Remember me
▼ Content

Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs15-08-2019 19:19
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(103)
This is sweet.

Ok, already posted this basic chart showing the observed temperature correlation between (reported) cloud condition and temperature from tropical NOAA stations. The data show there is NO NEGATIVE correlation at all, suggesting low clouds in the tropics have no cooling effect.

Furthermore I was speculating there must be a rain chill bias in the data, masking an otherwise (strong) positive correlation between low tropical clouds and temperatures.

Defining this rain chill bias precisely is beyond my means. However what I could do is a simple approach to outline the basic tendency. So what happens if we just skip all the records reporting some rain event and the upcoming reporting there after.

As we can see this is making cloudy conditions even warmer (as expected) and makes clear conditions rather cooler (surprisingly, probably some seasonal bias). As imperfect this approach may be, it clearly shows an overall positive correlation between low tropical clouds and observed temperature, right in the empiric data.

So if even low tropical clouds are warming (and they are supposed to have the strongest negative (or cooling) effect, we can definitely say clouds are warming the planet.

With clouds warming the planet, rather than GHGs, the GHE is definitely falsified by empiric evidence.
Attached image:


Edited on 15-08-2019 19:20
15-08-2019 19:21
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(103)
And here is the second chart..
Attached image:

15-08-2019 19:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
Leitwolf wrote: And here is the second chart..

I have a theory.

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.

I don't have any valid datasets handy so I don't expect many to accept my theory on face value right away but I'm working on fine-tuning my theory to, hope beyond hope, one-day compete with James'__ theory.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
15-08-2019 23:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
Leitwolf wrote:
So if even low tropical clouds are warming (and they are supposed to have the strongest negative (or cooling) effect, we can definitely say clouds are warming the planet.

With clouds warming the planet, rather than GHGs, the GHE is definitely falsified by empiric evidence.


I believe water vapor at 0-4%, as compared to CO2 at 0.04%, is the dominant gas in absorbing infrared. Clouds are water vapor right?

But I'm fuzzy on this whole post cause don't clouds make shade : ) yes I know that sounds dumb but I'm putting it out there.

Also the emissivity/absorptivity of clouds is generally lower.

If I'm not mistaken your post is about a contradiction with what is claimed? Where are the claims that are being contradicted?
16-08-2019 01:20
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1510)
I really am not getting the charts. I live in Florida, and it really seems to work the opposite. The summer months are termed 'rainy' season, hurricane season. During the day, the land warms up, air over the gulf of mexico (west), and over the Atlantic Ocean (east), pick up a lot of water vapor. In the afternoon/evening, pretty much every day, the water saturated air from the gulf, and from the Atlantic move inland. Where these two water saturated masses of air collide, we get rain, usually torrential rain (doesn't last long). We also get some severe weather, strong thunderstorms (lightning capital of the world), occasionally tornadoes. It gets hot during the day mid 90s, into triple digits. With the clouds rolling in, the rain, the temperature drops considerably, sweet relief, sort of. Humidity still makes it sweaty. Thermometer reads about 10 degrees lower, than the day time high, before the storms.

Even with out the rain or storms, there is most definitely a temperature difference, when isolated clouds block the sun, like stepping into a shady place. Warms right back up, after it passes too. I've never been inclined to make any measurements, to find out precisely how much cooler it actually is during the brief cloud passing. Usually, more focused on using that time to move my dog to the next shady place down the sidewalk, before the sun comes back out. Dog never really understood what I was doing, seldom cooperated much.
16-08-2019 04:18
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(103)
Well, the data are the data and they do not lie. Neither do I.

People have multiple issues with understanding clouds. Let me name a few..

1. People confuse temperature with radiation. If you are lying in the sun and a small clouds covers the sun for a moment, you feel like it is getting colder right away. However, no thermometer could measure any drop in temperature, for the period is far too short. What you feel is the absence of solar radiation on your skin, not a drop in environmental temperature.

2. This is almost a joke, but very true. People usually can only imagine the impact of clouds on a hot summer day. Reality has it, that we have nights as well and 3 more seasons. A little hint: aren't clear nights known to be cold?

3. People do not even understand the GHE as a concept, and believe it was a matter of radiation balance. This is fundamentally wrong and all it tells eventually, is that radiation will be balanced. It is like assuming as the balance sheet is balanced everything is fine, despite a cooperation is close to bankruptcy.

The more radiation, the hotter it is, and the hotter is, the more radiation. Just like the egg-chicken problem, it can not explain why a certain temperature/radiation level even exists. It is tautology.

The correct approach always will include the adiabatic lapse rate. With that you can picture a very consistent and also well accepted GHE, I mean accepted by apologetics. GHG then will simply move the photosphere (from LWIR is effectively emitted) higher up the atmosphere, which leads to higher temperatures below due to the adiabatic lapse rate. Just listen to Prof Merrifield in this video..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw

Note: this GHE concept does not require any "back radiation", or radiation balance, as both are totally irrelevant.

4. Despite this concept being fundamentally right, it should become obvious how clouds can only warm the planet, as they push up the photosphere very effectively, much more effectively btw. than GHG could. With this theoretic foundation in mind I had to look up the empiric data, because I had a very good idea on what I would find. And indeed the empiric data are totally in line with the theory.
16-08-2019 04:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
tmiddles wrote:I believe water vapor at 0-4%, as compared to CO2 at 0.04%, is the dominant gas in absorbing infrared.

... and you know this begs the question "so what ?"

tmiddles wrote: Clouds are water vapor right?

I sense a discussion with Into the Night is forthcoming.

tmiddles wrote:Also the emissivity/absorptivity of clouds is generally lower.

... which, of course, begs the question "so what ?"


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
16-08-2019 04:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
IBdaMann wrote:
"so what ?"
.


I was checking my own understanding that's what : D

Leitwolf wrote:
People have multiple issues with understanding clouds.


Leitwolf really excellent post. Totally see how my "sense" of things can be way off.

I still have to really dig into everything you presented including the video.
16-08-2019 11:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
Leitwolf wrote:
What you feel is the absence of solar radiation on your skin, not a drop in environmental temperature.
hint: aren't clear nights known to be cold?


Excellent points clear nights are a lot colder. It's odd to think of clouds as warm.

Leitwolf wrote: radiation balance. ...It is like assuming as the balance sheet is balanced everything is fine, despite a corporation is close to bankruptcy.


OK I think I'm following but don't love that analogy as it implies a tipping point death spiral instead of a "new normal".
You mean that there is a false reassurance in things being thermodynamically balanced since things are always thermodynamically balanced that is a given? What is important is where things balance out right?

Leitwolf wrote:
The more radiation, the hotter it is, and the hotter is, the more radiation. .... It is tautology.


And it sounds like you're saying radiation is being created when it's put that way. It invites confusion and a charge that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being violated.

Leitwolf wrote:
The correct approach always will include the adiabatic lapse rate. With that you can picture a very consistent and also well accepted GHE, ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw


Watched the video and understand the "adiabatic lapse rate" being the drop going up or increase going down per km. So the video really just describes a conventional greenhouse effect from AN atmosphere. He very briefly mentions the "controversial" bit of the "anthropogenic global warming".

I also love the bit about noticing pressurize air being hot for a bicycle pump.

Leitwolf wrote:
Note: this GHE concept does not require any "back radiation", or radiation balance, as both are totally irrelevant.


But what I think got totally confused/missed was air pressure. He sort of implies that more greenhouse gases would make for a higher level at which radiance can finally escape but he doesn't address that you could have more greenhouse gases/water vapor with very little change to the mass of the atmosphere.

I'm pretty sure that burning hydro carbons to generate CO2, based on the chemistry, actually makes the atmosphere less massive. While he wasn't getting into that it's an obvious assumption from his presentation that "adding CO2" would raise the adiabatic level. However my natural assumption from his description was that the mass of the atmosphere was the most important part of that whole system.

The video really makes the point that as gas expands it cools. This would be a function of mass/volume right? Yet the effect greenhouse gasses might NOT have on mass is not address by him. (my confusion/doubt being very influenced by the Huffman research from the earlier Venus thread where he finds it's all about air pressure: Huffman arguments in Venus thread)

Leitwolf wrote:clouds can only warm the planet, as they push up the photosphere


OK I'm pretty sure clouds weren't in the video. I'm not following this last bit.
Edited on 16-08-2019 11:20
16-08-2019 11:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
Since it is not possible to determine what the temperature would have been had the cloud not been there in the first place, you are leaping to a conclusion with insufficient data.
16-08-2019 11:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
Into the Night wrote:insufficient data.


You mean in concluding that clouds make it warmer?

Isn't this stuff they can do in a lab? (serious question, it's been frustrating me)
16-08-2019 11:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
So if even low tropical clouds are warming (and they are supposed to have the strongest negative (or cooling) effect, we can definitely say clouds are warming the planet.

With clouds warming the planet, rather than GHGs, the GHE is definitely falsified by empiric evidence.


I believe water vapor at 0-4%, as compared to CO2 at 0.04%, is the dominant gas in absorbing infrared. Clouds are water vapor right?

No. Clouds are liquid water, not vapor. They may even be ice.
Clouds of liquid water have a definite 'edge' to them. Clouds of ice have a somewhat indistinct 'edge' (such as cirrus clouds) or the anvil of a thunderstorm.
tmiddles wrote:
But I'm fuzzy on this whole post cause don't clouds make shade : ) yes I know that sounds dumb but I'm putting it out there.

They may actually eliminate shade since they may scatter light They also reduce the total available light striking the surface beneath them since a cloud is absorbing some of that energy.
tmiddles wrote:
Also the emissivity/absorptivity of clouds is generally lower.

The emissivity of a cloud is unknown.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2019 15:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:insufficient data.


You mean in concluding that clouds make it warmer?

Isn't this stuff they can do in a lab? (serious question, it's been frustrating me)


We have no idea if clouds have any affect at all. There is no way to see what the temperature would have been if the cloud had not been there.

There is no way to recreate the weather in the atmosphere in a lab. The Earth is the only lab there is. We can't just move clouds around at will.

Cloudy days can be quite cold. If you'll recall winter, they tend to have more cloudy days. Cloudy days can be quite warm. The hazy overcast days can be quite common, especially in some areas.

Warmer air can hold more water vapor than colder air, but clouds will not condense until the air cools enough to cause that to happen. How close is that to happening? That's what the dew point you see in the weather reports is all about. Another way of expressing the dew point is as a percentage (humidity). A cloud will only form at 100% humidity. In other words, a cloud will form when the amount of water vapor in the air is at the highest it can reach at that temperature. 50% humidity in air at 50 deg F is a different amount of water vapor in the air than 50% humidity in air at 70 deg F.

These graphs don't show anything, because they are assuming conditions in the air only change because of the cloud cover from one day to the next. In other words, they are looking at the result as the cause.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2019 15:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
tmiddles wrote: You mean in concluding that clouds make it warmer?


You are being manipulated. Are you smart enough to tell the difference between "cause" and "effect"?

Do clouds cause warmer temperatures or do warmer temperatures cause clouds?

Do clouds cause cooler temperatures or do cooler temperatures cause clouds?

From my previous post:

IBDaMann wrote:I have a theory.

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.



What do you think of my theory? Does it have any weaknesses? ... any logical chinks in the armor?

Yes, they can simulate all this in a lab.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
16-08-2019 16:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
Leitwolf wrote:
Well, the data are the data

What data?
Leitwolf wrote:
and they do not lie.

There is no data.
Leitwolf wrote:
Neither do I.

Yes you do. You are lying to yourself. You are also lying that there is data.
Leitwolf wrote:
People have multiple issues with understanding clouds. Let me name a few..

I already know your religion, but it is only a sect of the Church of Global Warming. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Leitwolf wrote:
1. People confuse temperature with radiation.

In this example, this would be you.
Leitwolf wrote:
If you are lying in the sun and a small clouds covers the sun for a moment, you feel like it is getting colder right away.

That is because your skin is getting colder right away.
Leitwolf wrote:
However, no thermometer could measure any drop in temperature, for the period is far too short.

Thermometers have not set time delay. A fast reacting thermometer WILL record a drop in the temperature of your skin.
Leitwolf wrote:
What you feel is the absence of solar radiation on your skin, not a drop in environmental temperature.

Environmental temperature is not the temperature of your skin. Without the sunlight, you skin will tend toward the environmental temperature, which is cooler.
Leitwolf wrote:
2. This is almost a joke, but very true. People usually can only imagine the impact of clouds on a hot summer day. Reality has it, that we have nights as well and 3 more seasons. A little hint: aren't clear nights known to be cold?

No. Clear nights can be quite warm and they can be quite cold.
Leitwolf wrote:
3. People do not even understand the GHE as a concept, and believe it was a matter of radiation balance. This is fundamentally wrong and all it tells eventually, is that radiation will be balanced. It is like assuming as the balance sheet is balanced everything is fine, despite a cooperation is close to bankruptcy.

There is no money involved, I assure you. The weather simply does what it does. No one has to pay it.
Leitwolf wrote:
The more radiation, the hotter it is,

WRONG. ONLY the radiation that is absorbed AND converted to thermal energy makes things hotter. Not all light is converted into thermal energy upon absorption. It may be converted into chemical energy, such as photosynthesis, or the electrochemical reaction that makes your own retinas work.
Leitwolf wrote:
and the hotter is, the more radiation.

This is true only for blackbody radiance. It is not the only way to create light.
Leitwolf wrote:
Just like the egg-chicken problem, it can not explain why a certain temperature/radiation level even exists. It is tautology.

No. It is the effect of mass, which is essentially a thermal inertia.
Leitwolf wrote:
The correct approach always will include the adiabatic lapse rate.

