Remember me
▼ Content

Demonstrating IR CO2 reaction



Page 2 of 3<123>
29-12-2019 06:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:Why is the dark side of Earth so warm? I mean it's blazing hot compared to the dark side of the moon.


Why is the daytime side of Earth so cold? I mean it's beyond absolutely freezing compared to the daytime side of the moon. What kind of refrigeration effect is going on there?

Daytime side of Earth at ground level getting as low as -20C is common (oceans freeze)

Daytime side of the Moon at ground level is 125C (oceans would boil away)

pretty different right? Why?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-12-2019 06:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
IBdaMann wrote:
Why is the daytime side of Earth so cold?
Because the gases of Earth's atmosphere absorb radiance on it's way in. And it's diffusion not refrigeration. They hold onto thermal energy till morning. Not all of it but most of it. Like a big thermal savings account for Earth, keeping us toasty.

I guess you'll Dodge my question though. Keep on believing thermal energy is never retained, I can't stop you.
Edited on 29-12-2019 06:59
29-12-2019 07:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Why is the daytime side of Earth so cold?
Because the gases of Earth's atmosphere absorb radiance on it's way in. And it's diffusion not refrigeration. They hold onto thermal energy till morning. Not all of it but most of it. Like a big thermal savings account for Earth, keeping us toasty.

I guess you'll Dodge my question though. Keep on believing thermal energy is never retained, I can't stop you.


it is not possible to trap thermal energy. it is not possible to trap light either.


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
29-12-2019 10:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: They hold onto thermal energy till morning.

Do atmospheric gases have little alarms to let them know when to "let go" of the thermal energy that they are holding? What time of the morning does that happen?


tmiddles wrote: Like a big thermal savings account for Earth, keeping us toasty.

We've been over this. It's like a big walk-in freezer for Earth, keeping us ice-cold.

tmiddles wrote: Keep on believing thermal energy is never retained, I can't stop you.

Keep on avoiding defining "retention" as it pertains to thermal energy ... I can't make you.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-12-2019 13:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: They hold onto thermal energy till morning.

Do atmospheric gases have little alarms to let them know when to "let go" of the thermal energy that they are holding? What time of the morning does that happen?


tmiddles wrote: Like a big thermal savings account for Earth, keeping us toasty.

We've been over this. It's like a big walk-in freezer for Earth, keeping us ice-cold.

tmiddles wrote: Keep on believing thermal energy is never retained, I can't stop you.

Keep on avoiding defining "retention" as it pertains to thermal energy ... I can't make you.


.


If you know everything why are you asking questions?


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.
29-12-2019 13:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...gases of Earth's atmosphere ...hold onto thermal energy till morning...

it is not possible to trap thermal energy...
You are using the word "trap" not me. Explain why the Earths dark side is so much warmer than the Moon's dark side ITN.
IBdaMann wrote:
Do atmospheric gases have little alarms
Only questions with no answers IBD?

The absurd notion that thermal energy is instantly expelled from all matter is just weird. Of course it's not. It takes time for things to cool off including Earth.

The coldest moment is actually just after sunrise:
"It seems natural to assume that as the sun rises in the morning, the temperature begins increasing. However, when the sun first rises it doesn't get warmer right away, but actually feels colder. In fact, barring any storm fronts, the coldest time of day is sometime just after dawn."

Do ITN/IBD have an explanation for this? Or will it be one more episode of their classic show "It Cannot Be Known"?

"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
29-12-2019 20:21
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
You're not following the conversation.
You were relying to me? I'm not sure what I missed.

So you recognize that gases react very differently to infrared? Depending on the gas?

"They are the same in terms of the end result of being converted to thermal energy." is not correct. If radiance is transmitted, as in a gas is transparent to it as air we breath is to white light, then it's not converted into thermal energy at all.

Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...there's a finite amount of IR entering the atmosphere,...

Earth has a continuous supply of energy from the Sun.

...It is measurably finite, not variable enough to account for an increase in global average temperatures over time.


