Remember me
▼ Content

Consensus of Scientists and Proof



Page 3 of 8<12345>>>
11-04-2017 02:01
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make

That paper was published in 2004 and considered only 7 years of satellite records from 1993 to 2000, which wasn't long enough to establish a trend. The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year, that is, the facts have proven the paper wrong.

The lesson from this is that simply projecting past trends forwards (as in this paper) is not a good guide to the future. You need to take the physics responsible for the change into account, as do the scientists who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise.


The physics responsible for some (most?) of the 24 year change is the greenhouse gas effect of CO2. Can the scientists, who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise, use that to predict the level at 2100? No. Back to using models based on unsubstantiated positive feedback.
11-04-2017 02:08
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1790)
Frescomexico wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year,


So...roughly 20,000 years to reach our goal of 65 meters? Damn it, I had a sweet fishing spot picked out for high water.


Don't worry, luckily fish don't use models to decide where to feed.


I don't know about that...those walleyes can be pretty smart...


So Surface, how long till we get to 65 metres? Link me your favorite model, I'd like to have a look sea.



All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
11-04-2017 02:17
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year,


So...roughly 20,000 years to reach our goal of 65 meters? Damn it, I had a sweet fishing spot picked out for high water.


Don't worry, luckily fish don't use models to decide where to feed.


I don't know about that...those walleyes can be pretty smart...


So Surface, how long till we get to 65 metres? Link me your favorite model, I'd like to have a look sea.


The Colorado record pike for years was held by a little girl using a grasshopper on her hook.
11-04-2017 04:04
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"frenziedmex" muffed:The Colorado record pike for years was held by a little girl using a grasshopper on her hook.

A favorite food of bald eagles is.... coot. The eagle I saw tearing a coot apart with feathers flying, bolstered that opinion.
11-04-2017 04:15
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
litesong wrote:
"frenziedmex" muffed:The Colorado record pike for years was held by a little girl using a grasshopper on her hook.

A favorite food of bald eagles is.... coot. The eagle I saw tearing a coot apart with feathers flying, bolstered that opinion.


Your right, but when is the next chance to pass on a piece of trivia like that?
11-04-2017 05:14
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Frescomexico wrote:
litesong wrote:
"frenziedmex" muffed:The Colorado record pike for years was held by a little girl using a grasshopper on her hook.

A favorite food of bald eagles is.... coot. The eagle I saw tearing a coot apart with feathers flying, bolstered that opinion.

Your(sic) right, but when is the next chance to pass on a piece of trivia like that?


Like.... right now! I'd been watching the bald eagle perched on the telephone pole.... waiting.... & I waited. After a long period, I saw the eagle leap from its perch & I threw the binoculars to my eyes. Closely watching the eagle as he blurred across the lake, I saw it extend its claws. The coot was caught completely by surprise. Think the coot died, even before the talons sliced into its body. Certainly it died instantly.
Edited on 11-04-2017 05:16
11-04-2017 05:56
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
litesong wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
litesong wrote:
"frenziedmex" muffed:The Colorado record pike for years was held by a little girl using a grasshopper on her hook.

A favorite food of bald eagles is.... coot. The eagle I saw tearing a coot apart with feathers flying, bolstered that opinion.

Your(sic) right, but when is the next chance to pass on a piece of trivia like that?


Like.... right now! I'd been watching the bald eagle perched on the telephone pole.... waiting.... & I waited. After a long period, I saw the eagle leap from its perch & I threw the binoculars to my eyes. Closely watching the eagle as he blurred across the lake, I saw it extend its claws. The coot was caught completely by surprise. Think the coot died, even before the talons sliced into its body. Certainly it died instantly.


Great pastime!
11-04-2017 12:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make

That paper was published in 2004 and considered only 7 years of satellite records from 1993 to 2000, which wasn't long enough to establish a trend. The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year, that is, the facts have proven the paper wrong.

The lesson from this is that simply projecting past trends forwards (as in this paper) is not a good guide to the future. You need to take the physics responsible for the change into account, as do the scientists who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise.


The physics responsible for some (most?) of the 24 year change is the greenhouse gas effect of CO2. Can the scientists, who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise, use that to predict the level at 2100? No. Back to using models based on unsubstantiated positive feedback.

How do you think the global temperature has climbed by a degree over the past century, or changed by many degrees during the start and end of interglacial periods? The change in CO2 concentration alone couldn't possibly have been sufficient to do that. Feedback from water vapour is an essential part of the greenhouse mechanism.

It's very simple to understand. An increase in CO2 concentration raises the temperature a little, which causes more water to evaporate, which increases the amount of water vapour in the air, which further raises temperate until equilibrium is re-established. There is nothing unsubstantiated or mysterious about this. It's a completely obvious and expected effect.
11-04-2017 13:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make

That paper was published in 2004 and considered only 7 years of satellite records from 1993 to 2000, which wasn't long enough to establish a trend. The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year, that is, the facts have proven the paper wrong.

The lesson from this is that simply projecting past trends forwards (as in this paper) is not a good guide to the future. You need to take the physics responsible for the change into account, as do the scientists who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise.


The physics responsible for some (most?) of the 24 year change is the greenhouse gas effect of CO2. Can the scientists, who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise, use that to predict the level at 2100? No. Back to using models based on unsubstantiated positive feedback.

How do you think the global temperature has climbed by a degree over the past century, or changed by many degrees during the start and end of interglacial periods? The change in CO2 concentration alone couldn't possibly have been sufficient to do that. Feedback from water vapour is an essential part of the greenhouse mechanism.

It's very simple to understand. An increase in CO2 concentration raises the temperature a little, which causes more water to evaporate, which increases the amount of water vapour in the air, which further raises temperate until equilibrium is re-established. There is nothing unsubstantiated or mysterious about this. It's a completely obvious and expected effect.


Do you think that all the temperature fluctuations of the past are explainable with CO2 as the driver?
11-04-2017 20:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make

That paper was published in 2004 and considered only 7 years of satellite records from 1993 to 2000, which wasn't long enough to establish a trend. The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year, that is, the facts have proven the paper wrong.

The lesson from this is that simply projecting past trends forwards (as in this paper) is not a good guide to the future. You need to take the physics responsible for the change into account, as do the scientists who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise.


The physics responsible for some (most?) of the 24 year change is the greenhouse gas effect of CO2. Can the scientists, who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise, use that to predict the level at 2100? No. Back to using models based on unsubstantiated positive feedback.

How do you think the global temperature has climbed by a degree over the past century, or changed by many degrees during the start and end of interglacial periods? The change in CO2 concentration alone couldn't possibly have been sufficient to do that. Feedback from water vapour is an essential part of the greenhouse mechanism.

It's very simple to understand. An increase in CO2 concentration raises the temperature a little, which causes more water to evaporate, which increases the amount of water vapour in the air, which further raises temperate until equilibrium is re-established. There is nothing unsubstantiated or mysterious about this. It's a completely obvious and expected effect.


Do you think that all the temperature fluctuations of the past are explainable with CO2 as the driver?

No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.

Currently, human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs are directly driving an increase in global temperature. In the past, though, such as at the start of the current interglacial, the rise in temperature appears to have been initiated by orbital variations (Milankovitch Cycles) and subsequently driven by the release of CO2 as the temperature warmed. In this situation, the CO2 itself acted as a feedback, albeit over a much longer timescale (100s of years) than H2O (a few days).
11-04-2017 21:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.


So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.


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
11-04-2017 21:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.


So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.


Read a book and find out, muppet.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
11-04-2017 21:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.


So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies
11-04-2017 22:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.


So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.


Read a book and find out, muppet.


All the books I find proposing 'greenhouse' theory use either the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. Both of those arguments violate physics.


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
11-04-2017 22:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.


So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies


That book uses the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which violates physics. Want to try again?


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
11-04-2017 22:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.


So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies


That book uses the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which violates physics. Want to try again?

What you call the "Magick Bouncing Photon argument" is what the rest of us call quantum physics. It doesn't violate physics; it is physics.

How far exactly does your disbelief in textbook physics extend? Do you believe that photons exist? That atoms exist? Or are they all part of the scientific conspiracy too?
12-04-2017 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.


So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies


That book uses the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which violates physics. Want to try again?

What you call the "Magick Bouncing Photon argument" is what the rest of us call quantum physics. It doesn't violate physics; it is physics.

How far exactly does your disbelief in textbook physics extend? Do you believe that photons exist? That atoms exist? Or are they all part of the scientific conspiracy too?


You don't seem to understand what quantum physics is. To you, it's a buzzword.

Quantum physics does not override the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which your version of 'greenhouse' effect violates.


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
Edited on 12-04-2017 00:05
12-04-2017 00:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.


So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies


That book uses the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which violates physics. Want to try again?

What you call the "Magick Bouncing Photon argument" is what the rest of us call quantum physics. It doesn't violate physics; it is physics.

How far exactly does your disbelief in textbook physics extend? Do you believe that photons exist? That atoms exist? Or are they all part of the scientific conspiracy too?


You don't seem to understand what quantum physics is. To you, it's a buzzword.

Quantum physics does not override the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which your version of 'greenhouse' effect violates.

I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.
12-04-2017 00:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.


So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies


That book uses the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which violates physics. Want to try again?

What you call the "Magick Bouncing Photon argument" is what the rest of us call quantum physics. It doesn't violate physics; it is physics.

How far exactly does your disbelief in textbook physics extend? Do you believe that photons exist? That atoms exist? Or are they all part of the scientific conspiracy too?


You don't seem to understand what quantum physics is. To you, it's a buzzword.

Quantum physics does not override the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which your version of 'greenhouse' effect violates.

I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.


It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.


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
12-04-2017 01:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.
12-04-2017 02:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.


It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?


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
Edited on 12-04-2017 02:09
12-04-2017 02:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.


It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?
12-04-2017 02:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.


It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?


You can't 'trap' heat. That effectively destroys energy.

You can't 'create' the energy to warm the Earth by using a non-energy source, such as carbon dioxide or the surface itself.


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
12-04-2017 02:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.


It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?


You can't 'trap' heat. That effectively destroys energy.

You can't 'create' the energy to warm the Earth by using a non-energy source, such as carbon dioxide or the surface itself.

There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.
12-04-2017 02:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.


It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?


You can't 'trap' heat. That effectively destroys energy.

You can't 'create' the energy to warm the Earth by using a non-energy source, such as carbon dioxide or the surface itself.

There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.


Sorry...that is trapping energy and destroying it.

You cannot trap 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
12-04-2017 02:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.


It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?


You can't 'trap' heat. That effectively destroys energy.

You can't 'create' the energy to warm the Earth by using a non-energy source, such as carbon dioxide or the surface itself.

There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.


Sorry...that is trapping energy and destroying it.

You cannot trap heat.

No energy is being destroyed. The equation is balanced:

Energy out = Energy in - Increase in Earth's internal energy

You do understand the concept of internal energy, don't you?
12-04-2017 03:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.


It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?


You can't 'trap' heat. That effectively destroys energy.

You can't 'create' the energy to warm the Earth by using a non-energy source, such as carbon dioxide or the surface itself.

There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.


Sorry...that is trapping energy and destroying it.

You cannot trap heat.

No energy is being destroyed. The equation is balanced:

Energy out = Energy in - Increase in Earth's internal energy

You do understand the concept of internal energy, don't you?


If energy out = energy in, temperature can't rise as you claim is doing.


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
12-04-2017 05:20
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1790)
OK Parrot Killer,

You know I am not a warmie in any way shape or form. However, I do not understand your statements about not being able "trap heat". I do understand the theory of greenhouse effect, I just don't buy into man made CO2 causing any more than microscopic warming due to man's microscopic percentage total greenhouse gases. (I include water vapor
)

On a cold winter night in the Midwest US, even with very dry air, even a thin layer of clouds is good for 8-10 degrees F warmer than without. In the dead of winter with snow cover, a cloudy day is also warmer by 10 degrees. Is this not "trapping heat? Why do you insulate a home? It is obviously to trap heat, but you say it can't be done. Can you explain in laymans please?
12-04-2017 06:19
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1790)
Surface Detail wrote
An increase in CO2 concentration raises the temperature a little, which causes more water to evaporate, which increases the amount of water vapour in the air, which further raises temperate until equilibrium is re-established.


Can you tell me how increased water vapor increases temps? Not true where I live.
12-04-2017 10:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
GasGuzzler wrote:
OK Parrot Killer,

You know I am not a warmie in any way shape or form. However, I do not understand your statements about not being able "trap heat". I do understand the theory of greenhouse effect, I just don't buy into man made CO2 causing any more than microscopic warming due to man's microscopic percentage total greenhouse gases. (I include water vapor
)

On a cold winter night in the Midwest US, even with very dry air, even a thin layer of clouds is good for 8-10 degrees F warmer than without. In the dead of winter with snow cover, a cloudy day is also warmer by 10 degrees. Is this not "trapping heat? Why do you insulate a home? It is obviously to trap heat, but you say it can't be done. Can you explain in laymans please?


To understand, you first must understand what 'heat' actually is. It is not temperature.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat can only flow from hot to cold.

Insulation works because you are reducing heat, that is, the flow of thermal energy.

If you place a source of heat inside (or under) insulation, than heat loss (which is the flow of heat away from the source) is reduced. Heat is never trapped, but it may be reduced through the use of insulation.

Thermal energy cannot be trapped. It will always heat something else that is colder, even if the coupling to that something is reduced by insulation.

As far as clouds are concerned, this is a popular theory. It is not a scientific one. There is really no way to measure what the temperature 'should' have been had the cloud layer not been there. There are a variety of effects liquid water has upon temperature of an area, however. Clouds are liquid water or ice. The liquid cloud is the one of importance.

Liquid water is a good conductor of heat. It is not a good insulator by any means. It also has a very high specific heat. This is why it makes such a great coolant for engines. It accepts thermal energy well, but it takes a lot of thermal energy to actually warm it up much. It also returns a lot of thermal energy for the weight of the given material, as opposed to dry air.

One theory, also not a scientific one, goes that the cloud essentially limits the warming during the day due to this high specific heat. At night, it takes a lot of time for that cloud to cool again. Effectively, then, the cloud limits the range of temperature swing from the high of the day to the low at night.

This theory is consistent with the way water can easily chill a person (who is mostly water themselves!), or scald a person so easily, compared to any other common substance.

It is not a scientific theory, because so far, no falsifiability test has been developed for it. At one time I proposed an experiment to test this particular theory, but it does have its weaknesses in its design.

I live in the Seattle area. As you know, we get a lot of days with rain (not a lot of rain, just light rain or drizzle). We can go several months without seeing the Sun at all. You can probably imagine how frustrated hobby astronomers get here.

Carbon dioxide is not even capable of 'microscopic' warming of the Earth. It simply doesn't have any insulative properties. Its ability to absorb light in the infrared range is shared by many materials, including dirt, concrete, water, you, a cat snoozing in the sunlight, etc.

The hottest part of the Earth is the surface. That thermal energy is lost to the atmosphere by heating it. Heat can travel by conduction, convection, or radiance. Most heating of the atmosphere is by conduction, followed by convection due to the fluid nature of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide absorbs IR light. This is simply another way of heating the atmosphere by the surface. Like the others, it is a way for the surface to cool. Effectively, the atmosphere acts like a kind of 'radiator' of thermal energy to space.

Hope this explains it clearly enough for you.


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
12-04-2017 10:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote
An increase in CO2 concentration raises the temperature a little, which causes more water to evaporate, which increases the amount of water vapour in the air, which further raises temperate until equilibrium is re-established.


Can you tell me how increased water vapor increases temps? Not true where I live.


You happen to be correct. Neither water vapor nor CO2 can increase the temperature. At best liquid water can limit temperature excursion from day to night, but it cannot increase the temperature.

Surface Detail does not understand what a cloud is made of, nor does he understand that it is not possible to create energy to heat the surface out of a non-energetic source, such as CO2.

He is hopelessly entangled in the Religion of the Church of Global Warming, which attempts to redefine science to conform to its doctrine. Why do I refer to it as a Religion? Let me explain:

The concept centers around what is known as a circular argument. That is simply an argument that uses itself as the predicate. The circular argument is not necessarily a bad thing, but it must be recognized for what it means.

ALL theories begin as circular arguments. So do all religions. A scientific theory reaches beyond the circular argument through the test of falsifiability. Science constantly tests theories to try to destroy them. As long as they survive and have undergone the test for the null hypothesis that stems from the model of that theory, it automatically becomes a scientific theory. No peer group, political group, government agency, scientist or collection of scientists have to 'bless' it. This is why consensus is not part of science. The theory will never be proven or made more legitimate. It will remain a theory until it is destroyed by conflicting evidence.

In the case of religions, the theory remains a circular argument. All religions are based on some initial circular argument, such as God exists, Buddha is enlightened, the spirits of the mountain can waylay strangers, etc. Even atheists that try to prove no god or gods exist are making a circular argument.

The Global Warming Theory has only itself as a predicate. It is not possible to determine a global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy. We simply have nowhere near enough instrumentation required to satisfy the demands of statistical selection generating an acceptable margin of error. This means the globe MAY be warming, or cooling, or just staying the same. We just don't know. We don't have the required instrumentation to know either, not even with our modern satellite systems.

Worse, the Global Warming Theory tends to use 'greenhouse' effect as its predicate. This is not even a theory, since it is based on logical fallacies and is not internally consistent. It is not externally consistent with other theories of science either. No test for falsifiability is necessary, since the 'greenhouse' effect can't even qualify as a non-scientific theory.

Everything the Global Warming Theory brings as a conclusion is some kind of series of world disasters. They are quite like the fundamentalist Christian shouting, "The end of the world is nigh!".

It is borne out of a concept that a certain 'elite' set of people know more about how to conduct your life than you do. To the Church of Global Warming, an Outsider is a wayward sinner, bent on destroying, or following those who are. The Church of Global Warming is there to provide their 'enlightened' salvation of the world and Man. To them, their doctrine is the only True Way.


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
12-04-2017 16:25
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1790)
To understand, you first must understand what 'heat' actually is. It is not temperature.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat can only flow from hot to cold.

Insulation works because you are reducing heat, that is, the flow of thermal energy.

If you place a source of heat inside (or under) insulation, than heat loss (which is the flow of heat away from the source) is reduced. Heat is never trapped, but it may be reduced through the use of insulation.


Yep, I understand heat pretty well and this all makes sense.

As far as clouds are concerned, this is a popular theory. It is not a scientific one. There is really no way to measure
what the temperature 'should' have been had the cloud layer not been there.


Thing is, clouds do have a blanket effect. I've seen numerous times on a cold clear night where it clouded up just locally and the temps stop their plummet, where area to the south by just 50-100 miles should be warmer by 2-3 degrees, instead are 6-8 degrees colder and they remained clear. Agree there is no way to measure "what it should have been", but there is more than sufficient evidence that clouds insulate. It almost always verifies.

I live in the Seattle area. As you know, we get a lot of days with rain (not a lot of rain, just light rain or drizzle). We can go several months without seeing the Sun at all. You can probably imagine how frustrated hobby astronomers get here.

Oh so sorry. I get crazy in the head when I don't get sun for a couple days. And you're in Litebeer territory also!

Carbon dioxide is not even capable of 'microscopic' warming of the Earth. It simply doesn't have any insulative properties. Its ability to absorb light in the infrared range is shared by many materials, including dirt, concrete, water, you, a cat snoozing in the sunlight, etc.


I have to be honest, this sounds a bit contradictory, but my understanding of the light spectrum is limited. If CO2 has the same properties as myself, I certainly sit in the sun and warm up. Can you explain a little farther?

Thanks
12-04-2017 17:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Thing is, clouds do have a blanket effect. I've seen numerous times on a cold clear night where it clouded up just locally and the temps stop their plummet, where area to the south by just 50-100 miles should be warmer by 2-3 degrees, instead are 6-8 degrees colder and they remained clear. Agree there is no way to measure "what it should have been", but there is more than sufficient evidence that clouds insulate. It almost always verifies.

Yup. And the reason for this is that clouds, being made of water droplets, both absorb and emit infra-red radiation very well. They absorb the IR emitted by the ground (rather than allowing it to pass into space) and also emit IR both upwards and downwards. The net effect of this is a downward flow of IR that wouldn't be there if the clouds weren't there; this keeps the ground warmer than it would otherwise be.

The greenhouse effect works in a similar way, except that here it is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit IR (though not as well as clouds do). Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR (as they are to visible light) and therefore play no part in the greenhouse effect. That's why the greenhouse effect becomes stronger as the proportions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase.
12-04-2017 18:38
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1790)
[/quote]
Yup. And the reason for this is that clouds, being made of water droplets, both absorb and emit infra-red radiation very well. They absorb the IR emitted by the ground (rather than allowing it to pass into space) and also emit IR both upwards and downwards. The net effect of this is a downward flow of IR that wouldn't be there if the clouds weren't there; this keeps the ground warmer than it would otherwise be.


I'll let you and ITN argue this point. Should be interesting...

The greenhouse effect works in a similar way, except that here it is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit IR (though not as well as clouds do). Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR (as they are to visible light) and therefore play no part in the greenhouse effect. That's why the greenhouse effect becomes stronger as the proportions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase.

So according to your logic, CO2 should have immediate effects once infused into the atmosphere?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 12-04-2017 18:39
12-04-2017 20:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
ITN thinks there is no difference between gasses in respect to their effect on the atmosphere, he's contrary and will probably say that I am misrepresenting him but that is the impression. He also thinks the myth-busters team ( Americans who like big explosions guns and cars being smashed up) are being dishonest are just doing a majck trick and not demonstrating a long held to be true effect in this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

He is also a rocket scientist, you can think he is a super genius with his brilliant arguments I just think he's deluded.
12-04-2017 22:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
GasGuzzler wrote:
To understand, you first must understand what 'heat' actually is. It is not temperature.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat can only flow from hot to cold.

Insulation works because you are reducing heat, that is, the flow of thermal energy.

If you place a source of heat inside (or under) insulation, than heat loss (which is the flow of heat away from the source) is reduced. Heat is never trapped, but it may be reduced through the use of insulation.


Yep, I understand heat pretty well and this all makes sense.

As far as clouds are concerned, this is a popular theory. It is not a scientific one. There is really no way to measure
what the temperature 'should' have been had the cloud layer not been there.


Thing is, clouds do have a blanket effect. I've seen numerous times on a cold clear night where it clouded up just locally and the temps stop their plummet, where area to the south by just 50-100 miles should be warmer by 2-3 degrees, instead are 6-8 degrees colder and they remained clear. Agree there is no way to measure "what it should have been", but there is more than sufficient evidence that clouds insulate. It almost always verifies.

I live in the Seattle area. As you know, we get a lot of days with rain (not a lot of rain, just light rain or drizzle). We can go several months without seeing the Sun at all. You can probably imagine how frustrated hobby astronomers get here.

Oh so sorry. I get crazy in the head when I don't get sun for a couple days. And you're in Litebeer territory also!

Carbon dioxide is not even capable of 'microscopic' warming of the Earth. It simply doesn't have any insulative properties. Its ability to absorb light in the infrared range is shared by many materials, including dirt, concrete, water, you, a cat snoozing in the sunlight, etc.


I have to be honest, this sounds a bit contradictory, but my understanding of the light spectrum is limited. If CO2 has the same properties as myself, I certainly sit in the sun and warm up. Can you explain a little farther?

Thanks

People often describe clouds as having a 'blanket' affect. Trouble is, we don't know if it's really there. We can't determine what the temperature 'should' be if the cloud were not there.

I have provided one non-scientific theory for this observation. There are others. To claim any of them as 'proven' is again just a circular argument. There is no test practically available for any of the theories.

Most of the energy emitted from the Sun is IR. All light is energy, but how that energy affects the substance it hits is more or less dependent on the frequency of that light. The bluer the light, the higher the frequency and the higher energy an individual photon at that frequency has.

When IR strikes an object, the result is most often conversion to thermal energy. That is what warms you up on a sunny day. Visible frequencies can also cause conversion to thermal energy, but they more often cause changes in chemistry, the higher the frequency you go. Note that I am talking only about light that is absorbed. Most visible light is reflected and not absorbed. It is this change of chemistry that allows our eyes (things like photographic film and plants) to work.

Absorption of light that results in conversion to thermal energy is a form of heating, known as radiant heating. This is how the Sun warms the Earth (and you). It is also how the surface of the Earth warms the atmosphere for certain sensitive gases that is in addition to the heating by conduction and convection.


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
12-04-2017 22:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Thing is, clouds do have a blanket effect. I've seen numerous times on a cold clear night where it clouded up just locally and the temps stop their plummet, where area to the south by just 50-100 miles should be warmer by 2-3 degrees, instead are 6-8 degrees colder and they remained clear. Agree there is no way to measure "what it should have been", but there is more than sufficient evidence that clouds insulate. It almost always verifies.

Yup. And the reason for this is that clouds, being made of water droplets, both absorb and emit infra-red radiation very well. They absorb the IR emitted by the ground (rather than allowing it to pass into space) and also emit IR both upwards and downwards. The net effect of this is a downward flow of IR that wouldn't be there if the clouds weren't there; this keeps the ground warmer than it would otherwise be.

You can't trap heat. That violates the 1st LoT. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. That violates the 2nd LoT. You can't reduce radiance (by trapping photons) and increase the temperature at the same time. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Surface Detail wrote:
The greenhouse effect works in a similar way, except that here it is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit IR (though not as well as clouds do).
There is no 'greenhouse' effect. You are describing violations of physics.
Surface Detail wrote:
Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR (as they are to visible light)
Both oxygen and nitrogen are NOT transparent to visible light. O2 absorbs in a variety of frequencies from infrared to ultraviolet, including a strong absorption line in the cyan color range.

Nitrogen is pretty much the same, with a strong absorption band in the yellow-green range.

Surface Detail wrote:
and therefore play no part in the greenhouse effect. That's why the greenhouse effect becomes stronger as the proportions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase.

Absorption of infrared is NOT the 'greenhouse' effect. It is simply another way for the surface to lose energy to the atmosphere.

Remember the surface also absorbs infrared. Why does the surface not heat the surface? Hmmmmm?


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
12-04-2017 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
ITN thinks there is no difference between gasses in respect to their effect on the atmosphere, he's contrary and will probably say that I am misrepresenting him but that is the impression.
You are misrepresenting. Every gas in the atmosphere has it's own absorption spectra. Every gas has it's own molar weight. No gas has a magick property to trap photons between the gas and the surface. No gas has magick ability to allow a thing like a 'greenhouse' effect.
spot wrote:
He also thinks the myth-busters team ( Americans who like big explosions guns and cars being smashed up) are being dishonest are just doing a majck trick and not demonstrating a long held to be true effect in this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

That's exactly what this is. It only shows the absorption of CO2. The experiment itself was incredibly flawed as well. Not the first (or the last time) with these guys. They are special effects experts.
spot wrote:
He is also a rocket scientist,
True. I worked on the space shuttle program, designing part of that spacecraft. I have also contributed to several satellite designs.
spot wrote:
you can think he is a super genius with his brilliant arguments I just think he's deluded.

You think anyone that disagrees with you is deluded.


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
12-04-2017 23:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Thing is, clouds do have a blanket effect. I've seen numerous times on a cold clear night where it clouded up just locally and the temps stop their plummet, where area to the south by just 50-100 miles should be warmer by 2-3 degrees, instead are 6-8 degrees colder and they remained clear. Agree there is no way to measure "what it should have been", but there is more than sufficient evidence that clouds insulate. It almost always verifies.

Yup. And the reason for this is that clouds, being made of water droplets, both absorb and emit infra-red radiation very well. They absorb the IR emitted by the ground (rather than allowing it to pass into space) and also emit IR both upwards and downwards. The net effect of this is a downward flow of IR that wouldn't be there if the clouds weren't there; this keeps the ground warmer than it would otherwise be.

You can't trap heat. That violates the 1st LoT. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. That violates the 2nd LoT. You can't reduce radiance (by trapping photons) and increase the temperature at the same time. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Surface Detail wrote:
The greenhouse effect works in a similar way, except that here it is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit IR (though not as well as clouds do).
There is no 'greenhouse' effect. You are describing violations of physics.
Surface Detail wrote:
Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR (as they are to visible light)
Both oxygen and nitrogen are NOT transparent to visible light. O2 absorbs in a variety of frequencies from infrared to ultraviolet, including a strong absorption line in the cyan color range.

Nitrogen is pretty much the same, with a strong absorption band in the yellow-green range.

Surface Detail wrote:
and therefore play no part in the greenhouse effect. That's why the greenhouse effect becomes stronger as the proportions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase.

Absorption of infrared is NOT the 'greenhouse' effect. It is simply another way for the surface to lose energy to the atmosphere.

Remember the surface also absorbs infrared. Why does the surface not heat the surface? Hmmmmm?

Some weird stuff there, but your continued insistence that trapping heat somehow violates the 1st LoT is quite incomprehensible. We trap heat all the time: in our houses and ovens, for example. This doesn't violate the 1st LoT since no energy is being created or destroyed. Same goes for the Earth as a whole. Indeed, the 1st LoT says that the temperature of the Earth must increase if you reduce the rate at which it radiates heat by changing the composition of its atmosphere.
12-04-2017 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Surface Detail wrote:
Some weird stuff there, but your continued insistence that trapping heat somehow violates the 1st LoT is quite incomprehensible. We trap heat all the time: in our houses and ovens, for example.

Houses and ovens don't trap heat. Thermal insulation does not trap heat either. It reduces heat.
Surface Detail wrote:
This doesn't violate the 1st LoT since no energy is being created or destroyed.

it's not trapping heat either.
Surface Detail wrote:
Same goes for the Earth as a whole.

Correct. The Earth cannot trap heat either.
Surface Detail wrote:
Indeed, the 1st LoT says that the temperature of the Earth must increase if you reduce the rate at which it radiates heat by changing the composition of its atmosphere.

You can't reduce heat that way. The hotter something becomes against a cold region (space), the more heat loss...not less. Composition of the atmosphere makes no difference.

The temperature of the lit side of the skin of the space station (ISS) is approx 250 deg F. The temperature at the surface of the Earth is considerably cooler than that. There is no place on Earth where the daytime temperature reaches 250 deg F.

If CO2 and water vapor heat the surface due to magick bouncing photons, why is the surface of the Earth considerably COOLER than the space station's daytime side? Magick Bouncing Photons??? Magick Blankets???


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
Edited on 12-04-2017 23:30
Page 3 of 8<12345>>>





Join the debate Consensus of Scientists and Proof:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate change for the non-scientists2903-09-2020 05:01
A Post On Quora Explaining What is Wrong With The 97% Consensus Studies208-03-2020 18:17
Ocean currents are speeding up faster than scientists predicted417-02-2020 14:55
SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong1711-02-2020 17:42
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact