Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs > Page 5

Page 5 of 7

05-12-2019 01:18
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Tmid, The construction and operation of the Large Hadron Collider is more fantastic than the Venus landers, although the Venus landers were an incredible accomplishment.
05-12-2019 01:20
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	A lot of accusations there IBDM, and a lot of mind reading from a person like you who claims to have logic and common sense.
05-12-2019 02:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote: Tmid, The construction and operation of the Large Hadron Collider is more fantastic than the Venus landers, although the Venus landers were an incredible accomplishment. I would agree. It's all so amazing though. Humanity is capable of such incredible things. One of the interesting issues that raises with the Climate Change debate is the active avoiding of mentioning things we can do to fix a CO2 spike if causes a problem. Bjorn Lomborg is considered by some to be a bad actor because he talks about things we can do OTHER than reduce CO2 emissions. The detractors want people like him to stay silent so the public doesn't just say "awe hell, let's just get some reflective asphalt and I can still drive my Hummer".
05-12-2019 03:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote: Tmid, The construction and operation of the Large Hadron Collider is more fantastic than the Venus landers, although the Venus landers were an incredible accomplishment. I would agree. It's all so amazing though. Humanity is capable of such incredible things. One of the interesting issues that raises with the Climate Change debate is the active avoiding of mentioning things we can do to fix a CO2 spike if causes a problem. Bjorn Lomborg is considered by some to be a bad actor because he talks about things we can do OTHER than reduce CO2 emissions. The detractors want people like him to stay silent so the public doesn't just say "awe hell, let's just get some reflective asphalt and I can still drive my Hummer". Your last statement might actually be true. Asphalt absorbs more solar radiation than CO2 does. Yet it has nothing to do with global warming. Around Atlanta, Georgia, USA it can be 90° while around asphalt it will be 115. I think that is ignored when it comes to climate modeling. Thank you for mentioning that overlooked aspect of climate change.
05-12-2019 03:39
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Albedo. Reflection of EM is way better in the long term than the absorption of asphalt.

05-12-2019 04:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote:Your last statement might actually be true. Asphalt absorbs more solar radiation than CO2 does. Well it's not actually that straight forward. It's that asphalt absorbs the energy and heats up the city, people rock the AC and it's an issue that way. But adding some reflective to asphalt is a huge saver.
05-12-2019 04:31
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:Your last statement might actually be true. Asphalt absorbs more solar radiation than CO2 does. Well it's not actually that straight forward. It's that asphalt absorbs the energy and heats up the city, people rock the AC and it's an issue that way. But adding some reflective to asphalt is a huge saver. You got the last part wrong. Snakes lie on asphalt at night because of the heat it's radiating. Paved roads using asphalt is not a part of any climate model. It creates a constant increase in atmospheric warming.
05-12-2019 05:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote: You got the last part wrong. Yeah no doubt an Earth covered with asphalt would have a much higher emissivity. It's because the roads are right where we live that it boost temps in cities even more than globally. Good link: https://heatisland.lbl.gov/coolscience/cool-pavements My avatar drives the road on the left. "Raising by 0.20 the albedo of all paved surfaces is projected to reduce summertime outdoor air temperatures in California cities by about 0.1 to 0.5 °C (about 0.2 to 0.9 °F), depending on city geography and climate." certainly not WOWEE! stuff but interesting.
05-12-2019 05:24
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: You got the last part wrong. Yeah no doubt an Earth covered with asphalt would have a much higher emissivity. It's because the roads are right where we live that it boost temps in cities even more than globally. Good link: https://heatisland.lbl.gov/coolscience/cool-pavements My avatar drives the road on the left. "Raising by 0.20 the albedo of all paved surfaces is projected to reduce summertime outdoor air temperatures in California cities by about 0.1 to 0.5 °C (about 0.2 to 0.9 °F), depending on city geography and climate." certainly not WOWEE! stuff but interesting. It's emissivity would lower. Asphalt absorbs heat during the day and radiates it at night. If you ever lived in the south you would know this.
05-12-2019 06:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote: It's emissivity would lower. Yeah that's what it says. Albedo up, that's emissivity down.
05-12-2019 18:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	keepit wrote: The thing is, a legitimate Church True Scotsman fallacy. keepit wrote: has the backing of God as a Church. No god is required for a religion. Shinto and Buddhism are two examples. The Church of Global Warming has two gods: Gaia, and the Great God of Global Warming. keepit wrote: Your comment about posts being in your mind ignored the fact that some are ONLY in your mind. We all know that your posts are in your mind. The problem is that some of them are only in your mind. I assure you, they are on the forum as well. You are reading one right now. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-12-2019 19:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	keepit wrote: ITN, I'm just guessing but i wouldn't be surprised if half your posts ask the question, "What is climate change?". Someone who is a little quicker on the uptake than yourself would pick up on that clue that some unambiguous definitions/specifications are required. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-12-2019 22:41
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	If you put a man/woman/both, in a well insulated, sealed, 70 F room... Wouldn't the temperature in the room rise above 70 F after a while? Since it's a sealed room, the oxygen would be replaced with CO2 over time as well. Is the room heating up, do to the increased CO2, or the activities of the test subjects?
07-12-2019 04:53
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: If you put a man/woman/both, in a well insulated, sealed, 70 F room... Wouldn't the temperature in the room rise above 70 F after a while? Since it's a sealed room, the oxygen would be replaced with CO2 over time as well. Is the room heating up, do to the increased CO2, or the activities of the test subjects? The human body is generating thermal energy in any living person. So factoring out the person suffocating and just treating them as a heat source, IF the outside of the room wasn't allowing the energy to leave faster than the human body inside was supplying it (which was calculated by the text book at ~ 100 watts) then yes it would keep getting warmer. The composition of the gases in the room wouldn't matter since they would be free to absorb the energy by conduction with the walls and person if they didn't absorb it from radiance. Remember we talk about CO2 in the CLIMATE-DEBATE.COM because CO2 is able to absorb radiance in the infra red as it leaves headed for space. In a room that wouldn't matter since the radiance can't get away. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
07-12-2019 20:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: If you put a man/woman/both, in a well insulated, sealed, 70 F room... Wouldn't the temperature in the room rise above 70 F after a while? Since it's a sealed room, the oxygen would be replaced with CO2 over time as well. Is the room heating up, do to the increased CO2, or the activities of the test subjects? The human body is generating thermal energy in any living person. You can't create energy out of nothing. The human body does not generate energy. It converts energy from one form to another. In this case, chemical energy to thermal energy. tmiddles wrote: So factoring out the person suffocating and just treating them as a heat source, IF the outside of the room wasn't allowing the energy to leave faster than the human body inside was supplying it (which was calculated by the text book at ~ 100 watts) then yes it would keep getting warmer. You are warm blooded. The temperature of the human body will stay the same unless you're sick. tmiddles wrote: The composition of the gases in the room wouldn't matter since they would be free to absorb the energy by conduction with the walls and person if they didn't absorb it from radiance. Correct. tmiddles wrote: Remember we talk about CO2 in the CLIMATE-DEBATE.COM because CO2 is able to absorb radiance in the infra red as it leaves headed for space. Absorption of surface infrared does not warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: In a room that wouldn't matter since the radiance can't get away. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

07-12-2019 20:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	HarveyH55 wrote: If you put a man/woman/both, in a well insulated, sealed, 70 F room... Wouldn't the temperature in the room rise above 70 F after a while? Since it's a sealed room, the oxygen would be replaced with CO2 over time as well. Is the room heating up, do to the increased CO2, or the activities of the test subjects? If the room was sealed well enough, yes...the temperature of the room would increase. The temperature of the human body would not (assuming our human is alive and well and still converting chemical energy from it's last meal to thermal energy). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 07-12-2019 20:33
08-12-2019 01:08
Leitwolf ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	This is quite interesting, something I still try to wrap my head around. Opposite to what I suggest, the common position is clouds were cooling the planet. Of course I was curious what the foundation of that claim is. "Annual mean net CRF estimated from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) scanning radiometer measurements from 1985 to 1986. Orange and red correspond to a strong cooling effect, whereas blue and green indicate warming. Values over snow-covered regions are probably unreliable" There is a lot interesting stuff going on here. First, there is a huge variation in how clouds affect the climate. In some regions clouds would be moderately warming the planet, while in other regions they would be massively cooling. Overall most of the cooling takes place over water, while over land it is more neutral. Over the USA clouds should have a moderate cooling effect (btw. "green" indicates cooling!). In this case I can use my weather records for comparison, and I can definitely tell we are seeing the opposite there. As named before there is a positive correlation between clouds and surface temperatures. Anyhow.. The Sahara is meant to be warmed by clouds. This is a bit odd since net cloud radiative forcing at least requires the presence of clouds, of which there hardly are any over the Sahara desert. For example, if we assume an average cloud cover of 5% over the Sahara and an average annual positive forcing of ~10W/m2, then clouds if present would have a net positive forcing of 10/0.05 = 200W/m2. It gets even weirder if we look at the southern polar region. Over the ocean close to the arctic continent clouds would have a net negative forcing of up to 80 or 90W/m2. Over the arctic ice shelf this would totally turn around and there clouds would have a net positive forcing of 10 to 30W/m2. A delta of this magnitude in radiative forcing might make a difference of some 30K in temperature, which is huge. Indeed there is a huge delta in temperatures between those regions. The antarctic ocean shows moderate cold temperatures of about 0°Celsius, which is due to the non-freezing water. On the antartic ice shelf however we easily see like -50 to -60°C on average. So while we do see a huge delta in surface temperatures, it goes the opposite way of what these data on cloud forcing suggest. If is relatively warm where the cloud forcing is meant to be strongly negative, and it is extremely cold where cloud forcing is meant to be positive. There is yet another problem with this. If we ignore real life emissivity and just assume perfect emissivity, we can easily schematize raw radiative fluxes. While both regions receive low solar radiation (~190W/m2 on the southern pole, ~210W/m2 on the antarctic ocean), there will be a significant difference in surface emissions. While the ocean would emit some 330W/m2 of LWIR, the extremely cold antartic ice would only emit some 130W/m2. As a table: Ocean: 210 in, 330 out Ice: 190 in, 130 out The problem here is something we are totally familiar with. We all know during day time clouds are ususally cooling as there is more solar radiation coming in as LWIR going out. During the night, with only LWIR going out, clouds are warming. Clouds are simply interfering with both fluxes and depending on which flux is stronger, that will determine the primary effect of clouds. These data however are telling us just the opposite. According to it, clouds would be cooling where there is far more radiation going out as coming in, and they would be warming where there is far more coming in as going out!? How would you make sense of it? Attached image: Edited on 08-12-2019 01:09
08-12-2019 01:16
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ITN, Nice call on the "true Scotsman fallacy". Not withstanding the "fallacy", you were within just a few miles of being correct.
08-12-2019 02:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: The human body is generating thermal energy in any living person. ...The human body does not generate energy. It converts energy from one form to another. In this case, chemical energy to thermal energy. And that's what I said: Thermal Energy. You just corrected nothing. Into the Night wrote: You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. This is a deliberate distortion you repeat. We CAN TRAP light and thermal energy for a while, just not forever. IKEA doesn't kidnap me and keep my locked in a room until I die, but it sure can hold me for a while and make me late for a meeting as I try to weave my way to the exit. Into the Night wrote:...the temperature of the room would increase. The temperature of the human body would not Not true necessarily. There is no reason the temperature of the room could not be just below human body temp with high humidity to prevent evaporation in the beginning and quickly result in a life threatening increase in temperature due to body heat alone. I guess ITN doesn't believe someone could die due to their own body heat not being dissipated? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
08-12-2019 02:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Leitwolf wrote:...clouds would be cooling where there is far more radiation going out as coming in, and they would be warming where there is far more coming in as going out!? Trying to follow along. How is it determined that there are areas that have more coming in than going out? I take it that the total combination of regions are in rough equilibrium with the suns input but some areas do more and others less? The input radiance would just be based on latitude right? Equator getting the most and the poles the least.
08-12-2019 04:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Leitwolf wrote: This is quite interesting, something I still try to wrap my head around. When you write "try to wrap my head around" you are effectively saying "try to convince my self is true." Instead of trying to delude yourself, why don't you consider the possibility that it is FALSE. Maybe clouds have no effect and you are being fed a bunch of hogwash for purposes of manipulating you. I have a theory. Tell me what you think. I believe that you should see a correlation between colder air flowing into a region and a decrease in the average temperature for that region. I believe that you should see a correlation between warmer air flowing into a region and an increase in the average temperature for that region. I firmly believe that if colder air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and colder temperatures in that region. I firmly believe that if warmer air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and warmer temperatures in that region. Do you agree or disagree? Leitwolf wrote: Opposite to what I suggest, the common position is clouds were cooling the planet. Since this is the "common position" of flaming idiots, why do you apply effort into convincing yourself it is true? Are you trying to fit in? Leitwolf wrote: First, there is a huge variation in how clouds affect the climate. You've got to be fugging kidding me. After forty years of no one being able to unambiguously define "Climate" beyond insane logical contradictions, you find these types of prayers to be "interesting"? Leitwolf wrote: In some regions clouds would be moderately warming the planet, while in other regions they would be massively cooling. Of course, that's how you can tell which ones work for Mr. Heat Miser and which ones for Mr. Cold Miser. Leitwolf wrote: Overall most of the cooling takes place over water, while over land it is more neutral. Of course! When it's "neutral" is when "Climate" takes over herself" Leitwolf wrote:Over the USA clouds should have a moderate cooling effect Of course! Trump was elected, after all. Leitwolf wrote: The Sahara is meant to be warmed by clouds. Of course! That's what the Sahara was MEANT FOR. It's Mr. Heat Miser's pet project. It's working out quite nicely I might add. He's using it to seel sand to the Arabs. Leitwolf wrote: This is a bit odd since net cloud radiative forcing at least requires the presence of clouds, Of Course! ... actually you've got to be fugging kidding me. So you actually believe that all of these FORCING miracles are actually real things? You honestly don't realize that this is religious dogma crap? God help you. From The MANUAL: Forcing: noun According to the Global Warming mythology, a forcing is a miracle performed by Climate in discharging Her duties as the central planner and administrator of all weather systems, ecosystems and local climates across the globe, of all interactions thereof and in caring for the wellbeing of all life on earth. This falls under Climate Science. Feedback: noun A feedback is a specific type of forcing employed by Climate that overcomes the physical limitations of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics by creating additional usable energy. Feedbacks come in various subcategories, e.g. thermal, climate, hydrostatic, radiative, etc.. This falls under Settled Science. Leitwolf wrote: It gets even weirder if we look at the southern polar region. Nope. It doesn't get any weirder than believing all of this Climate Change crap is actually real, or even that it is Settled Science. Leitwolf wrote: Over the ocean close to the arctic continent clouds would have a net negative forcing of up to 80 or 90W/m2. OK, this is officially the STUPIDEST Climate Change comment I have read. It has earned its own special entry into The Manual and I have to get this into my sig block. God help us. Leitwolf wrote: Over the arctic ice shelf this would totally turn around and there clouds would have a net positive forcing of 10 to 30W/m2. A delta of this magnitude in radiative forcing might make a difference of some 30K in temperature, which is huge. All of this is going into The Manual under the same entry. Here is the latest entry into The MANUAL: Leitwolf Polar Cloud Forcing Ranges: noun These are the established values that must be considered when discussing Climate Science of the Polar regions for arguments to be valid. Over the ocean close to the arctic continent clouds would have a net negative forcing of up to 80 or 90W/m2. Over the arctic ice shelf this would totally turn around and there clouds would have a net positive forcing of 10 to 30W/m2. A delta of this magnitude in radiative forcing might make a difference of some 30K in temperature, which is huge. It is incumbent upon those preaching the dogma to ensure these ranges are appropriately considered and included lest deniers point to the "glaring omissions." [img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8e/e7/fc/8ee7fc91e3f90fed79d1b3f13f2eabd8.jpg[/quote] Leitwolf wrote: The problem here is something we are totally familiar with. Nope. Your stupid and WACKY religious dogma is NOT "what we know." It is not science and it is not real. Leitwolf wrote: We all know during day time clouds are ususally cooling as there is more solar radiation coming in as LWIR going out. No we do not know this. You merly regurgitate it because you were told to regurgitate it. Leitwolf wrote: During the night, with only LWIR going out, clouds are warming. Clouds are always being warmed by either the warmer earth or by the solar raidation. Planet earth is warmed only by the solar radiation which never stops. Leitwolf wrote:Clouds are simply interfering with both fluxes and depending on which flux is stronger, that will determine the primary effect of clouds. Nope. Clouds are not the cause of anything. They are the effect. Look at what you are saying, i.e. that clouds are either warmed by the surface or warmed by the sun. You have not touched on any effect that clouds have themselves. Leitwolf wrote: These data however are telling us just the opposite. There si no data. From The MANUAL: The Data: proper noun According to Global Warming mythology, The Data is the rumored proof of Global Warming, the mere mention of which has the magical superpower to end all debate on questions of Global Warming faith. Note: Often Climate Scientists fabricate data and claim that it comes from The Data. As long as the fabricated/cooked/tweaked/modified/fudged/altered/fiddled data support the truth of Climate Science then it is the Climate Scientists' duty to present that data. This duty is analogous to Taqiya in Islam. Leitwolf wrote: How would you make sense of it? I would abandon this stupid religion and learn science. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-12-2019 04:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	keepit wrote: ITN, Nice call on the "true Scotsman fallacy". Not withstanding the "fallacy", you were within just a few miles of being correct. Into the Night was spot-on. You were a couple of miles away in the peanut gallery. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-12-2019 06:24
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: If you put a man/woman/both, in a well insulated, sealed, 70 F room... Wouldn't the temperature in the room rise above 70 F after a while? Since it's a sealed room, the oxygen would be replaced with CO2 over time as well. Is the room heating up, do to the increased CO2, or the activities of the test subjects? If the room was sealed well enough, yes...the temperature of the room would increase. The temperature of the human body would not (assuming our human is alive and well and still converting chemical energy from it's last meal to thermal energy). I was mostly being sarcastic about the room and the CO2. We had an employee meeting in the break room last week. We've haven't been getting much global warming, so the AC was off. I'm not sure if the were running the heat. Anyway, it wasn't too bad, with 80 or so people packed in there, but about 30 minutes in, it was getting uncomfortable warm in there.
08-12-2019 10:02
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: I was mostly being sarcastic about the room and the CO2. I think you mean ignorant. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
08-12-2019 11:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: The human body is generating thermal energy in any living person. ...The human body does not generate energy. It converts energy from one form to another. In this case, chemical energy to thermal energy. And that's what I said: Thermal Energy. You just corrected nothing. WRONG. You said the human body creates energy. Not possible. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. This is a deliberate distortion you repeat. WRONG. You are denying thermodynamics again. tmiddles wrote: We CAN TRAP light WRONG. You cannot trap light at all. tmiddles wrote: and thermal energy for a while, WRONG. You cannot trap thermal energy at all. tmiddles wrote: just not forever ...deleted irrelevant material.... Not even for a moment. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...the temperature of the room would increase. The temperature of the human body would not Not true necessarily. True, given the conditions defined by you. tmiddles wrote: There is no reason the temperature of the room could not be just below human body temp with high humidity to prevent evaporation in the beginning and quickly result in a life threatening increase in temperature due to body heat alone. Now you want to change the conditions. False equivalence fallacy. tmiddles wrote: I guess ITN doesn't believe someone could die due to their own body heat not being dissipated? Dead bodies don't heat the room. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-12-2019 12:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: The human body is generating thermal energy ... WRONG. You said the human body creates energy. Not possible. Buy a dictionary already ITN. Does a "Generator" generate electric energy? Well you see it only converts Energy from mechanical energy to electrical energy. Your posts are 99% garbage. Edited on 08-12-2019 12:32
09-12-2019 17:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: The human body is generating thermal energy ... WRONG. You said the human body creates energy. Not possible. Buy a dictionary already ITN. Irrelevance fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Does a "Generator" generate electric energy? No. tmiddles wrote: Well you see it only converts Energy from mechanical energy to electrical energy. In most cases. tmiddles wrote: Your posts are 99% garbage. Again, you just want to deny the laws of thermodynamics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-12-2019 17:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	tmiddles wrote: Your posts are 99% garbage. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-12-2019 07:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Does a "Generator" generate electric energy? No. Ah, another gem.
10-12-2019 07:16
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Does a "Generator" generate electric energy? No. Ah, another gem. One of my favorite quotes from this forum The name of "old sick silly slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" proves that "badnight" is false Also the only person Branner banned. They posted links to actual data showing that Arctic sea ice was in decline. That was considered as "spam". itn prefers Alpo because it's more nutritious. Edited on 10-12-2019 07:21

18-01-2020 03:14
Leitwolf ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	NASA caught lying on cloud forcing. Ok, this is how far we got. All METAR data on weather observations show clouds are positively correlated to temperatures and definitely warm the surface, rather than cooling it. This fact alone falsifies the GHE (due to GHGs). Yet we ran into one specific problem. NASA claims that clouds may indeed be warming over land, but would have a reverse effect over the ocean in general, and there would be places where clouds had a massively negative impact. The most prominent example hereto would be the antarctic ocean. Regretably there are no weather stations in this region to fact check this claim, as there are in general no traditional weather stations on the ocean (with the exception of a few oil rigs). So the question was up what to do? The Bering Sea caught my attention. It is one of the deeply red regions in the map above, where clouds should be massively cooling. On the other side, this sea harbors the Aleutic Islands which are US territory and I should have some stations located there in my sample. Well, in fact I found a total 10 reporting stations placed over the whole archipel. Once I sorted them out, I could run all the tests.. First I must admit this region is indeed very cloudy, with almost 60% of reported conditions being "OVC" and only about 19% being "CLR". See chart 1. Secondly there was the big question. Is NASA right, or is my suspicion correct? Are clouds cooling or warming this region? Chart 2 gives the answer. This time it is actually very simple, as rain chill will not cause a lot of bias in a cold, maritime region. Rain itself (if it is not snow) can not be much colder as the surface, and it can not make the sea any "wetter" and thus cause additional chill by evaporation. So the correlation between clouds and surface temperature is almost linear - and POSITIVE!!! Yes, in contrast to what NASA claims clouds are warming the Bering Sea, just like everywhere else. Finally we get a profound understanding on how this works if we look at the seasonal bias. We can see OVC skies are colder than CLR skies from April to July, while it is the opposite from August to March. This is a familiar pattern that we have seen before. As solar intensity is relatively stronger than surface temperatures in spring, clouds tend to have a chilling effect in this season, while this reverses in autumn, when surface temperatures are relatively higher than solar intensity. The data are obviously very sensitive in capturing this little variation, which highlights their accuracy. Overall however, clouds are warming the Bering Sea which the huge takeaway here. Why and how NASA fudged their data remains to be answered. My suspicion is they simply measure coulds with satellite instruments and than model the CRE (cloud radiative effect) based on unfounded assumptions on how clouds would behave. Alternatively they might also attribute convective heat transport within the atmosphere wrongfully to clouds. Attached image:
18-01-2020 03:14
Leitwolf ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	Chart 2: Attached image:
18-01-2020 03:15
Leitwolf ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	Chart 3: Attached image:
18-01-2020 03:22
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Leitwolf wrote:...clouds ...warm the surface, ...This fact alone falsifies the GHE (due to GHGs)..... How is that? Water vapor is a GHG? I thought the argument about cloud warming was that "this is ALSO happening" not "it is the ONLY thing happening" Leitwolf wrote:...how NASA fudged their data remains to be answered... So it's a bit premature to say they lied. I always enjoy your posts even if I struggle to fully understand them.
18-01-2020 03:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	tmiddles wrote: So it's a bit premature to say they lied. You've got to be kidding! It's a bit LATE to be noticing. You need to get out from behind the power curve. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-01-2020 19:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Leitwolf wrote: NASA caught lying on cloud forcing. Ok, this is how far we got. All METAR data on weather observations show clouds are positively correlated to temperatures and definitely warm the surface, rather than cooling it. This fact alone falsifies the GHE (due to GHGs). Yet we ran into one specific problem. NASA claims that clouds may indeed be warming over land, but would have a reverse effect over the ocean in general, and there would be places where clouds had a massively negative impact. The most prominent example hereto would be the antarctic ocean. Regretably there are no weather stations in this region to fact check this claim, as there are in general no traditional weather stations on the ocean (with the exception of a few oil rigs). So the question was up what to do? The Bering Sea caught my attention. It is one of the deeply red regions in the map above, where clouds should be massively cooling. On the other side, this sea harbors the Aleutic Islands which are US territory and I should have some stations located there in my sample. Well, in fact I found a total 10 reporting stations placed over the whole archipel. Once I sorted them out, I could run all the tests.. First I must admit this region is indeed very cloudy, with almost 60% of reported conditions being "OVC" and only about 19% being "CLR". See chart 1. Secondly there was the big question. Is NASA right, or is my suspicion correct? Are clouds cooling or warming this region? Chart 2 gives the answer. This time it is actually very simple, as rain chill will not cause a lot of bias in a cold, maritime region. Rain itself (if it is not snow) can not be much colder as the surface, and it can not make the sea any "wetter" and thus cause additional chill by evaporation. So the correlation between clouds and surface temperature is almost linear - and POSITIVE!!! Yes, in contrast to what NASA claims clouds are warming the Bering Sea, just like everywhere else. Finally we get a profound understanding on how this works if we look at the seasonal bias. We can see OVC skies are colder than CLR skies from April to July, while it is the opposite from August to March. This is a familiar pattern that we have seen before. As solar intensity is relatively stronger than surface temperatures in spring, clouds tend to have a chilling effect in this season, while this reverses in autumn, when surface temperatures are relatively higher than solar intensity. The data are obviously very sensitive in capturing this little variation, which highlights their accuracy. Overall however, clouds are warming the Bering Sea which the huge takeaway here. Why and how NASA fudged their data remains to be answered. My suspicion is they simply measure coulds with satellite instruments and than model the CRE (cloud radiative effect) based on unfounded assumptions on how clouds would behave. Alternatively they might also attribute convective heat transport within the atmosphere wrongfully to clouds. No gas, liquid, or vapor has the capability to warm anything. You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't warm the surface using a colder liquid. Clouds are not a gas. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-01-2020 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Leitwolf wrote:...clouds ...warm the surface, ...This fact alone falsifies the GHE (due to GHGs)..... How is that? Water vapor is a GHG? Clouds are not water vapor. No gas, liquid, or vapor has the capability to warm anything. tmiddles wrote: I thought the argument about cloud warming was that "this is ALSO happening" not "it is the ONLY thing happening" Zero. Clouds cannot warm anything simply because they are clouds. You cannot create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: Leitwolf wrote:...how NASA fudged their data remains to be answered... So it's a bit premature to say they lied. Not premature at all. They lied. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-01-2020 20:46
Leitwolf ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	Just in case anyone is wondering where all this might lead us in the end, here is the straight forward conclusion with a beautiful point. We know for a lot of reasons named here that CO2 only plays a minor role in climate. Also we know that the sun largely controls the climate, with the coincidence of the Maunder-Minimum and the little ice age serving as an impressive show piece. Furthermore this correlation between solar activity and global temperature goes well beyond such a singular event and matched very well up the 1970ies. Since then however something happened and Earth warmed for another reason, which can not be explained by solar activity, which indeed declined over the last years. Chart 1 shows this "departure" Of course climatologists at this point would argue this was and can only be the effect of ever increasing CO2. But this claim is troubled, since by the 1970ies CO2 concentrations have reached some 330pm, about 50ppm above its "natural" level. With the diminishing returns of CO2 forcing, it should have warmed Earth by about half of what it does today. The CO2 theory simply fails to address why CO2 should only taken effect from the 1970ies onward. As I have shown the GH-theory is fundamentally wrong in the way it accounts for clouds. It denies the warming effect of clouds and then wrongfully puts all the blame on GHGs, which only play a minor role in climate indeed. Clouds are warming in general, but high altitude clouds do even more so. From the 1970ies on mankind is putting ever more artificial clouds into the higher troposphere (aka contrails), where they must cause significant warming. Chart 2 shows the development of global air travel. Pls note: pre-1970ies air travel contains a significant share of propeller driven aircraft which fly at lower altitudes and thus hardly cause contrails. Finally if we combine solar activity with the effect of contrails we can perfectly explain why temperatures evolved how they did. Chart 3. Attached image:
18-01-2020 20:47
Leitwolf ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	Chart 2: Attached image:
18-01-2020 20:48
Leitwolf ★☆☆☆☆ (117)	Chart 3: PS: this is solar acitivity + air travel Attached image: Edited on 18-01-2020 20:51

Page 5 of 7

Join the debate Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Clouds	57	21-09-2022 19:01
Clouds	4	01-04-2022 02:54
Do CO2 Emissions Create More Clouds?	124	19-01-2020 23:09
Experts reveal that clouds have moderated warming triggered by climate change	10	06-11-2019 23:54
High CO2 levels can destabilize marine layer clouds	1	06-03-2019 22:01