Below is a list of the gasses that make up air. Two gasses amount to 99.03%. The largest single element is Nitrogen which is known to absorb IR and convert to thermal energy. Oxygen does not react and the other constituents are not materially significant to this exercise unless they react and are greater than the concentration of CO2.
nitrogen (N2) 78.084
oxygen (O2) 20.946
argon (Ar) 0.934
neon (Ne) 0.0018
helium (He) 0.000524
methane (CH4) 0.0002
krypton (Kr) 0.000114
hydrogen (H2) 0.00005
nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.00005
xenon (Xe) 0.0000087

Now introduce both H2O and CO2 which will convert IR to thermal energy. We will assume 400ppm or .0004 in concentration for CO2. H20 is highly variable in concentration and can vary by the minute and foot of elevation.

Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
29-12-2019 20:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Methane and nitrous oxyide are greenhouse gasses too also the CO2 is created by burning stuff so Oxygen is going down enough to be measured.
29-12-2019 22:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: They hold onto thermal energy till morning.

Do atmospheric gases have little alarms to let them know when to "let go" of the thermal energy that they are holding? What time of the morning does that happen?


tmiddles wrote: Like a big thermal savings account for Earth, keeping us toasty.

We've been over this. It's like a big walk-in freezer for Earth, keeping us ice-cold.

tmiddles wrote: Keep on believing thermal energy is never retained, I can't stop you.

Keep on avoiding defining "retention" as it pertains to thermal energy ... I can't make you.


.


If you know everything why are you asking questions?

It's obvious, isn't it? Well, maybe not to 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
29-12-2019 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...gases of Earth's atmosphere ...hold onto thermal energy till morning...

it is not possible to trap thermal energy...
You are using the word "trap" not me.

No. That would be you, liar.
tmiddles wrote:
Explain why the Earths dark side is so much warmer than the Moon's dark side ITN.

As soon as you explain why the Earth's daylight side is so much colder than the Moon's daylight side.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Do atmospheric gases have little alarms
Only questions with no answers IBD?

The absurd notion that thermal energy is instantly expelled from all matter is just weird. Of course it's not. It takes time for things to cool off including Earth.

It takes time to warm up too. Meh.
tmiddles wrote:
The coldest moment is actually just after sunrise:

Sunrise on Earth is continuous. So is sunset. So is noon. So is midnight.


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
29-12-2019 22:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
You're not following the conversation.
You were relying to me? I'm not sure what I missed.

So you recognize that gases react very differently to infrared? Depending on the gas?

"They are the same in terms of the end result of being converted to thermal energy." is not correct. If radiance is transmitted, as in a gas is transparent to it as air we breath is to white light, then it's not converted into thermal energy at all.

Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...there's a finite amount of IR entering the atmosphere,...

Earth has a continuous supply of energy from the Sun.

...It is measurably finite, not variable enough to account for an increase in global average temperatures over time.


Below is a list of the gasses that make up air. Two gasses amount to 99.03%. The largest single element is Nitrogen which is known to absorb IR and convert to thermal energy. Oxygen does not react and the other constituents are not materially significant to this exercise unless they react and are greater than the concentration of CO2.
nitrogen (N2) 78.084
oxygen (O2) 20.946
argon (Ar) 0.934
neon (Ne) 0.0018
helium (He) 0.000524
methane (CH4) 0.0002
krypton (Kr) 0.000114
hydrogen (H2) 0.00005
nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.00005
xenon (Xe) 0.0000087

Now introduce both H2O and CO2 which will convert IR to thermal energy. We will assume 400ppm or .0004 in concentration for CO2. H20 is highly variable in concentration and can vary by the minute and foot of elevation.

Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.


Infrared light emitted by the surface and absorbed by a gas in the atmosphere does not warm the Earth.


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
29-12-2019 22:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
spot wrote:
Methane and nitrous oxyide are greenhouse gasses too also the CO2 is created by burning stuff so Oxygen is going down enough to be measured.


No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.


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 29-12-2019 22:23
30-12-2019 12:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
Harry C wrote:
Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.

So nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. What does that mean: when Tyndall tested room air infrared radiance passed through unimpeeded while CO2, a greenhouse gas, absorbed it.

The gases are not all the same! They aren't. If you are convinced they are please share why.

Water vapor varies a lot. So do clouds in the sky. They do so regardless of human activity. Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

So if CO2 does add a few degrees fluctuations in water vapor wont fix that.

"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
30-12-2019 20:51
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(143)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.

So nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. What does that mean: when Tyndall tested room air infrared radiance passed through unimpeeded while CO2, a greenhouse gas, absorbed it.

The gases are not all the same! They aren't. If you are convinced they are please share why.

Water vapor varies a lot. So do clouds in the sky. They do so regardless of human activity. Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

So if CO2 does add a few degrees fluctuations in water vapor wont fix that.

"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'm not afraid to admit I was wrong about Nitrogen and IR. Nitrogen has 2 atoms with a bond that is so stiff it can't absorb energy in the form of vibration in our atmosphere. So, we shall omit it from our 100% of gasses that DO convert to thermal energy.

That out of the way, it doesn't change my central premise that the energy capacity of the H20 can vary more than whatever is attributed to CO2. So, back to my question which you continue to avoid is why should we worry about CO2? What is it about CO2 that causes such angst?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
30-12-2019 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.

So nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.
tmiddles wrote:
What does that mean: when Tyndall tested room air infrared radiance passed through unimpeeded while CO2, a greenhouse gas, absorbed it.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
The gases are not all the same! They aren't. If you are convinced they are please share why.

As far as the capability to warm the Earth using IR emitted from the surface, all gases are the same. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
Water vapor varies a lot.

Meh.
tmiddles wrote:
So do clouds in the sky.

Clouds are not water vapor.
tmiddles wrote:
They do so regardless of human activity.

Irrational. You have argued the exact opposite. Which is it, dude?
tmiddles wrote:
Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

Argument from randU fallacy. You know know the values of any of these variables.
tmiddles wrote:
So if CO2 does add a few degrees fluctuations in water vapor wont fix that.

CO2 can't add a few degrees. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.


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 30-12-2019 20:54
30-12-2019 22:03
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2713)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.

So nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. What does that mean: when Tyndall tested room air infrared radiance passed through unimpeeded while CO2, a greenhouse gas, absorbed it.

The gases are not all the same! They aren't. If you are convinced they are please share why.

Water vapor varies a lot. So do clouds in the sky. They do so regardless of human activity. Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

So if CO2 does add a few degrees fluctuations in water vapor wont fix that.

"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'm not afraid to admit I was wrong about Nitrogen and IR. Nitrogen has 2 atoms with a bond that is so stiff it can't absorb energy in the form of vibration in our atmosphere. So, we shall omit it from our 100% of gasses that DO convert to thermal energy.

That out of the way, it doesn't change my central premise that the energy capacity of the H20 can vary more than whatever is attributed to CO2. So, back to my question which you continue to avoid is why should we worry about CO2? What is it about CO2 that causes such angst?


CO2 is a byproduct of burning stuff. We burn a lot of stuff, so why not tax the hell out of producing it? Think of all the money that can be stolen, since we really need to burn stuff, for our energy dependance. You do realize that CO2 is a trace gas, only makes up about 0.04% of the total atmosphere, even with all the crap we burn. Fortunately plants and trees really like the stuff. Unfortunately the 410 ppm we currently have, is only about half of what plants consider ideal. We haven't seen green yet.

I can't for the life of me, understand the hatred of CO2. We need to produce energy. Plants need more CO2. We can always use more food. Seem crazy to me, to reduce CO2, kill off all the plants, for solar and wind farms, that hardly keep up with increasing demands for electricity, no way they'll ever replace burning stuff. We really need the CO2 in the atmosphere, as every living organism on earth, is based on carbon molecules. Plants are the only source of dietary carbon. Plants only get carbon from CO2.
31-12-2019 08:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
Harry C wrote:
I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong about Nitrogen and IR.
Amen, I'm wrong plenty. It's like a super power in a debate to give yourself permission to be wrong and move on.

Harry C wrote:
So, back to my question which you continue to avoid is why should we worry about CO2? What is it about CO2 that causes such angst?

Didn't avoid it I gave you a short answer:
tmiddles wrote:
Water vapor varies a lot. So do clouds in the sky. They do so regardless of human activity. Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

Here's a longer answer: on a day to day basis cloud cover and humidity are erratic. But over a week/month/year/decade they are more and more predictable. Humidity is just as likely to go up as down as weather fluctuates. There is no theory that humidity/water vapor is "trending" higher or lower for any reason. If temperature increases it gets more humid of course but thats about it.
CO2 is the boogie man because it is trending higher. Fluctuations in humidity do nothing to erase that influence, if there is one, in the long run.
Here is the math wikipedia/cunsensus uses as I understand it from this thread I posted: Do I have the CO2 calamity math right?
"...the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F "

Now that uses 2.5% humidity arbitrarily. In a given place and time it might be more or less but the contribution of CO2 would remain.

I dont think my attempt at sumurizing that theory with that math is very good and I question the theory (doesnt explain in my mind why MARS isnt hotter)

But that is my answer to you excellent question why is CO2 of such concern.

IF that calculation were correct we would shift the temperature of the earth by several degrees very quickly.

"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
31-12-2019 23:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
tmiddles wrote:
Here is the math wikipedia/cunsensus uses as I understand it from this thread I posted:

Wikipedia is not a science book or a math book. You cannot use it as a reference.
tmiddles wrote:
"...the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F "

Argument from randU fallacy. You cannot use random numbers as data or as a mathematical proof.
tmiddles wrote:
Now that uses 2.5% humidity arbitrarily. In a given place and time it might be more or less but the contribution of CO2 would remain.

CO2 does not have the capability to warm the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
I dont think my attempt at sumurizing that theory with that math is very good and I question the theory (doesnt explain in my mind why MARS isnt hotter)

You aren't using math. You are just making up numbers and equations.
tmiddles wrote:
But that is my answer to you excellent question why is CO2 of such concern.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
IF that calculation were correct we would shift the temperature of the earth by several degrees very quickly.

What calculation? You never made any!


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
02-01-2020 10:00
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Here is the math wikipedia/cunsensus uses as I understand it from this thread I posted:

Wikipedia is not a science book or a math book. You cannot use it as a reference.
tmiddles wrote:
"...the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F "

Argument from randU fallacy. You cannot use random numbers as data or as a mathematical proof.
tmiddles wrote:
Now that uses 2.5% humidity arbitrarily. In a given place and time it might be more or less but the contribution of CO2 would remain.

CO2 does not have the capability to warm the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
I dont think my attempt at sumurizing that theory with that math is very good and I question the theory (doesnt explain in my mind why MARS isnt hotter)

You aren't using math. You are just making up numbers and equations.
tmiddles wrote:
But that is my answer to you excellent question why is CO2 of such concern.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
IF that calculation were correct we would shift the temperature of the earth by several degrees very quickly.

What calculation? You never made any!



This has been explained to you before:

yhttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

What EXACTLY is is you don't get ??
02-01-2020 14:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
spot wrote: If you know everything why are you asking questions?

You have probably realized from my knowing everything that all of my questions are rhetorical.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-01-2020 14:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
spot wrote: Methane and nitrous oxyide are greenhouse gasses too

Are you under the impression that "Greenhouse Gas" is somehow a scientific classification?

[side note, just because I know everything knowable: The plural of the noun 'gas' is 'gases' and the verb 'gasses' means to poison someone]

spot wrote: ... also the CO2 is created by burning stuff so Oxygen is going down enough to be measured.

... and how exactly is one able to measure this?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-01-2020 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
MarcusR wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Here is the math wikipedia/cunsensus uses as I understand it from this thread I posted:

Wikipedia is not a science book or a math book. You cannot use it as a reference.
tmiddles wrote:
"...the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F "

Argument from randU fallacy. You cannot use random numbers as data or as a mathematical proof.
tmiddles wrote:
Now that uses 2.5% humidity arbitrarily. In a given place and time it might be more or less but the contribution of CO2 would remain.

CO2 does not have the capability to warm the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
I dont think my attempt at sumurizing that theory with that math is very good and I question the theory (doesnt explain in my mind why MARS isnt hotter)

You aren't using math. You are just making up numbers and equations.
tmiddles wrote:
But that is my answer to you excellent question why is CO2 of such concern.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
IF that calculation were correct we would shift the temperature of the earth by several degrees very quickly.

What calculation? You never made any!



This has been explained to you before:

yhttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

What EXACTLY is is you don't get ??


A religious text is not science nor a calculation.


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
02-01-2020 21:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Into the Night wrote:A religious text is not science nor a calculation.

Well hold on there, don't be so quick. Did you read this part:

For all bands, the downward shortwave flux at the tropopause is always decreased by the increased concentrations, due to increased absorption in the stratosphere (Figures S1a and S1b). The sign of the forcing depends on whether this negative contribution dominates over the increased absorption by these gases in the troposphere, which contributes a positive forcing. For CO2, the extremely strong band at 4.3 µm makes little contribution to forcing at band center; absorption is almost complete in the stratosphere at unperturbed concentrations, and it only starts to contribute to forcing at the band edges. The CO2 2.7 µm band lies toward the center of a strong water vapor band (Figure 1d). The change in the downward forcing is strongly negative (Figure S1b), but there is not a compensating increase in tropospheric absorption because the heavy spectral overlap with water vapor strongly mutes the impact of CO2 increases. By contrast, the weaker bands of CO2 at 1.6 and 2.0 µm lie in, or toward the edges of, windows between the main water vapor bands (Figure 1d); hence, they are more able to increase tropospheric absorption causing a positive forcing that dominates over the negative stratospheric component.





... oh, you DID read that part? You weren't converted?

OK then, nevermind.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-01-2020 22:49
keepit
★★★★☆
(1756)
IBDM,
When i lived in texas there was a phrase, "All hat and no cattle". Look at your posts. There's a ton of stuff and a ton of other people's stuff but you aren't contributing much.
For example, you say there is an absolute zero temperature. There isn't, because of virtual energy entering and exiting our universe all the time, everywhere. That's why it can never get to absolute zero.
02-01-2020 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
When i lived in texas there was a phrase, "All hat and no cattle". Look at your posts. There's a ton of stuff and a ton of other people's stuff but you aren't contributing much.
Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem.
keepit wrote:
For example, you say there is an absolute zero temperature.
There is.
keepit wrote:
There isn't,
There is. The temperature of absolute zero is 0 deg K. No one knows what happens to matter at absolute zero. We've never been able to get there.
keepit wrote:
because of virtual energy entering and exiting our universe all the time, everywhere.

Paradox. If something is 'outside' the universe, than it's not the universe, is it?
There is no such thing as 'virtual energy'.
keepit wrote:
That's why it can never get to absolute zero.

Nope. Not the reason why. The closer something is brought to absolute zero, the more energy is expended to do it.


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 02-01-2020 23:22
02-01-2020 23:17
keepit
★★★★☆
(1756)
ITN,
I don't buy your response. Can you explain yourself?
02-01-2020 23:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I don't buy your response. Can you explain yourself?

RQAA


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
02-01-2020 23:26
keepit
★★★★☆
(1756)
Semantics isn't going to provide an answer ITN. The issue isn't the problems encountered when people try to achieve absolute zero, rather whether it is physically possible by any means, natural phenomenon or man made.

Humor me ITN, i've never heard you give an answer to this. Give it another try.
Edited on 02-01-2020 23:27
02-01-2020 23:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
keepit wrote:
Semantics isn't going to provide an answer ITN.

What semantics? You are trying to use that as way to evade.
keepit wrote:
The issue isn't the problems encountered when people try to achieve absolute zero,
Yes it is.
keepit wrote:
rather whether it is physically possible by any means, natural phenomenon or man made.

Perhaps that too.

False dichotomy fallacy.


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
03-01-2020 21:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
When i lived in texas there was a phrase, "All hat and no cattle". Look at your posts. There's a ton of stuff and a ton of other people's stuff but you aren't contributing much.

keepit, there's also a phrase in Texas: "You're 20 lbs. of bullshit in a 10 lbs. bag"

Only recently did you finally post your first moderately intellent thought. You babble, you gibber, and you write the stupidest crap. So it makes me chuckle when you demonstrate that you feel as though you are somehow in a position to criticize ANYBODY. It's way too funny.

keepit wrote: For example, you say there is an absolute zero temperature.

Wait a minute! From where did this come? Were you planning on adding appropriate context? Did you merely have one of your sporadic gibberish moments or are you realizing that you are as brain-dead as tmiddles and are resorting to assigning bogus positions to me so you can attack those as opposed to anything I have written?

There is a purely theoretical absolute zero. There is no such thing as matter at absolute zero. Hello!

keepit wrote: There isn't, because of virtual energy entering and exiting our universe all the time, everywhere.

Oh, I see, you're talking about that VIRTUAL energy that enters our universe from that OTHER universe ... all the time. Oh yeah, I know, it happens all the time. It's a good thing that OTHER universe is pretty good about insisting on encoding that universe's MAC address into the VIRTUAL energy's data frames so that when we encounter VIRTUAL energy we can tell right away whether it is domestic VIRTUAL energy or whether it comes from that OTHER universe.

I'm going to go ahead and label this the second intelligent thought you have had on this board. Thank you for mentioning it, I almost forgot.



keepit wrote: That's why it can never get to absolute zero.

VIRTUAL energy does not affect temperature. It merely travels between our universe and that OTHER universe ... all the time.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-01-2020 21:31
keepit
★★★★☆
(1756)
What a load IBDM.
Learn a little about "empty space" and then argue your position with every cosmology scientists at the big universities and the Large Hadron Collider.
Maybe you and ITN know better than them.
03-01-2020 21:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
keepit wrote: What a load IBDM.
Learn a little about "empty space" and then argue your position with every cosmology scientists at the big universities and the Large Hadron Collider.
Maybe you and ITN know better than them.

Before you pretend to speak for them, run your wack-brained gibber-babble by every cosmologist and then list for me those who I can expect to come to this site to defend your fatuity.

I'm greatly looking forward to it.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-01-2020 22:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
keepit wrote:
...IBDM....then argue your position with every cosmology scientists....


One thing we never get to argue with ITN/IBD is a position. They have never, in 5 years, offered an explanation for anything.

Q: "How do you explain _________" ITN/IBD: "It is unknown"
or
Q: "What is your answer to that hen?" ITN/IGD: hand waving "Fallacy" and "I have a question for you instead of answer"

They will claim a made up law of thermodynamics (in my sig) mixed in with some real ones. They will say something is NOT the answer to why the universe is the way we find it. But they will never actually offer an explanation. Not even to how the human body maintains body temperature (in my sig).

I call it the "boxer without a body" where the (usually adolescent) "debater" says someone else is wrong without having a position of their own they take. You can't really hit back, attack their solution, because they don't have one.

It's much easier to say someone else is wrong than it is to be correct in your own calculation on things.

"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 03-01-2020 22:53
03-01-2020 23:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: One thing we never get to argue with ITN/IBD is a position. They have never, in 5 years, offered an explanation for anything.


One thing we never get to argue with tmiddles is why he thinks there is absolutely nothing that "we don't know."

Example: "We do not have the means to ascertain the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy."

tmiddles: So you are saying that NOTHING can be known? Of course it's what we KNOW. I know what the answer is. Just because you don't know doesn't mean others can't fabricate an "answer." For five years you have been DODGING fabricating answers.

Example: "thermodynamics says that thermal energy only flows from warmer to cooler."

tmiddles: Thermodynamics is wrong because it's actually a NET flow with some thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. I'm the only one who understands thermodynamics. For five years you have been proclaiming platitudes that are simply ... not what I preach.

tmiddles wrote: They will claim a made up law of thermodynamics (in my sig) mixed in with some real ones.

I have never accused you of having mixed in any real ones.

tmiddles wrote: They will say something is NOT the answer to why the universe is the way we find it.

Only when science shows that your contradictions are NOT the answer.

tmiddles wrote: But they will never actually offer an explanation.

I thank you for bringing your religion into this. Christians used to get on my back for not having an explanation for what happens to our souls when we die. They would tell me that God/Heaven/Lake-O-Fire is the only explanation "on the table" so I have to go with that. If I were to claim that I don't exactly believe in the human soul then I would be accused of having DODGED! the issue.

Now I have you offering the stupidest violations of physics and claims of divine knowledge as explanations for your Global Warming dogma accompanied by acute denial that your violations of physics somehow aren't "settled science." Whenever I force you to face your physics violations or lack of omniscience, you accuse me of having DODGED! some issue ... as if you believe that is sufficient to make people forget that the ball is in your court and that you have no return shot.

Not even when asked for a simple repeatable example.

I call it the "wrestler without a body" where the (usually adolescent) "debater" opens with a completely false premise. You can't really hit back, attack his logic until you agree to wrestle around in the muck of sematic quagmire until you are "required" to prove a negative.

It's so much easier for tmiddles to pretend to be a genius, and thus feign authority for his religious dogma, by fabricating "knowledge" which the masses cannot easily discern as crap ... and then feigning being TRIGGERED when discovered.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-01-2020 02:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
keepit wrote:
What a load IBDM.
A vacuum is a load???? Absolute zero is a load?????
keepit wrote:
Learn a little about "empty space" and then argue your position with every cosmology scientists at the big universities and the Large Hadron Collider.
Maybe you and ITN know better than them.

You don't get to speak for every scientist anywhere. You only get to speak 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
04-01-2020 02:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13820)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
...IBDM....then argue your position with every cosmology scientists....


One thing we never get to argue with ITN/IBD is a position. They have never, in 5 years, offered an explanation for anything.

Lie. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Q: "How do you explain _________" ITN/IBD: "It is unknown"
or

Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Q: "What is your answer to that hen?" ITN/IGD: hand waving "Fallacy" and "I have a question for you instead of answer"

Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
They will claim a made up law of thermodynamics

RDCF. No, you DENY thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
(in my sig) mixed in with some real ones.

No, you DENY thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
They will say something is NOT the answer to why the universe is the way we find it. But they will never actually offer an explanation.

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
Not even to how the human body maintains body temperature (in my sig).

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
I call it the "boxer without a body" where the (usually adolescent) "debater" says someone else is wrong without having a position of their own they take. You can't really hit back, attack their solution, because they don't have one.

RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
It's much easier to say someone else is wrong than it is to be correct in your own calculation on things.

Void argument fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.


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
04-01-2020 03:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
IBdaMann wrote:
Example: "We do not have the means to ascertain the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy."
And another IBD classic:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

IBdaMann wrote:
Example: "thermodynamics says that thermal energy only flows from warmer to cooler."
Yes it does and it's a NET FLOW. And an example of that taking place with a 100 watt flow from a human body in 70F room they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference IBD has no answer for. Nor to my detailing how Max Planck debunks his made up version of the 2nd LTD.

IBdaMann wrote: Christians used to get on my back for not having an explanation for what happens to our souls when we die.
And this is how he dodges explaining why the dark side of Earth is far warmer than the dark side of the moon and why the mean temp of Earth is 30C higher then it would be if it were a black body.

IBdaMann wrote:...for tmiddles to pretend to be a genius, ...
Just a regular guy without a science degree. Sadly the only thing ever discussed with ITN/IBD is basic sanity.

Note that no attempt was made to address my two proofs.

"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 04-01-2020 03:03
04-01-2020 04:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
tmiddles wrote:
... address my two proofs.
oops, 2 proofs are dodged in a different thread. My mistake.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/default-value-d6-e2967.php#post_49667
04-01-2020 06:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Example: "thermodynamics says that thermal energy only flows from warmer to cooler."
Yes it does and it's a NET FLOW.

Nope. You are arguing a contradiction that cannot be allowed.

You are claiming both that thermal energy only flows from warmer to cooler and simultaneously that thermal energy sometimes flows from cooler to warmer.

Until you can provide a repeatable example, your contradiction is dismissed.


,


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-01-2020 06:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
IBdaMann wrote:
Until you can provide ...

Dismiss away. You are thoroughly 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
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Demonstrating IR CO2 reaction:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
the logarithmic effect of CO2615-11-2020 23:54
Can CO2 be temporarily stored if necessary?2016-10-2020 21:12
Why is CO2 the key to our survival?1327-09-2020 17:27
The NCOVID Lock Down Prove CO2 Emission Do Not Cause Global Warming Climate Change1215-09-2020 04:37
The ACTUAL Percentage of Atmospheric CO26403-09-2020 05:12
▲ 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