If it is a high pressure clear winter's day it will be cold. This is due to the angle of incidence of the sunshine. Not lack of cloud only.

3, Meteorology is more complex than this. Do not apply the computer to make poor data and poor hypothesis look good.

Leitwolf wrote:
Well I have made one mistake after all. Looking at the data in detail, I discovered that both CLR and (most of all) OVC scenarios were much more common during winter time, for what so reason ever. In order to filter this bias I averaged the results for each month, and only then calculated the total annual average.

As a result the whole curve flattens a bit, with OVC scenarios gaining about 2°C. This outcome is also much better in line with the effects I described before (most of all rainfall).



With regard to the feedback I think the basic idea has not yet transpired. For instance "You are using only day time highs"?! No, not at all. Rather I have included every single measurement (at least hourly intervals) over two years (about 11 mio. records!)

Wake wrote:
I think it more complex than that. For instance - most large cities are cited near waterways or the ocean. And under these conditions you can have either very cold or fairly warm conditions as the water carries heat into the area and the cloud cover tends to reflect the heat back down to the ground.

Wake wrote:
What's more there are various types of partial cloud cover. You can have low altitude partial cover that shades the land or in a warm front slows the conductive heat exchange.

Wake wrote:
Middle altitude clouds usually shade the land but in the winter they can also slow heat exchange.

Wake wrote:
High altitude clouds invariably are ice and reflect incoming sunlight.

Wake wrote:
I think that you have to add the daily temperature into your model in some manner that will distinguish what the effects of conduction are.

Wake wrote:
Think of heat lost from the Earth as: Incoming heat from the Sun radiates into the absorption bands of O2 and N2.

Wake wrote:
Outgoing heat energy in the form of low IR radiation is captured mostly by H2O.

Wake wrote:
The result of this is that radiant energy which moves at the speed of light is converted to conductive energy

Wake wrote:
which moves at the speed of the density of the atmosphere

Wake wrote:
and it's ability to conduct the heat energy upwards.

Wake wrote:
This suggests that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" and that it most accurately should be described as a blanketing effect.

Leitwolf wrote:
Well I have made one mistake after all. Looking at the data in detail, I discovered that both CLR and (most of all) OVC scenarios were much more common during winter time, for what so reason ever. In order to filter this bias I averaged the results for each month, and only then calculated the total annual average.

As a result the whole curve flattens a bit, with OVC scenarios gaining about 2°C. This outcome is also much better in line with the effects I described before (most of all rainfall).



With regard to the feedback I think the basic idea has not yet transpired. For instance "You are using only day time highs"?! No, not at all. Rather I have included every single measurement (at least hourly intervals) over two years (about 11 mio. records!)

Leitwolf wrote:
Now this is ****ing amazing! I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work, but yet the idiocy here makes a bit shameless to put out news early.

The things just evolved he way they did, and I did document it here. Now in the latest evolutionary move I had to add quite a lot of code to filter not just seasonal, but also regional patterns. There are yet some minor issues with the data, but yet the results are strong, extremely strong.




The curve has smoothed a lot. Now it is almost symmetric. Clear skies are just as "cold" as all overcast skies, suggesting a completely neutral role of clouds. Of course, we know better, for the named reasons.

Overcast scenarios are a lot colder due to rainfall, which is true to a lesser extend for BKN and even SCT scenarios. Bearing this in mind, there is no other solution than to accept the fact, that it is the warmer, the more clouds there are. In other words, clouds ARE heating the planet.

This little piece of evidence breaks the spine of the GH theory for good.

Leitwolf wrote:
Now this is ****ing amazing! I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work, but yet the idiocy here makes a bit shameless to put out news early.

The things just evolved he way they did, and I did document it here. Now in the latest evolutionary move I had to add quite a lot of code to filter not just seasonal, but also regional patterns. There are yet some minor issues with the data, but yet the results are strong, extremely strong.




The curve has smoothed a lot. Now it is almost symmetric. Clear skies are just as "cold" as all overcast skies, suggesting a completely neutral role of clouds. Of course, we know better, for the named reasons.

Overcast scenarios are a lot colder due to rainfall, which is true to a lesser extend for BKN and even SCT scenarios. Bearing this in mind, there is no other solution than to accept the fact, that it is the warmer, the more clouds there are. In other words, clouds ARE heating the planet.

This little piece of evidence breaks the spine of the GH theory for good.

Wake wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
Now this is ****ing amazing! I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work, but yet the idiocy here makes a bit shameless to put out news early.

The things just evolved he way they did, and I did document it here. Now in the latest evolutionary move I had to add quite a lot of code to filter not just seasonal, but also regional patterns. There are yet some minor issues with the data, but yet the results are strong, extremely strong.




The curve has smoothed a lot. Now it is almost symmetric. Clear skies are just as "cold" as all overcast skies, suggesting a completely neutral role of clouds. Of course, we know better, for the named reasons.

Overcast scenarios are a lot colder due to rainfall, which is true to a lesser extend for BKN and even SCT scenarios. Bearing this in mind, there is no other solution than to accept the fact, that it is the warmer, the more clouds there are. In other words, clouds ARE heating the planet.

This little piece of evidence breaks the spine of the GH theory for good.

Tell you what, since you believe that you have a piece of hard science, why don't you write a paper and present it to Nature or Science? Or do you believe your chances are better with a bunch of people that don't know anything about science? I asked you some questions. Why didn't you answer them and instead started with "I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work"?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
Now this is ****ing amazing! I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work, but yet the idiocy here makes a bit shameless to put out news early.

The things just evolved he way they did, and I did document it here. Now in the latest evolutionary move I had to add quite a lot of code to filter not just seasonal, but also regional patterns. There are yet some minor issues with the data, but yet the results are strong, extremely strong.




The curve has smoothed a lot. Now it is almost symmetric. Clear skies are just as "cold" as all overcast skies, suggesting a completely neutral role of clouds. Of course, we know better, for the named reasons.

Overcast scenarios are a lot colder due to rainfall, which is true to a lesser extend for BKN and even SCT scenarios. Bearing this in mind, there is no other solution than to accept the fact, that it is the warmer, the more clouds there are. In other words, clouds ARE heating the planet.

This little piece of evidence breaks the spine of the GH theory for good.

Tell you what, since you believe that you have a piece of hard science, why don't you write a paper and present it to Nature or Science? Or do you believe your chances are better with a bunch of people that don't know anything about science? I asked you some questions. Why didn't you answer them and instead started with "I know I am talking to idiots who will no way understand the significance of my work"?

Science isn't 'hard' or 'easy'. It simply is. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Leitwolf wrote:



Note that according to this, clouds would reflect 23% of solar radiation, which equals about 79W/m2 (= 23%*342, a figure I have determined independently before). On the amount of terrestrial infrared reflected by clouds the graph says nothing, it would not even exist. Rather that would be part of "back radiation", "re-emitted" by the atmosphere. Not even making a difference between reflection and re-emissions seems a way odd and stupid.
However there is another major mistake, by putting surface emissions to 126% of 342 = 397W/m2. As surface emissivity is only 0.92 (rather than 1) that is over 30W/m2 too much.

Anyhow, as the empiric data suggest, clouds are reflecting no less terrestrial infrared than solar radiation. So that figure will be in 23%+ region, 79W/m2+ respectively. We could try to correct the model in the respect, along with lowering surface emissions from 116 to 107%. Also the 12% of direct to space emissions are far too low.

Or we take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The GHE amounts to about 155W/m2. 30/m2 of that originate from the exaggerated surface emissivity, and another 79W/m2+ from the negligence of clouds reflecting terrestrial infrared. Both factors do account for the biggest share of the "GHE".

Wake wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:



Note that according to this, clouds would reflect 23% of solar radiation, which equals about 79W/m2 (= 23%*342, a figure I have determined independently before). On the amount of terrestrial infrared reflected by clouds the graph says nothing, it would not even exist. Rather that would be part of "back radiation", "re-emitted" by the atmosphere. Not even making a difference between reflection and re-emissions seems a way odd and stupid.
However there is another major mistake, by putting surface emissions to 126% of 342 = 397W/m2. As surface emissivity is only 0.92 (rather than 1) that is over 30W/m2 too much.

Anyhow, as the empiric data suggest, clouds are reflecting no less terrestrial infrared than solar radiation. So that figure will be in 23%+ region, 79W/m2+ respectively. We could try to correct the model in the respect, along with lowering surface emissions from 116 to 107%. Also the 12% of direct to space emissions are far too low.

Or we take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The GHE amounts to about 155W/m2. 30/m2 of that originate from the exaggerated surface emissivity, and another 79W/m2+ from the negligence of clouds reflecting terrestrial infrared. Both factors do account for the biggest share of the "GHE".

I would like you to think of this: If all of the energy that enters the atmosphere ends up leaving how do you account for all of the energy expended to grow plants?

Wake wrote:
Since this is NOT reduced to waste heat (well immediately anyway) how can you explain coal and petroleum deposits?

Wake wrote:
At one time these "Earth's Energy Budgets" used to account for this but recently that has disappeared.

Wake wrote:
While not a whole lot of energy goes into this it is of measurable levels and used to account for between 1 and 2% of the total energy beamed upon the Earth.

Into the Night wrote: Such mindless drivel that I can't bare to repeat it.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Such mindless drivel that I can't bare to repeat it.

Is there even one thing that you could stretch your imagination to think about? Even ONE?

Leitwolf wrote:
I had to check a lot of details hereto. I just wanted to make sure, that some flaw in the data or my c code was not producing any garbage. In fact I found some minor issues there and there, but nothing would cause a relevant change in the result.
Then I also filtered the data by latitude. As US stations do not represent tropical areas, a restriction to a maximum latitude of 35° would at least point a finger to which direction things might be going. Interestingly the heating effect of clouds only grew stronger, though just a little bit.

What you need to imagine is this, as I can not quantify the effect of rain chill. Adding (or rather subtracting) the effect of rain chill, the chart might look something like this (keep in mind, that rain will be associated to cloudiness):



Now rain as such is not part of the radial balance of the atmosphere. Clouds are however. And of course, clouds are the one main competitor to GHGs. So the apologetic policy must be about denying that nemisis to their theory.

This is being done in multiple ways. First clouds provide the largest share of earths albedo. If it was not for that, you would never get to 255 or 254K as a "black body temperature" for earth. Rather that would be 274K. Next, although clouds served their cause with regard to the albedo effect, that part is being diminished. Now they do not reflect like 79W/m2 (which is probably the only correct figure in the chart postet above) of solar radiation, but only about 44W/m2, as the IPCC states.
Finally the GHE of clouds (I know the term is wrong) will then be traded below that 44W/m2 figure, somewhere between 24 and 31W/m2. That would mean clouds not only had a cooling effect overall, but also make only a tiny contribution to the total GHE.

Reality differs from that. Getting the figures right, their albedo effect is about 79W/m2, as indicated above. Their net effect, and that is where the empirical data come into play, is positive. They doubtlessly heat the planet, rather than cooling it. So their "GHE" is above 79W/m2.

With clouds providing over 79W/m2, and with correcting emissivity by at least 30W/m2, the total GHE of about 155W/m2 vanishes. 155-79(+)-30 only leaves us with <46W7m2. It will be far less than this anyhow, But it certainly means that the GHE can not be any larger than 10°C, theoretically, as a maximum. Practically the question must be, if it even exists, and if so, it will be of marginal character.

Leitwolf wrote:
I had to check a lot of details hereto. I just wanted to make sure, that some flaw in the data or my c code was not producing any garbage. In fact I found some minor issues there and there, but nothing would cause a relevant change in the result.
Then I also filtered the data by latitude. As US stations do not represent tropical areas, a restriction to a maximum latitude of 35° would at least point a finger to which direction things might be going. Interestingly the heating effect of clouds only grew stronger, though just a little bit.

What you need to imagine is this, as I can not quantify the effect of rain chill. Adding (or rather subtracting) the effect of rain chill, the chart might look something like this (keep in mind, that rain will be associated to cloudiness):



Now rain as such is not part of the radial balance of the atmosphere. Clouds are however. And of course, clouds are the one main competitor to GHGs. So the apologetic policy must be about denying that nemisis to their theory.

This is being done in multiple ways. First clouds provide the largest share of earths albedo. If it was not for that, you would never get to 255 or 254K as a "black body temperature" for earth. Rather that would be 274K. Next, although clouds served their cause with regard to the albedo effect, that part is being diminished. Now they do not reflect like 79W/m2 (which is probably the only correct figure in the chart posted above) of solar radiation, but only about 44W/m2, as the IPCC states.
Finally the GHE of clouds (I know the term is wrong) will then be traded below that 44W/m2 figure, somewhere between 24 and 31W/m2. That would mean clouds not only had a cooling effect overall, but also make only a tiny contribution to the total GHE.

Reality differs from that. Getting the figures right, their albedo effect is about 79W/m2, as indicated above. Their net effect, and that is where the empirical data come into play, is positive. They doubtlessly heat the planet, rather than cooling it. So their "GHE" is above 79W/m2.

With clouds providing over 79W/m2, and with correcting emissivity by at least 30W/m2, the total GHE of about 155W/m2 vanishes. 155-79(+)-30 only leaves us with <46W7m2. It will be far less than this anyhow, But it certainly means that the GHE can not be any larger than 10°C, theoretically, as a maximum. Practically the question must be, if it even exists, and if so, it will be of marginal character.

Wake wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
I had to check a lot of details hereto. I just wanted to make sure, that some flaw in the data or my c code was not producing any garbage. In fact I found some minor issues there and there, but nothing would cause a relevant change in the result.
Then I also filtered the data by latitude. As US stations do not represent tropical areas, a restriction to a maximum latitude of 35° would at least point a finger to which direction things might be going. Interestingly the heating effect of clouds only grew stronger, though just a little bit.

What you need to imagine is this, as I can not quantify the effect of rain chill. Adding (or rather subtracting) the effect of rain chill, the chart might look something like this (keep in mind, that rain will be associated to cloudiness):



Now rain as such is not part of the radial balance of the atmosphere. Clouds are however. And of course, clouds are the one main competitor to GHGs. So the apologetic policy must be about denying that nemisis to their theory.

This is being done in multiple ways. First clouds provide the largest share of earths albedo. If it was not for that, you would never get to 255 or 254K as a "black body temperature" for earth. Rather that would be 274K. Next, although clouds served their cause with regard to the albedo effect, that part is being diminished. Now they do not reflect like 79W/m2 (which is probably the only correct figure in the chart posted above) of solar radiation, but only about 44W/m2, as the IPCC states.
Finally the GHE of clouds (I know the term is wrong) will then be traded below that 44W/m2 figure, somewhere between 24 and 31W/m2. That would mean clouds not only had a cooling effect overall, but also make only a tiny contribution to the total GHE.

Reality differs from that. Getting the figures right, their albedo effect is about 79W/m2, as indicated above. Their net effect, and that is where the empirical data come into play, is positive. They doubtlessly heat the planet, rather than cooling it. So their "GHE" is above 79W/m2.

With clouds providing over 79W/m2, and with correcting emissivity by at least 30W/m2, the total GHE of about 155W/m2 vanishes. 155-79(+)-30 only leaves us with <46W7m2. It will be far less than this anyhow, But it certainly means that the GHE can not be any larger than 10°C, theoretically, as a maximum. Practically the question must be, if it even exists, and if so, it will be of marginal character.

I'm still struggling with what you are trying to show.

Leitwolf wrote:
I just "finished" this..

https://www.scribd.com/document/369953233/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-2

Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, I should have posted this version instead..

https://www.scribd.com/document/370223733/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-2

Leitwolf wrote:
"But if you average these things together with no efforts to distinguish between them all you end up with is the average mean temperature for that area."

These are the only data available. In opposition to temperatures, there are no consistent data on cloud cover. The whole theory on cloud forcing so far is based on two things: satellite measurements and models. That is the combination of the two, as satellites alone will not reveal much. This approach however is not bullet proof, as for the modelling part the old rule "garbage in, garbage out" applies.

So what is badly required is a pure approach, where we simply look at data, nothing else. No models, no assumptions, just plain data. The data may not be perfect, as they cover clouds only up to 12.000ft. But these are pure, raw data, nonetheless. I think it is the first time anyone did this.

Your demand to distinguish between low and high clouds (and whatever in between) is futile, as the data will not provide that information. You can take what you have and do something reasonable, or leave it. Jumping up and down on this one thing, while completely ignoring the huge success is simply stupid and ignorant.

Next to this, my (late) understanding that clouds not only reflect solar radiation, but will also emit about the same amount of energy into space, as they will emit downward, ultimately brings clarity. As long as the downward reflection is being denied, cloud net forcing will correspond to the reflection of solar radiation, something in the 70-80W/m2 range. That makes the consensus model an impossibility, and the GHE as such.

Note the chart in my initial post, where there 23% for the albedo effect, and another 9% for emissions by clouds. These 32% of 342 = 110W/m2. While it does not tell how much radiation they would provide downward, there are just two options. Either a similar amount goes downward which then would consume the biggest part of the 155W/m2 total GHE. Or downward radiation would only be small, resulting in a huge negative net CF, which turns out to be absurd.

Either way, it is the ultimate evidence that there is no GHE, or that the whole GHE is just the result of poor accounting respectively.

Wake wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
I just "finished" this..

https://www.scribd.com/document/369953233/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-2

This article is not correct. Or rather it is only partially correct. While under the conditions and locations monitored it successfully identified conditions under clear skies and fully clouded skies they made a major mistake in averaging temperatures under the three different forms of partial clouds.

The effect of clouds on surface temperatures has a very large difference on whether they are very high, medium altitude or low level. Averaging these temperatures should not be all crammed together but separated. This destroys your ability to statistically average temperatures.

And cloud make-up is also relevant: Do you suppose a moderate altitude partially cloudy day with clouds formed from volcanic ash might be different than that formed of ice crystals on a very cold front?

One of the serious problems we're having is NASA pretending that somehow this is a simple process and hence there's no question about their predictions. And the problem is that their "predictions" use computer models that are so bad that they don't even match the temperature patterns that already happened. So why are they pretending that they can predict 20 or more years into the future?

Last week they predicted rain every day this week. Then they predicted rain on only four days. Then two days. And only one day off they got the time it was going to start raining incorrect by 9 hours.

They cannot model what in the hell caused the warming from 1898 to 1940. They cannot explain why it stopped between 1940 and 1980. So why should anyone pretend that they know what caused warming between 1980 and now.

Especially since the NASA record shows this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Look at the curve from 1980 until now. Then look at the actual satellite data:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

Now it is important to know how to interpret the satellite data. While it appears to go up it isn't doing so. There are multiple measurements for each year.

Wake wrote:
If you observe these you see that 9 months of 1998 were hot.

Wake wrote:
And then another 6 months in 2015 were hot.

Wake wrote:
All of the rest of this is nothing more than normal chaotic weather patterns.

Wake wrote:
In short - the satellite data shows nothing more than NO CHANGE.

Wake wrote:
While NASA is making absolutely wild claims of a nature that should have scientists indicted by Grand Juries.

Wake wrote:
If you pick cities around the world and go to their weather records you discover that their records show hot and cold records from before 1980 or so. You find that on the average there hasn't been any change in rainfall.

Wake wrote:
You can see muttenhead litebrain here telling us all that a couple of hot years proves global warming as he quotes icefield sizes. But they are only about 70 or so years in length and hence absolutely meaningless.

Wake wrote:
And look at your energy balance chart. If you add all of the sources of energy leaving the Earth you see that 100% of the energy absorbed by the Earth is either reflected or radiated.

Wake wrote:
Think about this: We have almost endless supplies of coal which is trapped energy from the Sun.

Wake wrote:
As is oil

Wake wrote:
and natural gas.

Wake wrote:
So while most of the energy emitted from the Sun that strikes the Earth leaves some of it remains here.

Wake wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that NO scientist who has any real knowledge would NEVER try to make the points that NASA has been doing.

Wake wrote:
It would appear that the Deep State is everywhere and not just in the upper echelons of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA and others.

Into the Night wrote:
The first purpose of any government agency is a simple one once you realize that their success metric isn't profit.

The first purpose of any government agency is to justify their own existence. They are there to 'solve' a 'problem' (without actually solving it, otherwise their justification is no longer there). If they have to create a 'problem' for them to 'solve', they will do so.

Only by 'riding to the rescue' to 'solve' a 'problem', can an agency justify a bigger budget for next year.

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure light. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.

Into the Night wrote:
Argument from randU.

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.

Into the Night wrote: True. 100% of the energy absorbed by the Earth is either reflected or radiated.

Into the Night wrote: We don't know the origin of coal.

Into the Night wrote: Aren't you forgetting something?

While sunlight does raise the potential energy of some things, the potential energy of others is lost. The total thermal energy on Earth doesn't change unless the output of the Sun changes. Thermal energy is not potential energy.

Into the Night wrote: Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure light. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.

Stop pretending that you know what science is. You haven't had a clue when you got past "Duhhh dere ain't no such ting as gobal warms"

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Argument from randU.

You've already shown that you know nothing about statistics or mathematics. So your continuous reference to a word you got from "Big Book Of Words To Make You Sound Smart" isn't getting you anywhere.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.

Wake wrote:
Nor do you need to you stupid ass.

Yes, you do.

Wake wrote:
We all have seen that the only thing dear to your heart is the Stefan-Boltzman Law which you yourself do not understand but like to mention it a great deal.

You just denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You just denied a theory of science. You just denied how satellites measure anything.

Wake wrote:
A greybody is: "A body that does not absorb all incident radiation". Since we can tell HOW much incident energy has been absorbed by the radiation from the Earth there is no "emissivity" necessary.

You can't tell how much incident energy has been either absorbed by the Earth or how much is being radiated by the Earth. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. Why do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law?

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: True. 100% of the energy absorbed by the Earth is either reflected or radiated.

Again you show your ignorance. But coal and oil are ORGANIC compounds.

Wake wrote:
That is nothing new. But of course you don't know that.

Wake wrote:
There is no way of obtaining organic compounds except originally by the action of photosynthesis.

Wake wrote:
Therefore ALL saved energy deposits are necessarily energy salvaged from the sun.
WRONG. Energy deposits may come from any source of energy, including the energy from fission inside the Earth.

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: We don't know the origin of coal.

What you mean is that you don't know the origin of coal.

Wake wrote:
What is funny is that I'm old enough to have used coal to heat our home in the University district and you don't have a clue what it is.

Wake wrote:
You can see the plant material in Anthracite.

Wake wrote:
Perhaps you are religious and believe that it was put here in the beginning by the word of God.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Aren't you forgetting something?

While sunlight does raise the potential energy of some things, the potential energy of others is lost. The total thermal energy on Earth doesn't change unless the output of the Sun changes. Thermal energy is not potential energy.

I love the way you put out such intense stupidity without example. Tell us you fool - what potential energy of what is lost?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Tell some more of your stock shtick. Since MOST theories can never be proven or disproven only some really stupid person would say that science can only be science if it can be proven.

Wake wrote:
We have fission and fusion from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity

Wake wrote:
but that theory will NEVER be proven because it is impossible to prove

Wake wrote:
- only to use as if it has been proven.

Wake wrote:
So according to the ignorance that spouts from your mouth it ain't science.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure light. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.

Stop pretending that you know what science is. You haven't had a clue when you got past "Duhhh dere ain't no such ting as gobal warms"

Mantra 2...2...1...no argument presented.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Argument from randU.

You've already shown that you know nothing about statistics or mathematics. So your continuous reference to a word you got from "Big Book Of Words To Make You Sound Smart" isn't getting you anywhere.

Inversion fallacy...Mantras 2...4...2...7...no argument presented.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.

Wake wrote:
Nor do you need to you stupid ass.

Yes, you do.

Wake wrote:
We all have seen that the only thing dear to your heart is the Stefan-Boltzman Law which you yourself do not understand but like to mention it a great deal.

You just denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You just denied a theory of science. You just denied how satellites measure anything.

Wake wrote:
A greybody is: "A body that does not absorb all incident radiation". Since we can tell HOW much incident energy has been absorbed by the radiation from the Earth there is no "emissivity" necessary.

You can't tell how much incident energy has been either absorbed by the Earth or how much is being radiated by the Earth. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. Why do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law?

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: True. 100% of the energy absorbed by the Earth is either reflected or radiated.

Again you show your ignorance. But coal and oil are ORGANIC compounds.

That is true. Seems you don't know what an organic compound is.

It is any material containing carbon. That is the definition of organic chemistry. The chemistry of carbon and it's compounds.

Wake wrote:
That is nothing new. But of course you don't know that.

I do know that. Go read a chemistry textbook.

Wake wrote:
There is no way of obtaining organic compounds except originally by the action of photosynthesis.

WRONG. Carbon is an element. Photosynthesis does not produce carbon.

Wake wrote:
Therefore ALL saved energy deposits are necessarily energy salvaged from the sun.
WRONG. Energy deposits may come from any source of energy, including the energy from fission inside the Earth.

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: We don't know the origin of coal.

What you mean is that you don't know the origin of coal.

No one knows the origin of coal. There are many speculations about it, but none are anything more than speculations.

Wake wrote:
What is funny is that I'm old enough to have used coal to heat our home in the University district and you don't have a clue what it is.

I do know what coal is. I have used it myself as well. Coal is primarily carbon.

Wake wrote:
You can see the plant material in Anthracite.

The fossils that are embedded in coal is not coal. They are fossils. Fossils don't burn.

Wake wrote:
Perhaps you are religious and believe that it was put here in the beginning by the word of God.

I am not making a Christian argument. Why do you assume this?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Aren't you forgetting something?

While sunlight does raise the potential energy of some things, the potential energy of others is lost. The total thermal energy on Earth doesn't change unless the output of the Sun changes. Thermal energy is not potential energy.

I love the way you put out such intense stupidity without example. Tell us you fool - what potential energy of what is lost?

Since you obviously deny the processes of combustion, decomposition, and chemistry in general by asking this question, I take it that you are denying science again.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Tell some more of your stock shtick. Since MOST theories can never be proven or disproven only some really stupid person would say that science can only be science if it can be proven.

NO theory can ever be proven. ANY theory of science can be disproven. That is what falsifiability means, dumbass. A non-scientific theory is not falsifiable, so it can be neither proven or disproven. It remains a circular argument (the way all theories begin). It remains an argument of faith.

Wake wrote:
We have fission and fusion from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity

Einstein did not create fission or fusion. Neither did his theory of relativity.

Wake wrote:
but that theory will NEVER be proven because it is impossible to prove

The Theory of Relativity is falsifiable. It has so far survived. It is still part of the body of science.

Wake wrote:
- only to use as if it has been proven.

No theory of science is ever proven. Science is an open system. It does not use supporting evidence. It does not use consensus. No amount of supporting evidence will ever prove a theory. Literally mountains of it are meaningless in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.

Wake wrote:
So according to the ignorance that spouts from your mouth it ain't science.

It is part of the body of science. You deny science. You also deny mathematics. You insult (and in your case threaten) the Outsider. You are no different than any other faithful believer of the Church of Global Warming in that regard.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure light. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.

Stop pretending that you know what science is. You haven't had a clue when you got past "Duhhh dere ain't no such ting as gobal warms"

Mantra 2...2...1...no argument presented.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Argument from randU.

You've already shown that you know nothing about statistics or mathematics. So your continuous reference to a word you got from "Big Book Of Words To Make You Sound Smart" isn't getting you anywhere.

Inversion fallacy...Mantras 2...4...2...7...no argument presented.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.

Wake wrote:
Nor do you need to you stupid ass.

Yes, you do.

Wake wrote:
We all have seen that the only thing dear to your heart is the Stefan-Boltzman Law which you yourself do not understand but like to mention it a great deal.

You just denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You just denied a theory of science. You just denied how satellites measure anything.

Wake wrote:
A greybody is: "A body that does not absorb all incident radiation". Since we can tell HOW much incident energy has been absorbed by the radiation from the Earth there is no "emissivity" necessary.

You can't tell how much incident energy has been either absorbed by the Earth or how much is being radiated by the Earth. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. Why do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law?

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: True. 100% of the energy absorbed by the Earth is either reflected or radiated.

Again you show your ignorance. But coal and oil are ORGANIC compounds.

That is true. Seems you don't know what an organic compound is.

It is any material containing carbon. That is the definition of organic chemistry. The chemistry of carbon and it's compounds.

Wake wrote:
That is nothing new. But of course you don't know that.

I do know that. Go read a chemistry textbook.

Wake wrote:
There is no way of obtaining organic compounds except originally by the action of photosynthesis.

WRONG. Carbon is an element. Photosynthesis does not produce carbon.

Wake wrote:
Therefore ALL saved energy deposits are necessarily energy salvaged from the sun.
WRONG. Energy deposits may come from any source of energy, including the energy from fission inside the Earth.

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: We don't know the origin of coal.

What you mean is that you don't know the origin of coal.

No one knows the origin of coal. There are many speculations about it, but none are anything more than speculations.

Wake wrote:
What is funny is that I'm old enough to have used coal to heat our home in the University district and you don't have a clue what it is.

I do know what coal is. I have used it myself as well. Coal is primarily carbon.

Wake wrote:
You can see the plant material in Anthracite.

The fossils that are embedded in coal is not coal. They are fossils. Fossils don't burn.

Wake wrote:
Perhaps you are religious and believe that it was put here in the beginning by the word of God.

I am not making a Christian argument. Why do you assume this?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Aren't you forgetting something?

While sunlight does raise the potential energy of some things, the potential energy of others is lost. The total thermal energy on Earth doesn't change unless the output of the Sun changes. Thermal energy is not potential energy.

I love the way you put out such intense stupidity without example. Tell us you fool - what potential energy of what is lost?

Since you obviously deny the processes of combustion, decomposition, and chemistry in general by asking this question, I take it that you are denying science again.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Tell some more of your stock shtick. Since MOST theories can never be proven or disproven only some really stupid person would say that science can only be science if it can be proven.

NO theory can ever be proven. ANY theory of science can be disproven. That is what falsifiability means, dumbass. A non-scientific theory is not falsifiable, so it can be neither proven or disproven. It remains a circular argument (the way all theories begin). It remains an argument of faith.

Wake wrote:
We have fission and fusion from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity

Einstein did not create fission or fusion. Neither did his theory of relativity.

Wake wrote:
but that theory will NEVER be proven because it is impossible to prove

The Theory of Relativity is falsifiable. It has so far survived. It is still part of the body of science.

Wake wrote:
- only to use as if it has been proven.

No theory of science is ever proven. Science is an open system. It does not use supporting evidence. It does not use consensus. No amount of supporting evidence will ever prove a theory. Literally mountains of it are meaningless in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.

Wake wrote:
So according to the ignorance that spouts from your mouth it ain't science.

It is part of the body of science. You deny science. You also deny mathematics. You insult (and in your case threaten) the Outsider. You are no different than any other faithful believer of the Church of Global Warming in that regard.

So you believe that organic compounds are simply those with carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in them.

Wake wrote:
But you don't know how they got that way.

Wake wrote:
I especially like the way you are holding your hands in fists and jumping up and down like a stupid little child and pretending that we don't have EXACT and definite measurement of the energy that strikes the outer atmosphere or the direct and exact energy that is absorbed into the ground.

Wake wrote:
Is there anyone more stupid than he who would deny direct measurement?

Wake wrote:
Oh, that's right - that's the operating engineer in you. The one who tells PhD physicists and engineers that they don't know what they're talking about when they use several different methods of measuring emitted energy from the Earth.

Wake wrote:
I really like the part where YOU don't know what coal is

Wake wrote:
so no one else does either....deleted Holy Quote...

Wake wrote:
Why don't you deny that as well you ignorant fool?

Wake wrote:
Fossils sure made a good job of powering this island Earth

Wake wrote:
until the Obama regime came along.

Wake wrote:
I am really astonished how not only are you supremely ignorant but you don't even bother to look up anything on the off-chance that you MIGHT be wrong.
...deleted Mantras 1...bigotry...1....1...1...1...2...

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure light. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.

Stop pretending that you know what science is. You haven't had a clue when you got past "Duhhh dere ain't no such ting as gobal warms"

Mantra 2...2...1...no argument presented.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Argument from randU.

You've already shown that you know nothing about statistics or mathematics. So your continuous reference to a word you got from "Big Book Of Words To Make You Sound Smart" isn't getting you anywhere.

Inversion fallacy...Mantras 2...4...2...7...no argument presented.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.

Wake wrote:
Nor do you need to you stupid ass.

Yes, you do.

Wake wrote:
We all have seen that the only thing dear to your heart is the Stefan-Boltzman Law which you yourself do not understand but like to mention it a great deal.

You just denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You just denied a theory of science. You just denied how satellites measure anything.

Wake wrote:
A greybody is: "A body that does not absorb all incident radiation". Since we can tell HOW much incident energy has been absorbed by the radiation from the Earth there is no "emissivity" necessary.

You can't tell how much incident energy has been either absorbed by the Earth or how much is being radiated by the Earth. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. Why do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law?

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: True. 100% of the energy absorbed by the Earth is either reflected or radiated.

Again you show your ignorance. But coal and oil are ORGANIC compounds.

That is true. Seems you don't know what an organic compound is.

It is any material containing carbon. That is the definition of organic chemistry. The chemistry of carbon and it's compounds.

Wake wrote:
That is nothing new. But of course you don't know that.

I do know that. Go read a chemistry textbook.

Wake wrote:
There is no way of obtaining organic compounds except originally by the action of photosynthesis.

WRONG. Carbon is an element. Photosynthesis does not produce carbon.

Wake wrote:
Therefore ALL saved energy deposits are necessarily energy salvaged from the sun.
WRONG. Energy deposits may come from any source of energy, including the energy from fission inside the Earth.

Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote: We don't know the origin of coal.

What you mean is that you don't know the origin of coal.

No one knows the origin of coal. There are many speculations about it, but none are anything more than speculations.

Wake wrote:
What is funny is that I'm old enough to have used coal to heat our home in the University district and you don't have a clue what it is.

I do know what coal is. I have used it myself as well. Coal is primarily carbon.

Wake wrote:
You can see the plant material in Anthracite.

The fossils that are embedded in coal is not coal. They are fossils. Fossils don't burn.

Wake wrote:
Perhaps you are religious and believe that it was put here in the beginning by the word of God.

I am not making a Christian argument. Why do you assume this?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Aren't you forgetting something?

While sunlight does raise the potential energy of some things, the potential energy of others is lost. The total thermal energy on Earth doesn't change unless the output of the Sun changes. Thermal energy is not potential energy.

I love the way you put out such intense stupidity without example. Tell us you fool - what potential energy of what is lost?

Since you obviously deny the processes of combustion, decomposition, and chemistry in general by asking this question, I take it that you are denying science again.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Tell some more of your stock shtick. Since MOST theories can never be proven or disproven only some really stupid person would say that science can only be science if it can be proven.

NO theory can ever be proven. ANY theory of science can be disproven. That is what falsifiability means, dumbass. A non-scientific theory is not falsifiable, so it can be neither proven or disproven. It remains a circular argument (the way all theories begin). It remains an argument of faith.

Wake wrote:
We have fission and fusion from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity

Einstein did not create fission or fusion. Neither did his theory of relativity.

Wake wrote:
but that theory will NEVER be proven because it is impossible to prove

The Theory of Relativity is falsifiable. It has so far survived. It is still part of the body of science.

Wake wrote:
- only to use as if it has been proven.

No theory of science is ever proven. Science is an open system. It does not use supporting evidence. It does not use consensus. No amount of supporting evidence will ever prove a theory. Literally mountains of it are meaningless in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.

Wake wrote:
So according to the ignorance that spouts from your mouth it ain't science.

It is part of the body of science. You deny science. You also deny mathematics. You insult (and in your case threaten) the Outsider. You are no different than any other faithful believer of the Church of Global Warming in that regard.

So you believe that organic compounds are simply those with carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in them.

Never said any such thing, dumbass. Read the post again.

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon and its compounds. It does NOT refer to biological materials. It simply includes them.

Wake wrote:
But you don't know how they got that way.

It depends on the compound, doesn't it?

Wake wrote:
I especially like the way you are holding your hands in fists and jumping up and down like a stupid little child and pretending that we don't have EXACT and definite measurement of the energy that strikes the outer atmosphere or the direct and exact energy that is absorbed into the ground.

Nope. It is not possible to measure how much energy is absorbed by the Earth. You don't know Earth's emissivity.

Wake wrote:
Is there anyone more stupid than he who would deny direct measurement?

There is no direct measurement.

Wake wrote:
Oh, that's right - that's the operating engineer in you. The one who tells PhD physicists and engineers that they don't know what they're talking about when they use several different methods of measuring emitted energy from the Earth.

No, there aren't. It is not possible to measure how much energy is emitted from the Earth due to temperature, or due to reflections.

Wake wrote:
I really like the part where YOU don't know what coal is

Never said that either, dumbass. Coal is primarily carbon. Carbon is an element.

Wake wrote:
so no one else does either....deleted Holy Quote...

Never said that either, dumbass.

Wake wrote:
Why don't you deny that as well you ignorant fool?

Coal is primarily carbon.

Wake wrote:
Fossils sure made a good job of powering this island Earth

Fossils don't burn. They don't power anything except your imagination.

Wake wrote:
until the Obama regime came along.

Obama didn't change any of that. He DID dislike coal, though.

Wake wrote:
I am really astonished how not only are you supremely ignorant but you don't even bother to look up anything on the off-chance that you MIGHT be wrong.
...deleted Mantras 1...bigotry...1....1...1...1...2...

Inversion fallacy.

It is YOU that doesn't look anything up. It is YOU that just goes with whatever your stupid high school taught you. It is YOU that never read a chemistry textbook and has no clue what organic chemistry is. It is YOU that denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is YOU that denies the method used by the very satellites you worship get any information at all. It is YOU that can't even properly describe the orbit of the Earth.

Coal is primarily carbon. No one knows where it came from. All you have is speculations.

Oil is a renewable energy source. It does not require sunlight to be renewed. It is synthesized by conditions found underground from carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, hydrogen, heat, and pressure, in the presence of iron.

Natural gas is a renewable energy source. It can be synthesized in the same way as oil (and is), but can also be the result of bacterial processes.

Carbohydrates are NOT hydrocarbons. Learn chemistry.

Sunlight does produce chemical reactions (not just ozone!), but also plays a role with water in fixating carbon dioxide as carbohydrates. In each case where sunlight is increasing the potential energy of a chemical compound, the thermal energy is reduced. Such reactions are endothermic.

When the potential energy of the compound is converted back into kinetic energy, such reactions raise the thermal energy. Such reactions are exothermic.

Earth as a total absorbs and emits an equal amount of energy...100% of what comes in, goes out again. The only thing that can change that is a change in the output of the Sun.

The potential energy of a chemical bond does not change that in the least.

Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantras 1...Holy Quote...
You are so ignorant that you don't know that converting carbon, oxygen and hydrogen into complex organic compounds requires a LOT of energy and that is only obtainable with photosynthesis or bacterial actions against materials obtained by photosynthesis.

Wake wrote:
...deleted Holy Quote...Mantra 4...2...fallacy fallacy...

And again you claim that it isn't possible to actually measure how much energy is absorbed by the Earth.

Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 1...All energy is heat

Wake wrote:
except for that imparted by gravity

Wake wrote:
and the mass of Earth stopping a falling object is converted almost entirely to heat.

Wake wrote:
Yes I know - you believe that fission is somehow not heat.

Wake wrote:
You also believe that fusion is not heat

Wake wrote:
despite the face that the Sun exists because of fusion.
...deleted Mantras 2...7...2...1...2...2...4...2...