WRONG. There are quite commonly places in the atmosphere that cool at a rate greater than the adiabatic lapse rate. We had one pass over us last night. It put out golf ball sized hail. In Seattle, the lapse rate is often much less than adiabatic, and often can even form temperature inversions, especially in summer. Any particulates, haze, etc. can get trapped at low levels this way and make it quite difficult to see. Fly above it though (usually on 3-5000 ft), and it's clear skies.
Leitwolf wrote:
With that you can picture a very consistent and also well accepted GHE,

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
Leitwolf wrote:
I mean accepted by apologetics. GHG then will simply move the photosphere (from LWIR is effectively emitted) higher up the atmosphere, which leads to higher temperatures below due to the adiabatic lapse rate. Just listen to Prof Merrifield in this video..
...deleted Holy Video...

No need. Any professor, 'scientist', or anyone else that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics is no one to bother listening to.

* You can't decrease entropy in any system

Leitwolf wrote:
Note: this GHE concept does not require any "back radiation", or radiation balance, as both are totally irrelevant.


* You can't decrease entropy in any system.
Leitwolf wrote:
4. Despite this concept being fundamentally right, it should become obvious how clouds can only warm the planet,


* You can't decrease entropy in any system.
Leitwolf wrote:
as they push up the photosphere very effectively, much more effectively btw. than GHG could. With this theoretic foundation in mind I had to look up the empiric data,

There is no data.
* You can't decrease entropy in any system.
Leitwolf wrote:
because I had a very good idea on what I would find.

Of course you do. You deliberately search out crap published by your particular sect of the Church of Global Warming.
Leitwolf wrote:
And indeed the empiric data are totally in line with the theory.

There is no data. No theory of science can conflict with any other theory of science (external consistency check).

* You can't decrease entropy in any system.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't destroy energy into nothing.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-08-2019 16:06
25-10-2019 06:56
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(103)
Ok, this is something only people with a sense for sublety can honor. Yet it is super duper sweet!

I was wondering why temperatures dropped off with low (or no) cloud scenarios, when dropping "rainy" records. As I stated before, that should make cloudy scenarions statistically warmer, which it did. But why would it have the adverse effect on clear scenarios? I guess I have found the answer.

It is pretty logical. Rain falls from clouds, not from clear skies. Additionally we need to remember those records only include clouds up to an altitude of 12.000ft. So despite clear skies are reported, it may indeed be overcast with clouds above that 12.000ft ceiling.

By dropping off rainy records, we reduce this bias. Since clouds are warming, by dropping off records which are reporting "CLR" but are actually cloudy (above 12.000ft), we also reduce the warming bias. In other words, the "CLR" and "FEW" scenarios look warmer than they are, because they include a good share of actually cloudy scenarios. By dropping rainy records we affect and reduce that bias, and thus clear skies are statistically even colder than before. That is despite the fact, that rain reduces surface temperatures.

While dropping off these rainy records do increase surface temperatures for "CLR" scenarios, the elimination of falsly reported "CLR" scenarios (which are actually cloudy) offsets this and leads to lower tempeatures in the end. This totally confirms what has been said before.
Attached image:

25-10-2019 06:57
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(103)
This is with 10 "rainy" records excluded
Attached image:

25-10-2019 11:32
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1510)
So. basically, it works, by removing inconvenient data points? Isn't the essentially how global warming works in general? If the 'data' doesn't fit the pre-conceived conclusion, then you simply change the data.

The air all around the planet is always moving around. I admit that I don't understand the winds, but the air isn't moving all in one direction, same speed, at all altitudes. The wind carries air a different speeds and temperatures, in all kinds of different directions. Where warm and cool winds meet, weather events are often generated (clouds/rain), not necessarily head-on collisions of these masses. Pretty sure clouds don't cause warming, it's just warmer air moving over an area. Living in Florida, water vapor/humidity carry a lot of heat. The cold we get in the winter, blows down from those damn Yankee states, Trump out to build a Canadian wall, maybe it would drop down into the 60s so often down here..
25-10-2019 15:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
HarveyH55 wrote: So. basically, it works, by removing inconvenient data points? Isn't the essentially how global warming works in general? If the 'data' doesn't fit the pre-conceived conclusion, then you simply change the data.

Absolutely. 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 Taqqiya in Islam.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
01-11-2019 13:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
HOORAY!!! Leitwolf is back!

Leitwolf wrote:those records only include clouds up to an altitude of 12.000ft.
Is this because it's detected with a sensor? I realized I actually thought it was done visually.

HarveyH55 wrote:
So. basically, it works, by removing inconvenient data points?
Do you not believe it's warmer when it's cloud than clear? You're not agreeing with everything Al Gore ever said or anything if you do. It's actually a known and accepted fact of life that clouds at night make for a warmer night than if it were clear. Right?

"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
01-11-2019 16:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
tmiddles wrote: It's actually a known and accepted fact of life that clouds at night make for a warmer night than if it were clear. Right?

Nope. This is not "what we know."

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?


[*find-CLOUDSARECAUSEOREFFECT]
.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
01-11-2019 19:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
tmiddles wrote:
HOORAY!!! Leitwolf is back!

Leitwolf wrote:those records only include clouds up to an altitude of 12.000ft.
Is this because it's detected with a sensor? I realized I actually thought it was done visually.

HarveyH55 wrote:
So. basically, it works, by removing inconvenient data points?
Do you not believe it's warmer when it's cloud than clear? You're not agreeing with everything Al Gore ever said or anything if you do. It's actually a known and accepted fact of life that clouds at night make for a warmer night than if it were clear. Right?


No gas, liquid, or vapor has the capability to warm anything simply by being there. This includes clouds.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2019 12:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
Into the Night wrote:
No gas, liquid, or vapor has the capability to warm anything simply by being there. This includes clouds.

More platitudes.

Matter being in the way of the radiance leaving an object will reflect and/or radiate a portion of that radiance back. Back radiation. Thats makes it warmer.

Having a barrier in the path of the radiance leaving something insulates it to a degree.

Otherwise things would cool down just as fast on the surface of Earth as they do in the void of space.

And IBD your question was too stupid.

"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
02-11-2019 15:36
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1510)
tmiddles wrote:
HOORAY!!! Leitwolf is back!

Leitwolf wrote:those records only include clouds up to an altitude of 12.000ft.
Is this because it's detected with a sensor? I realized I actually thought it was done visually.

HarveyH55 wrote:
So. basically, it works, by removing inconvenient data points?
Do you not believe it's warmer when it's cloud than clear? You're not agreeing with everything Al Gore ever said or anything if you do. It's actually a known and accepted fact of life that clouds at night make for a warmer night than if it were clear. Right?

"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


Al Gore was a lawyer, and career politician, which in itself, is strong grounds, to doubt him, every time he speaks. Deception, is the craft he train in. I don't how much global warming he understands, or believes in. He was/is a spokesman/activist, but mostly just pimps out his name, and past career, to make money. The whole time he was promoting his first movie, he was driving SUVs, and flying around in his private jet. He talked the talk, but wasn't practicing any of what he was preaching. If he had actually believed in what he was sell, he would have changed those evil ways, long before the movie. He most like is still a carbon sinner, and a hypocrite.

Clouds form, where water vapor condenses, wind moving masses of warn air and cold air meet. The warming or cooling, depends on the prevailing winds and location. The wind speed and direction will determine which air mass moves through, and the warming or cooling associated with it. I'm doubtful the GHGs have any profound warming effect in nature. In a lab, under controlled conditions, it can be demonstrated, if done correctly. It technically works on paper, if you ignore everything else going on in the atmosphere and environment. Water takes quite a bit of energy to change states, solid, liquid, vapor.

GHG are more like those little quirks, the perpetual motion enthusiast try to exploit, or use to explain why their scheme should work, if they had the right materials, tools, or skills to build their device proper. Their working model, is sort of functional, but fails. Even when the con somebody to build the device perfect, it will still fail.

The force of nature drive the warming and cooling of the planet, and are presence and activities have very little to do with any of it. Suppose you, and your 6 year old grandson are out for a drive in your SUV, and it dies on you in the middle of the road. You need to get out and push it off to the side, as not to block traffic. You grandson gets out to help you push. Is your grandson really providing much help, other than less weight for you to push on your own? The point is that we are too small to make a huge difference, as claimed, but we want to help, and like a 6 year old, we really don't understand there isn't anything we can actual do.

Water, and water vapor, do the majority of the warming and cooling on our planet, and the wind moves the water vapor. The planet turns, wind moves, sun only shines on one half the planet at any given moment in time. Climate change, doesn't account for everything, all the time, because those conditions are in constant change. They use averages as sort of a pause function, and introduces a considerable error.
03-11-2019 09:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
So. basically, it works, by removing inconvenient data points?
Do you not believe it's warmer when it's cloud than clear?

Clouds form, where water vapor condenses, wind moving masses of warn air and cold air meet. The warming or cooling, depends on the prevailing winds and location. The wind speed and direction will determine which air mass moves through, and the warming or cooling associated with it.

So No you don't? Basically it's this: At night there is cloud cover or it's clear, all other things being equal a cloudy night is warmer.

Why would clouds be the only time that warm/cold air move around as you described? Wouldn't you have the same variability of air movement on a clear night? But really why disregard those who study this professionally?

No warmazombie conspiracy here. This is simply what people observe and what science has backed up:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-cloudy-night-warmer-than-a-clear-night
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4226/are-cloudy-nights-warmer-than-nights-without-clouds
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fcst/tmps/cld.rxml
https://www.wyzant.com/resources/answers/632197/are-cloudy-nights-warmer-than-nights-without-clouds

Now if you found a reference or citation saying clouds didn't make it warmer at night that'd be something. They may exist, ITN/IBD do.

"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
Edited on 03-11-2019 09:55
03-11-2019 16:36
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1510)
There is always air movement. The hard part to visualize, is that the air movement is just in one direct and speed for the entire planet, at all elevations. There is a lot of variation, very complex. Clouds don't always form, where warm and cold air meet either, there has to be sufficient water vapor to condense.

But, I do understand, you are try to play a little. You believe that if you can get us to admit clouds warm, and clouds are a greenhouse gas, the CO2 is a planet killer. It's not that most of us are uneducated morons, with learning disabilities (maybe James), but we think freely. We understand climate change well enough, but we also understand many other things. We understand fraud, and the way climate change is sold, fits the description very well. We understand power generation and distribution, and that none of the proposed alternatives will fill even our most basic need, if the goals set are going to be met. The energy deficit is going to be catastrophic. We are energy dependent, the vast majority aren't going to survive, living off the land, like they did 300 years ago, and nobody is telling them it something they should learn.
03-11-2019 20:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas, liquid, or vapor has the capability to warm anything simply by being there. This includes clouds.

More platitudes.

Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not 'platitudes'.
tmiddles wrote:
Matter being in the way of the radiance leaving an object will reflect and/or radiate a portion of that radiance back. Back radiation. Thats makes it warmer.

You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You can't reduce entropy in any system. You can't ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
Having a barrier in the path of the radiance leaving something insulates it to a degree.

Absorption is not insulation. You cannot trap light. You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase it's energy at the same time.
tmiddles wrote:
Otherwise things would cool down just as fast on the surface of Earth as they do in the void of space.

Guess what? The Earth cools just as fast as any other object in space. You can't compare two different systems as if they are the same system. Goalpost fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
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?

And IBD your question was too stupid.

Evasion. Answer the question.


The Parrot Killer
03-11-2019 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
So. basically, it works, by removing inconvenient data points?
Do you not believe it's warmer when it's cloud than clear?

Clouds form, where water vapor condenses, wind moving masses of warn air and cold air meet. The warming or cooling, depends on the prevailing winds and location. The wind speed and direction will determine which air mass moves through, and the warming or cooling associated with it.

So No you don't? Basically it's this: At night there is cloud cover or it's clear, all other things being equal a cloudy night is warmer.

All other things are not equal.
tmiddles wrote:
Why would clouds be the only time that warm/cold air move around as you described? Wouldn't you have the same variability of air movement on a clear night?

No. Different conditions are required for cloud formation.
tmiddles wrote:
But really why disregard those who study this professionally?

No, that is YOU doing that. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
No warmazombie conspiracy here. This is simply what people observe and what science has backed up:

No science here...move along...move along...
tmiddles wrote:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-cloudy-night-warmer-than-a-clear-night
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4226/are-cloudy-nights-warmer-than-nights-without-clouds
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fcst/tmps/cld.rxml
https://www.wyzant.com/resources/answers/632197/are-cloudy-nights-warmer-than-nights-without-clouds

None of these are science.
tmiddles wrote:
Now if you found a reference or citation saying clouds didn't make it warmer at night that'd be something.

Not possible. It is not possible to simply move clouds around, leave all other conditions unchanged, and see what happens to the temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
They may exist, ITN/IBD do.

You still are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas, vapor, or liquid is a source of energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

A colder cloud cannot heat a warmer surface. You are also denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
04-11-2019 07:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
HarveyH55 wrote:...You believe that if you can get us to admit clouds warm, and clouds are a greenhouse gas, the CO2 is a planet killer....
You're kind of right. But this is the situation: ITN/IBD and the gang have made up bogus science to try to claim a greenhouse effect is impossible. This belief that "back radiation" cannot impact temperature means that a lot of stupid things have to be defended by them. Here are just some:
- Atmospheres don't make a planet warmer at ground level, in fact it's impossible
- Venus is not known to be warmer than Mercury
- Clouds do not make it warmer at night
- You are not absorbing the radiance from the room you're in at this moment.

I am not the one who put something out there with the hopes that if you agreed to it, game/set/match I win. They are.

HarveyH55 wrote:We understand fraud, and the way climate change is sold,....
The way climate change is sold is that Neal Degrassi Tyson and Bill Nye say it's so, and the nay sayers are wackos.

Sadly there are too many wackos happy to fill the roll of wacko in their little play.

Well listen to me Harvey because I'm being sincere. There are REAL and credible critiques of global warming we should be discussing. Myself, Verner and those ITN/IBD label as warmazombies are only here because we are skeptics.

Into the Night wrote:You are also denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Debunked in my sig

"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
04-11-2019 10:24
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1510)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:...You believe that if you can get us to admit clouds warm, and clouds are a greenhouse gas, the CO2 is a planet killer....
You're kind of right. But this is the situation: ITN/IBD and the gang have made up bogus science to try to claim a greenhouse effect is impossible. This belief that "back radiation" cannot impact temperature means that a lot of stupid things have to be defended by them. Here are just some:
- Atmospheres don't make a planet warmer at ground level, in fact it's impossible
- Venus is not known to be warmer than Mercury
- Clouds do not make it warmer at night
- You are not absorbing the radiance from the room you're in at this moment.

I am not the one who put something out there with the hopes that if you agreed to it, game/set/match I win. They are.

HarveyH55 wrote:We understand fraud, and the way climate change is sold,....
The way climate change is sold is that Neal Degrassi Tyson and Bill Nye say it's so, and the nay sayers are wackos.

Sadly there are too many wackos happy to fill the roll of wacko in their little play.

Well listen to me Harvey because I'm being sincere. There are REAL and credible critiques of global warming we should be discussing. Myself, Verner and those ITN/IBD label as warmazombies are only here because we are skeptics.

Into the Night wrote:You are also denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Debunked in my sig

"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


I don't really have the math or science, to deal with a lot of it, but I have learn a little about quite a few subjects. I've been around long enough to see global warming grow and evolve. All I know, is I have a strong feeling something is seriously wrong with it. I do know, that once they declared it was proven fact, we should have been able to see some obvious signs to support it, and a progression. We've dumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere over the years. But also, we keep increasing the volume produced, every year. That sort of why the re-branding, no consistent global warming, even though we keep adding CO2, and at a larger volume. We see the same natural variations, regardless of the CO2. They've spent a lot of money on better tools and equipment, and it's showing that the climate isn't changing as expected.
04-11-2019 10:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't really have the math or science, to deal with a lot of it, ...

Neither do I but I think BS is easier to confirm than the truth much of the time. If you're being lied to it may not mean that the person fabricating, or passing on the BS, is actually on the wrong side of an issue but it's still good to know you can't trust them on the subject.

So you can look at where the person has a strong interest/bias and then try to find something where they don't at all to expose the BS.

I remember in Junior high we watched a film telling us that if we snorted cocaine we would likely die of blood poisoning from an infection in our nose. The doctor used a lot of $10 words so it was hard to follow but I had learned in biology what blood poisoning was and knew well enough that was BS. Cocaine was a bad idea, but not because you'd die of blood poisoning. So I knew my own school was capable of stretching the truth for a good cause.

"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
04-11-2019 17:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:...You believe that if you can get us to admit clouds warm, and clouds are a greenhouse gas, the CO2 is a planet killer....
You're kind of right. But this is the situation: ITN/IBD and the gang have made up bogus science to try to claim a greenhouse effect is impossible.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are not 'made up'. They are real and existing theories of science.
tmiddles wrote:
This belief that "back radiation" cannot impact temperature means that a lot of stupid things have to be defended by them. Here are just some:

You cannot warm a warmer surface using a colder gas, no matter how you deny it.
tmiddles wrote:
- Atmospheres don't make a planet warmer at ground level, in fact it's impossible

They don't. The Moon, for example, can reach temperatures of 250 deg F during the day. Thats on the surface of the Moon. Nowhere on the surface of Earth gets that hot during the day.
tmiddles wrote:
- Venus is not known to be warmer than Mercury

Correct. We do not know the temperature of either.
tmiddles wrote:
- Clouds do not make it warmer at night

They don't. They are not a source of energy either.
tmiddles wrote:
- You are not absorbing the radiance from the room you're in at this moment.

Probably not. You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder one.
tmiddles wrote:
I am not the one who put something out there with the hopes that if you agreed to it, game/set/match I win. They are.

Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:We understand fraud, and the way climate change is sold,....
The way climate change is sold is that Neal Degrassi Tyson and Bill Nye say it's so, and the nay sayers are wackos.

Sadly there are too many wackos happy to fill the roll of wacko in their little play.

YALIF.
tmiddles wrote:
Well listen to me Harvey because I'm being sincere.

Lie. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
There are REAL and credible critiques of global warming we should be discussing.

Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
Myself, Verner and those ITN/IBD label as warmazombies are only here because we are skeptics.

Which is to say you are members of the Church of Global Warming, just as are those you despise. The difference is the sect.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:You are also denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Debunked in my sig

I realize you deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but you have not debunked it in any way.


The Parrot Killer
04-11-2019 17:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't really have the math or science, to deal with a lot of it, ...

Neither do I but I think BS is easier to confirm than the truth much of the time.

Irrational. You are still in paradox on this one. You MUST clear your paradox.

1) Science confirms theories.
2) Nothing is completely certain in science.

Which is it, dude?
tmiddles wrote:
If you're being lied to it may not mean that the person fabricating, or passing on the BS, is actually on the wrong side of an issue but it's still good to know you can't trust them on the subject.

No, it means you are being lied to.
tmiddles wrote:
So you can look at where the person has a strong interest/bias and then try to find something where they don't at all to expose the BS.

Nah. It's easier than that. Look for religion being called 'science'.
tmiddles wrote:
I remember in Junior high we watched a film telling us that if we snorted cocaine we would likely die of blood poisoning from an infection in our nose.

Possible.
tmiddles wrote:
The doctor used a lot of $10 words so it was hard to follow but I had learned in biology what blood poisoning was and knew well enough that was BS.

No. You are poisoning your blood with cocaine.
tmiddles wrote:
Cocaine was a bad idea, but not because you'd die of blood poisoning.

It is actually possible.
tmiddles wrote:
So I knew my own school was capable of stretching the truth for a good cause.

No, you just didn't understand the lesson. Typical.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-11-2019 17:54
04-11-2019 17:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
tmiddles wrote:And IBD your question was too stupid.

... because you are so here to contribute to discussions.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-11-2019 23:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:ITN/IBD and the gang have made up bogus science to try to claim a greenhouse effect is impossible.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are not 'made up'. They are real and existing theories of science.

Do you claim they make the greenhouse effect is impossible and why? Because you claim that radiance from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object. This is a fabrication and nowhere in the 1LTD, 2LTD or SB laws.

Just a lie.

Totally made up:
IBdaMann wrote:
1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... the notion that radiance from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a hotter one.
It can't. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has.


"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
Edited on 05-11-2019 00:23
05-11-2019 03:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:ITN/IBD and the gang have made up bogus science to try to claim a greenhouse effect is impossible.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are not 'made up'. They are real and existing theories of science.

Do you claim they make the greenhouse effect is impossible and why?
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Because you claim that radiance from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object. This is a fabrication and nowhere in the 1LTD, 2LTD or SB laws.

2nd law of thermodynamics. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Just a lie.
Totally made up:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't a lie or 'totally made up'.


The Parrot Killer
05-11-2019 03:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't a lie or 'totally made up'.
Your add on is. What you claim is not in the 2nd LTD.

>>>12 references that contradict your BS right here<<<

And your and IBD have??? nothing

"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
05-11-2019 17:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't a lie or 'totally made up'.
Your add on is. What you claim is not in the 2nd LTD.

...deleted distortion of references...
And your and IBD have??? nothing

I have added nothing. You can't even read your own references. RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
06-11-2019 05:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1572)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't a lie or 'totally made up'.
Your add on is. What you claim is not in the 2nd LTD.

...deleted distortion of references...
And your and IBD have??? nothing

I have added nothing. You can't even read your own references. RDCF. RQAA.

Yes for the past 5 years you and IBD have said that a cooler objects radiance cannot be absorbed by a warmer object. You claim, falsely, that this is part of the 2nd LTD and it is not. The 2nd LTD states that the NET flow is always from hot to cold, it does not deny that there is a NET flow or that radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.

Your add on here:
IBdaMann wrote:
1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... the notion that radiance from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a hotter one.
It can't. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has.
Is TOTAL BS

"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
06-11-2019 09:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10199)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't a lie or 'totally made up'.
Your add on is. What you claim is not in the 2nd LTD.

...deleted distortion of references...
And your and IBD have??? nothing

I have added nothing. You can't even read your own references. RDCF. RQAA.

Yes for the past 5 years you and IBD have said that a cooler objects radiance cannot be absorbed by a warmer object. You claim, falsely, that this is part of the 2nd LTD and it is not. The 2nd LTD states that the NET flow is always from hot to cold, it does not deny that there is a NET flow or that radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.

Your add on here:
IBdaMann wrote:
1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... the notion that radiance from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a hotter one.
It can't. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has.
Is TOTAL BS

There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat. There is only heat. It only flows in one direction. You cannot reduce entropy in any system.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 5123>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Experts reveal that clouds have moderated warming triggered by climate change1006-11-2019 23:54
High CO2 levels can destabilize marine layer clouds106-03-2019 22:01
High carbon dioxide could suppress cooling clouds, climate change model warns127-02-2019 20:54
Clouds and temperature3601-02-2018 20:48
Clouds and nocturnal cooling2801-05-2017 01:23
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact