Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please) > Page 4

Page 4 of 6

07-10-2019 21:45
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: Putting a coat on a rock does not make the rock warm. Cut a little hole in the coat for a clear plastic window and shine a Burger King lamp through it to heat the rock. The temps reached by the coat-wearing rock will be higher than the bare control rock being heated by an identical lamp in a cool environment. ~ Into the Night wrote: Little Boy was tested at Los Alamos, NM. The plutonium implosion device used in "Fat Man," the Nagasaki bomb, was the one tested at Alamogordo. Its complex mechanism of simultaneously triggering explosive lenses arrayed around the core, to crush the latter to critical mass, required a test to make sure, but physicists had *confidence* in the gun-type Little Boy, which wasn't tested. Indeed, so much confidence the 539th dropped this bomb first, believing the plutonium device more likely to fail. Additional motives for not testing were shortage of enriched uranium in the US and that a trial shot might warn the Japanese, a risk they were already taking for the other bomb. U235 is harder to manufacture—as Iran's mullahs certainly know whilst their centrifuges spin away. Pays to read before spouting, as there's a moral here. The conclusion that CO2 and H2O help warm sunlit planets in the 200-1000K temperature range is simple enough to inspire confidence, while the ornate models attempting to quantify Earth temps precisely over years hence are not. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 07-10-2019 22:10
07-10-2019 22:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	VernerHornung wrote: Heat loss from a solid ball will be slower than from a thin shell, in fact so *much* slower the Earth's core is as hot as the sun's surface but almost none of the interior heat gets to the surface on human lifetime scales. Incorrect. Egregiously so. Given a spherical-ish surface at a given temperature, the radiance will be per Stefan-Boltzmann, which doesn't care if it is completely hollow or if it is completely solid ... because it doesn't matter ... because it doesn't affect "heat" loss. From The MANUAL: Heat: noun In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "friction," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient. VernerHornung wrote: *Any* fluid will operate to "store" energy in kinetic form as winds or ocean currents, Are you saying that work will be performed by the fluid? I notice that you put "store" in quotes. Why? Are you being honest in your dishonesty and admitting that you specifically mean some other word(s) instead? What do you mean exactly? VernerHornung wrote: What I don't know is whether all this will result in a warmer surface, once thermal equilibrium with rays from the sun is reached. Sure you do. Is any additional energy created somewhere? Additional energy is required to increase temperature. What's the answer? [hint: teenagers can correctly answer your question] VernerHornung wrote: It will delay any warming or cooling, So you are claiming that temperature changes and energy transfers will cease to be instantaneous? How much of a delay will we notice? A few seconds? Minutes? What? VernerHornung wrote: Oceans & winds keep Earth from having intolerable extremes with latitude and time of day. Incorrect. Egregiously so. Antarctica is the windiest place on the planet, with absolutely FREEZING winds up to 100 miles per hour, creating utterly intolerable extremes any time of day or night. VernerHornung wrote: The main reason I don't know is because greenhouse gases *don't* store energy; All substances above absolute zero have energy. As far as I am aware, however, there is no unambiguous definition of "greenhouse gas" that enables one to correctly classify any sample of unknown gas into "greenhouse gas" or "non-greenhouse gas." Which means you don't know about what gases you are referring. That's pretty embarrassing. VernerHornung wrote: they absorb and re-radiate almost immediately. I notice that you used the term "re-radiate," like they are repeaters. Are you sure they are "re-radiating" and not changing the form of the energy? I notice that you specify "almost immediately" which implies a delay. How much of a delay? A few seconds? A few minutes? How much? The main thing is that you are sure that it is clearly not instantaneous, right? VernerHornung wrote: While I have doubts that pure, dry, still N2 effects much, it increases the absorptivity of H2O and CO2 through spectral line broadening because of its pressure. So, in physics, what is the "pressure" term used in calculating absorptivity of a given substance? tmiddles wrote: What I'm saying is that in a world where some people, including the US president, deny that buoyancy exists, it is worth demonstrating! Is this the bogus position assignment of the day, i.e. that Trump denies things float? This dishonesty of yours is different because this time it is so completely plausible. [img]https://www.nbc.com/running-wild-with-bear-grylls[/img] I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2019 06:24
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	IBdaMann wrote: Given a spherical-ish surface at a given temperature, the radiance will be per Stefan-Boltzmann, which doesn't care if it is completely hollow or if it is completely solid ... because it doesn't matter ... because it doesn't affect "heat" loss. You're forgetting about *conduction, dearie. The heat must be conducted from the interior of a solid ball before it can radiate away at the surface. As conduction flow is inversely proportional to the distance the heat must travel, loss from a solid ball is indeed slower than from a thin shell of equal mass, if both start at the same temperature. An NFL football cools quicker than a Nerf ball. IBdaMann wrote:* Incorrect. Egregiously so. Antarctica is the windiest place on the planet, with absolutely FREEZING winds up to 100 miles per hour... And Des Moines might be like that in winter if it weren't for winds and ocean currents bringing warmth up to it from the Caribbean. Antarctic easterlies are cold because, well, they're still near their point of origin over a high-elevation icecap. Penguins nonetheless depend on them for survival on the coast, as departures of polar air northward in cold fronts allows warm fronts from the Southern Ocean to invade Antarctica's margins. IBdaMann wrote: I notice that you put "store" in quotes. To distinguish it from the more familiar energy storage in batteries or mountain snowpacks waiting to melt and run downhill to Grand Coulee Dam and become electricity for the Northwest. I wish you'd offer some of your homework up here, even if it arrived entirely in quotes. IBdaMann wrote: Additional energy is required to increase temperature. But not to establish a temperature difference between parts of a system. It works for a system of low-ε block in contact with high-ε block, both receiving equal radiation from a distant source. The high-ε block absorbs and emits more rays at a higher temperature, yet its opportunity to transfer some heat to the other block through conduction means the high-ε is cooler than it would be if alone. The low-ε block is correspondingly warmer than if alone. What you mean to say is additional energy is required to increase a system's *internal energy* U. A portion of the U may not be thermal at all, as in reservoirs storing gravitational potential for dams or batteries storing electrochemical potential from windmills & solar panels. IBdaMann wrote: How much of a delay? A few seconds? A few minutes? How much? Think milliseconds to a few tenths of a second. Infrared Radiation & Planetary Temperature, p. 2 Raymond Pierrehumbert Department of Geophysical Sciences University of Chicago https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf (Yes, ITN, *that* paper again, the one you called "phenomenological.") ~ IBdaMann wrote: So, in physics, what is the "pressure" term used in calculating absorptivity of a given substance? After the utter misses above, a review of basics such as ΔU = Q – W and PV = nRT sounds in order before heading on to the esoteric. I've no idea how collision-induced absorption is calculated, only that it occurs in many gases, that it is a function of pressure & temperature, and that the rotational and vibrational excitation modes are involved, leaving out the electronic transitions seen in flame spectra. If you can't resist, a discussion is abstracted as follows: "Collision-induced (also known as *pressure-induced) absorption can dominate* in infrared and visible spectral regions of gases consisting of nonpolar molecules." Collision-induced absorption Huebner & Barfield Opacity, 2013 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-8797-5_8 or in the case of N2-H2O pressure, for free at H2O−N2 collision-induced absorption band intensity Baranov et. al. Royal Society https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0189 tmiddles wrote: My understanding is that while some reflected, albedo, light makes its way directly from the ground level to space (giving us a nice picture of Earth from up there) almost none of the infra-red radiance we're talking about does? It's all handed off to gas molecules prior to it's final exit? Yes. And the hand-offs make the atmosphere opaque at 15μm. This was what bothered Denis Rancourt before Uni Ottaway fired him for offending the climate change faculty. Rancourt says traces can deliver a wallop. He doesn't deny that's true of CO2 (especially with pressure-induced spectral broadening from N2 and O2). Imagine the air like a glass window 6 inches thick. You have no trouble seeing through it. Now add a thin coat of black paint. The paint is a mere trace in the 6-inch bulk, but now you can't see through the window, period. It's black. That's a trace of CO2. The CO2 alarm resembles adding a *second* coat of black paint to the window. The second coat makes no difference because the window's already black from the first one. Logic similar to this prompted Rancourt to conclude that climate is less sensitive to added CO2 than thought. His one-dimensional calculation showed a 1.4K temperature rise per doubling, which means you have to go from 280 ppm, the preindustrial concentration, to 560 ppm to get the first 1.4˚C warmer surface, and then to 1120 ppm to get 2.8˚C. The climate lobbies claim 3.5K per doubling, however, based on feedback loops where elevated CO2 causes more H2O to evaporate and add to the greenhouse. Rancourt declared that idea premature absent more basic research on cloud and dust physics in lieu of the models. Radiation physics constraints: CO2 increase has little effect Rancourt (unpublished ms.) https://ia800503.us.archive.org/21/items/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingfor-submission-plus-9.pdf Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 08-10-2019 06:48
08-10-2019 10:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:...Define it...Define No thanks. Define things as you please. The English language will be fine without you. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote:Do we actually know that? I would imagine that there was certainly a thermometer extended from the probe but would they have actually taken a contact measurement from the rock or dirt below? The thermometer was at some height within 3 ft of the surface. Veneras 13 & 14 had soil penetration probes but these measured hardness & electrical conductivity only. As usually you rock Verner! Do you think it's even possible the ground was slightly cooler than the air just above it? The fact that only 5-6% of the sun's light is making it to the surface just begs that question. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...So for a 3rd version let's do the solid ball covered with swirling liquid, no atmosphere... *Any* fluid will operate to "store" energy in kinetic form as winds or ocean currents, or as the pressure-volume work done by air, a compressible fluid. These forms of energy eventually dissipate to heat through friction, yet there's a time delay involved. Very interesting! I never thought of that, thermal energy coming out of and going into mechanical energy (I think kinetic=mechanical?). Of course I think that on a microscopic scale, molecules bouncing around, but forgot that it would be true on a macro scale too. VernerHornung wrote:...Winds run like a conveyer belt... It just seems that there is the ability to "soak up" thermal energy and give it a circuitous route to escape. Having convecting, winds, and movement other than direct transmission by radiance and conduction seem like it would add a lot of storage capacity. VernerHornung wrote: ..greenhouse gases *don't* store energy; they absorb and re-radiate almost immediately. ... But this is true at equilibrium as well. Gas, trapped in a constant temperature space, will absorb and re-radiate on and on. Pretty safe to say in that context the thermal energy isn't going anywhere but back to the other side of the room. I call that stored. VernerHornung wrote: a more ominous hue: Ha ha ha, VernerHornung wrote:...temps reached by the coat-wearing rock... Nicely done! A lazer counts a radiance too right? Since it's being claimed the blanket can't possibly make a difference I guess that's a bet easily won. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Little Boy was tested at Los Alamos, NM. Pays to read before spouting,... No books allowed with these clowns. Remember it's strictly an oral tradition they follow. IBdaMann wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Heat loss from a solid ball will be slower... Incorrect. ...the radiance will be per Stefan-Boltzmann "Loss" as a ratio of the thermal energy present would be slower, because there would be more thermal energy present. If you started cold, flip the switch, it would take longer for the solid ball to heat up and it would posses far more thermal energy when it did. So Verner once the solid ball had absorbed all it could both balls would be giving off the exact same radiance right? Equal to what they got. LAW OF EVEN STEVENS IBdaMann wrote: Is this the bogus position assignment of the day, i.e. that Trump denies things float? Wow you can be dense IBD. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Additional energy is required to increase temperature. But not to establish a temperature difference Well said. A refrigeration system shows how temperature in one area can have nothing to do the with entire systems temperature ( a refrigerator technically creates positive thermal energy but tell that to the jello ). I find Venus to be especially fascinating with it's upper atmosphere so cold it forms CO2 ice. VernerHornung wrote: Imagine the air like a glass window 6 inches thick. You have no trouble seeing through it. Now add a thin coat of black paint. The paint is a mere trace in the 6-inch bulk, but now you can't see through the window, period. It's black. That's a trace of CO2. But a very tightly bunched trace. Mix that black paint into the molten glass and you have slightly less clear glass. Why would the CO2 be so gathered into a tight layer? I get the 2nd coat concept though. Basically there is a point at which it's effect is saturated. But I don't understand why it would be saturated yet. (becuase I have not yet read the paper you so generously linked to). pending "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
08-10-2019 12:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...Define it...Define No thanks. Define things as you please. The English language will be fine without you. You have just explained why you don't say what you mean or mean what you say. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Heat loss from a solid ball will be slower... Incorrect. ...the radiance will be per Stefan-Boltzmann "Loss" as a ratio of the thermal energy present would be slower, because there would be more thermal energy present. Impressive! How did you manage to shift the goalposts all the way to the other stadium? Did you have help? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

08-10-2019 18:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Putting a coat on a rock does not make the rock warm. Cut a little hole in the coat for a clear plastic window and shine a Burger King lamp through it to heat the rock. The temps reached by the coat-wearing rock will be higher than the bare control rock being heated by an identical lamp in a cool environment. ~ Nope. The coat bearing rock will be colder, not warmer. Go try it. The apparatus is simple enough. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Little Boy was tested at Los Alamos, NM. The plutonium implosion device used in "Fat Man," the Nagasaki bomb, was the one tested at Alamogordo. Its complex mechanism of simultaneously triggering explosive lenses arrayed around the core, to crush the latter to critical mass, required a test to make sure, but physicists had *confidence* in the gun-type Little Boy, which wasn't tested. Indeed, so much confidence the 539th dropped this bomb first, believing the plutonium device more likely to fail. Additional motives for not testing were shortage of enriched uranium in the US and that a trial shot might warn the Japanese, a risk they were already taking for the other bomb. U235 is harder to manufacture—as Iran's mullahs certainly know whilst their centrifuges spin away. Both bombs were tested. I had the names reversed. My error. VernerHornung wrote: Pays to read before spouting, as there's a moral here. A non-sequitur fallacy is not a moral. VernerHornung wrote: The conclusion that CO2 and H2O help warm sunlit planets in the 200-1000K temperature range is simple enough to inspire confidence, while the ornate models attempting to quantify * You can't create energy out of nothing. VernerHornung wrote: Earth temps precisely over years hence are not. * It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature. * Models are not a measurement. They are not data. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-10-2019 19:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Given a spherical-ish surface at a given temperature, the radiance will be per Stefan-Boltzmann, which doesn't care if it is completely hollow or if it is completely solid ... because it doesn't matter ... because it doesn't affect "heat" loss. You're forgetting about *conduction, dearie. The heat must be conducted from the interior of a solid ball before it can radiate away at the surface. He is not talking about the interior of any sphere. Why are you bringing this up? VernerHornung wrote:* As conduction flow is inversely proportional to the distance the heat must travel, loss from a solid ball is indeed slower than from a thin shell of equal mass, if both start at the same temperature. An NFL football cools quicker than a Nerf ball. Neither is a solid ball. A football contains trapped air and is made of a different material than a nerf ball, which also contains trapped air and is made from a lighter material. The emissivity is different between them also. It's a toss up which cools faster. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Additional energy is required to increase temperature. But not to establish a temperature difference between parts of a system. WRONG. It takes energy to establish a difference of temperature. * You cannot decrease entropy in any system. VernerHornung wrote: It works for a system of low-ε block in contact with high-ε block, both receiving equal radiation from a distant source. The high-ε block absorbs and emits more rays at a higher temperature, yet its opportunity to transfer some heat to the other block through conduction means the high-ε is cooler than it would be if alone. The low-ε block is correspondingly warmer than if alone. False equivalence fallacy. Goalpost fallacy. You cannot change the system in mid-sentence. The system must be closed. VernerHornung wrote: What you mean to say is additional energy is required to increase a system's *internal energy* U. False equivalence fallacy. The 1st law of thermodynamics is not the 2nd law of thermodynamics. VernerHornung wrote: A portion of the U may not be thermal at all, as in reservoirs storing gravitational potential for dams or batteries storing electrochemical potential from windmills & solar panels. Makes no difference. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: How much of a delay? A few seconds? A few minutes? How much? Think milliseconds to a few tenths of a second. It takes 4uS for light to reach space from the surface. * You cannot trap light. VernerHornung wrote: Infrared Radiation & Planetary Temperature, p. 2 Raymond Pierrehumbert Department of Geophysical Sciences University of Chicago https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf (Yes, ITN, *that* paper again, the one you called "phenomenological.") ~ I didn't. You do not understand phenomenology. All observations are subject to how we interpret them. They are not a proof. They are evidence only. How you interpret an observation might be quite wrong. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: So, in physics, what is the "pressure" term used in calculating absorptivity of a given substance? After the utter misses above, a review of basics such as ΔU = Q – W and PV = nRT sounds in order before heading on to the esoteric. Two unrelated equations are the source of pressure??? VernerHornung wrote: I've no idea how collision-induced absorption is calculated, only that it occurs in many gases, that it is a function of pressure & temperature, and that the rotational and vibrational excitation modes are involved, leaving out the electronic transitions seen in flame spectra. If you can't resist, a discussion is abstracted as follows: Discarded. Word salad. Try English. It works better. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: My understanding is that while some reflected, albedo, light makes its way directly from the ground level to space (giving us a nice picture of Earth from up there) almost none of the infra-red radiance we're talking about does? It's all handed off to gas molecules prior to it's final exit? Yes. No. Most of the radiance of Earth is from the surface. You cannot trap light. VernerHornung wrote: And the hand-offs make the atmosphere opaque at 15μm. There is no sequence. CO2 radiates the same as any matter does. VernerHornung wrote: Imagine the air like a glass window 6 inches thick. Air is not glass. VernerHornung wrote: You have no trouble seeing through it. Sight is distorted in both air and glass. VernerHornung wrote: Now add a thin coat of black paint. You can't paint air. VernerHornung wrote: The paint is a mere trace in the 6-inch bulk, but now you can't see through the window, period. It's black. That's a trace of CO2. You can't paint air. Paint does not trap heat, thermal energy, or light. VernerHornung wrote: The CO2 alarm resembles adding a *second* coat of black paint to the window. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no term for frequency. You are again denying that theory. VernerHornung wrote: The second coat makes no difference because the window's already black from the first one. You can't paint air. VernerHornung wrote: Logic similar to this prompted Rancourt to conclude that climate is less sensitive to added CO2 than thought. His one-dimensional calculation showed a 1.4K temperature rise per doubling, which means you have to go from 280 ppm, the preindustrial concentration, to 560 ppm to get the first 1.4˚C warmer surface, and then to 1120 ppm to get 2.8˚C. It is not possible to measure the global atmosphere CO2 or the temperature of the Earth. VernerHornung wrote: The climate lobbies claim 3.5K per doubling, however, based on feedback loops where elevated CO2 causes more H2O to evaporate and add to the greenhouse. There is no 'feedbac loop'. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. * You cannot decrease entropy in any system. VernerHornung wrote: Radiation physics constraints: CO2 increase has little effect It has zero. nada. zip. none. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-10-2019 19:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...Define it...Define No thanks. Define things as you please. The English language will be fine without you. I'm not trying to claim 'global warming' or 'climate change' (whatever they actually mean). YOU are. It is YOU that is trying to undefined words. Void argument fallacy. Burden of proof fallacy. It is YOU that is not using English. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote:Do we actually know that? I would imagine that there was certainly a thermometer extended from the probe but would they have actually taken a contact measurement from the rock or dirt below? The thermometer was at some height within 3 ft of the surface. Veneras 13 & 14 had soil penetration probes but these measured hardness & electrical conductivity only. As usually you rock Verner! Do you think it's even possible the ground was slightly cooler than the air just above it? The fact that only 5-6% of the sun's light is making it to the surface just begs that question. You can't measure the temperature of a planet with only one thermometer, tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: ...So for a 3rd version let's do the solid ball covered with swirling liquid, no atmosphere... *Any* fluid will operate to "store" energy in kinetic form as winds or ocean currents, or as the pressure-volume work done by air, a compressible fluid. These forms of energy eventually dissipate to heat through friction, yet there's a time delay involved. Very interesting! I never thought of that, thermal energy coming out of and going into mechanical energy (I think kinetic=mechanical?). Of course I think that on a microscopic scale, molecules bouncing around, but forgot that it would be true on a macro scale too. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote:...Winds run like a conveyer belt... It just seems that there is the ability to "soak up" thermal energy and give it a circuitous route to escape. Having convecting, winds, and movement other than direct transmission by radiance and conduction seem like it would add a lot of storage capacity. * Wind is not storage capacity. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot create mass out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: [quote]VernerHornung wrote: ..greenhouse gases *don't* store energy; they absorb and re-radiate almost immediately. ... But this is true at equilibrium as well. Gas, trapped in a constant temperature space, will absorb and re-radiate on and on. Pretty safe to say in that context the thermal energy isn't going anywhere but back to the other side of the room. I call that stored. * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-10-2019 03:19
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...Define it...Define No thanks. Define things as you please. The English language will be fine without you. I'm not trying to claim 'global warming' or 'climate change' (whatever they actually mean). YOU are. It is YOU that is trying to undefined words. Void argument fallacy. Burden of proof fallacy. It is YOU that is not using English. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote:Do we actually know that? I would imagine that there was certainly a thermometer extended from the probe but would they have actually taken a contact measurement from the rock or dirt below? The thermometer was at some height within 3 ft of the surface. Veneras 13 & 14 had soil penetration probes but these measured hardness & electrical conductivity only. As usually you rock Verner! Do you think it's even possible the ground was slightly cooler than the air just above it? The fact that only 5-6% of the sun's light is making it to the surface just begs that question. You can't measure the temperature of a planet with only one thermometer, tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...So for a 3rd version let's do the solid ball covered with swirling liquid, no atmosphere... *Any* fluid will operate to "store" energy in kinetic form as winds or ocean currents, or as the pressure-volume work done by air, a compressible fluid. These forms of energy eventually dissipate to heat through friction, yet there's a time delay involved. Very interesting! I never thought of that, thermal energy coming out of and going into mechanical energy (I think kinetic=mechanical?). Of course I think that on a microscopic scale, molecules bouncing around, but forgot that it would be true on a macro scale too. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote:...Winds run like a conveyer belt... It just seems that there is the ability to "soak up" thermal energy and give it a circuitous route to escape. Having convecting, winds, and movement other than direct transmission by radiance and conduction seem like it would add a lot of storage capacity. * Wind is not storage capacity. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot create mass out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: [quote]VernerHornung wrote: ..greenhouse gases *don't* store energy; they absorb and re-radiate almost immediately. ... But this is true at equilibrium as well. Gas, trapped in a constant temperature space, will absorb and re-radiate on and on. Pretty safe to say in that context the thermal energy isn't going anywhere but back to the other side of the room. I call that stored. * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Isn't, isn't CO2 representative of the CO2us entanglement of your parents? That does show where CO2us is a problem that people need to resolve. We simply don't need more Isn't's and Isnot's (baby Isn't's). I am sure such phenomena is disruptive to any environ.
09-10-2019 13:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...shift the goalposts... Spoken like a true spectator. Into the Night wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Cut a little hole in the coat for a clear plastic window and shine a Burger King lamp through it to heat the rock. Nope. The coat bearing rock will be colder, not warmer. So if I have two rocks, one wrapped in a fiberglass blanket with a small hole at one end, and I hit both with a laser and heat them up red hot, then turn the laser off, you're claiming they will both cool just as quickly? Into the Night wrote: * It is not possible to measure... Ah yes, as ITN hides from this thread where he started to get in more serious trouble on this BS point: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Weather is simply the combination of temperature, humidity, cloud cover, wind speed and direction, precipitation, and barometric pressure at a particular moment and in a particular location. Weather is not quantifiable, but it is made up of quantifiable elements. ...We can be confident we "know" the range of temperature, wind, ect. for our street, the neighborhood, the city? How about the county and the state?... Into the Night wrote: He is not talking about the interior of any sphere. Why are you bringing this up? You mean below the "surface"? Because that's where we live bucko. We live BELOW the emitting surface of Earth. You do know that don't you? "surface" in the radiance emission sense doesn't mean dirt, it means whatever collection of molecules are the last ones to emit the radiance to goes out into space, and that is our atmosphere (look up, not down). It's the last one to touch the ball that get's credit for scoring. "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 09-10-2019 13:48
09-10-2019 15:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...shift the goalposts... Spoken like a true spectator. I've got my front row seats and I'm paying attention. You are quite entertaining, by the way. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2019 19:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...Define it...Define No thanks. Define things as you please. The English language will be fine without you. I'm not trying to claim 'global warming' or 'climate change' (whatever they actually mean). YOU are. It is YOU that is trying to undefined words. Void argument fallacy. Burden of proof fallacy. It is YOU that is not using English. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote:Do we actually know that? I would imagine that there was certainly a thermometer extended from the probe but would they have actually taken a contact measurement from the rock or dirt below? The thermometer was at some height within 3 ft of the surface. Veneras 13 & 14 had soil penetration probes but these measured hardness & electrical conductivity only. As usually you rock Verner! Do you think it's even possible the ground was slightly cooler than the air just above it? The fact that only 5-6% of the sun's light is making it to the surface just begs that question. You can't measure the temperature of a planet with only one thermometer, tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...So for a 3rd version let's do the solid ball covered with swirling liquid, no atmosphere... *Any* fluid will operate to "store" energy in kinetic form as winds or ocean currents, or as the pressure-volume work done by air, a compressible fluid. These forms of energy eventually dissipate to heat through friction, yet there's a time delay involved. Very interesting! I never thought of that, thermal energy coming out of and going into mechanical energy (I think kinetic=mechanical?). Of course I think that on a microscopic scale, molecules bouncing around, but forgot that it would be true on a macro scale too. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote:...Winds run like a conveyer belt... It just seems that there is the ability to "soak up" thermal energy and give it a circuitous route to escape. Having convecting, winds, and movement other than direct transmission by radiance and conduction seem like it would add a lot of storage capacity. * Wind is not storage capacity. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot create mass out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: [quote]VernerHornung wrote: ..greenhouse gases *don't* store energy; they absorb and re-radiate almost immediately. ... But this is true at equilibrium as well. Gas, trapped in a constant temperature space, will absorb and re-radiate on and on. Pretty safe to say in that context the thermal energy isn't going anywhere but back to the other side of the room. I call that stored. * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Isn't, isn't CO2 representative of the CO2us entanglement of your parents? That does show where CO2us is a problem that people need to resolve. We simply don't need more Isn't's and Isnot's (baby Isn't's). I am sure such phenomena is disruptive to any environ. Word salad. Try English. It works better. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-10-2019 20:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Cut a little hole in the coat for a clear plastic window and shine a Burger King lamp through it to heat the rock. Nope. The coat bearing rock will be colder, not warmer. So if I have two rocks, one wrapped in a fiberglass blanket with a small hole at one end, and I hit both with a laser and heat them up red hot, then turn the laser off, you're claiming they will both cool just as quickly? No. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: * It is not possible to measure... Ah yes, as ITN hides from this thread where he started to get in more serious trouble on this BS point: No, it's YOUR BS. Inversion fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Weather is simply the combination of temperature, humidity, cloud cover, wind speed and direction, precipitation, and barometric pressure at a particular moment and in a particular location. Weather is not quantifiable, but it is made up of quantifiable elements. ...We can be confident we "know" the range of temperature, wind, ect. for our street, the neighborhood, the city? How about the county and the state?... I have already specified the variance. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: He is not talking about the interior of any sphere. Why are you bringing this up? You mean below the "surface"? No. tmiddles wrote: Because that's where we live bucko. No. tmiddles wrote: We live BELOW the emitting surface of Earth. No. tmiddles wrote: You do know that don't you? Apparently YOU don't understand what a radiating surface is. BTW, you are now in paradox and are being irrational. You are now claiming that only the top of the atmosphere radiates, but that room interiors radiate. Which is it, dude? tmiddles wrote: "surface" in the radiance emission sense doesn't mean dirt, it means whatever collection of molecules are the last ones to emit the radiance to goes out into space, and that is our atmosphere (look up, not down). Irrational. You MUST clear your paradox. You now have seven paradoxes. Feel like clearing any of them? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-10-2019 00:09
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	tmiddles wrote: Do you think it's even possible the ground was slightly cooler than the air just above it? It's possible, for alas, there was no thermometer in the soil. Venera was a rarity where Soviet equipment *performed* on the planet of Love, instead of breaking down as their ladies' shoes did. Their scientists put their heart into making it work. Only bug those lens caps that failed to detach on some missions—yet the "pictureless" landers still returned temp-pressure profiles of the atmosphere on the way down, along with gas chromatography data for the cloud droplets showing these are H2SO4. The soil probe ran an X-ray fluorescence minerology experiment on a sample it sucked up from the ground. A decent web page on Venera 13 is at http://mentallandscape.com/V_Venera11.htm tmiddles wrote: A refrigeration system shows how temperature in one area can have nothing to do the with entire systems temperature... If the upper air at levels Huffman talked about, which are at 340K, heat the soil in some way, they cannot do so by direct thermal transfer. ITN is right about a cold drink not heating the air in the room while it freezes in its glass on your dinner table! But who says it can't do so *indirectly, provided it rejects waste heat as a refrigerator must? Cooler objects heating hotter ones happens every time my car mechanic turns on his arc welder. The power plant's furnace at 1500K drives a steam turbine at 650K, dumping heat, and the turbine generates electricity which then heats the welding arc to 5000K. Atmospheres are electrical insulators except during lightning, and the radio sensors on Venera never detected the static that should accompany a massive discharge creating a circuit between air and ground. Venus has about as much lightning as Earth. Mechanisms other than thermal radiation for upper air transferring energy to the ground, if any exist, remain unknown. And the diffuse sunlight reaching Venera could* heat the ground to high temps, if the surface radiation is blocked efficiently enough. We've gotta watch out for the "physics deplorables" nonetheless, a peanut gallery that's hung around much longer than Hillary-Trump. They were the fellas who told us bumblebees can't fly and later told us the sun's relatively cool photosphere can't heat the million-degree solar corona. Yet bees visit flowers and the corona came out during the recent eclipse, whose path went through Idaho close enough for me to go see it. The corona is now believed heated by the sun's magnetic field via current loops. tmiddles wrote: I get the 2nd coat concept though. But a very tightly bunched trace. Mix that black paint into the molten glass and you have slightly less clear glass. It's a faulty analogy of course. So are glass greenhouses, which are little more than a benign form of what befalls puppies left in a car with the windows shut in summer. But the paint is closer to truth as it works solely by intercepting light, while greenhouse glass blocks some IR while mainly stopping convection, where the warm air would just leave for the outdoors. (You did tell me about the special IR glass for energy savings at nurseries.) tmiddles wrote: Basically there is a point at which it's effect is saturated. But I don't understand why it would be saturated yet. CO2 equivalent to Earth's CO2 column is saturated in the lab, but for some reason mysterious to me, not in the *air* over planets. But even there, a "law of diminishing returns" applies to adding more, sort of like economics. Venus stands at 2½ times Earth's absolute temperature after having 1000 tons of the stuff squatting over each square yard of real estate. The "return" on extra CO2 is far worse than on extra rays from Stefan-Boltzmann. The "settled science" folks are cognizant of this, of course, but they resort to various hair-trigger feedback effects (CO2-ocean evaporation, CO2-ice melt-lower albedo) to get their consensus figure of 3.5˚C for doubled CO2, and I've trouble believing our climate is so tipsy. Earth somehow went from bacterial mats to trilobites to tyrannosaurs to people with sudden climate excursions witnessed only upon asteroid impacts. Computer modeling has a poor record when unverified by experiment. In 1983, Richard Turco & colleagues published the TTAPS study which had predicted a calamitous "nuclear winter" to follow WWIII. A variant of this model was run during the Gulf War to forecast cooling in Iran caused by soot from Saddam's torching the wells. Guess what? Nada. The soot had no effect on regional weather. "Well, it dissipated," said the talking heads in Scientific American. Yeah. Maybe we don't understand radiative transfer as well as we thought. tmiddles wrote:I find Venus to be especially fascinating with it's upper atmosphere so cold it forms CO2 ice. Climate, weather & geology, on Earth or other planets, should be topics of fascination. Politics took away all the *fun* we used to have in the Space Age. We rooted for each craft as it left Earth, hoping it would get to its destination and show us sights no human had dreamed of before. Even if it was Russia's. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
10-10-2019 00:34
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: Both bombs were tested. I had the names reversed. My error. More than one error. Fact check: "There was only enough weapons-grade uranium available for *one* bomb, and *confidence* in the gun-type design was high, so on July 14, 1945, most of the uranium bomb ('Little Boy') began its trip westward to the Pacific without its design having ever been fully tested. A test of the plutonium bomb seemed vital, however, both to confirm its novel implosion design and to gather data on nuclear explosions in general." US Department of Energy Trinity Test https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/trinity.htm Only enough uranium for *one* bomb. Yeah, they tested it. On Hiroshima. ~ Into the Night wrote: He is not talking about the interior of any sphere. I must concede it was the interior of a "spherical-ish" shape, perhaps a doorknob or football. Into the Night wrote: You can't create energy out of nothing. <double sigh> Time for a physics lesson with Galileo Galelei on Trumpon as Sagredo fills his helium party balloon and releases it in the Piazza del Petrolio before an astonished crowd. Cue in some Blood, Sweat & Tears in the background. (music) What goes up, must come down... Simplicio: Look! It's going up. It's violating the law of gravity! Sagredo: Oh, but that's just buoyancy, the principle of hydrostatic equilibrium. Simplicio: But look, it's moving by itself! It has kinetic energy. You can't create energy out of nothing! Sagredo: If most certainly we won't acquire energy from naught, a closer look reveals where the energy to move that balloon comes from. The air closes back together after the balloon's risen past it, doing *pressure-volume work* on the balloon and pushing it up higher. Simplicio: Which makes it Deus ex machina in perpetua, rising by itself. The balloon has to push air out of the way, too. Sagredo: But you'll observe, my dear, that the air pressure is greater *below* the balloon than above. So the work done on the bottom is bigger than the work done on the top. A net force is pushing the balloon upward. Nor is this perpetual, for it will stop at hydrostatic equilibrium when the net force equals the balloon's weight. Or it will pop and come back down. Simplicio: But there's no energy to drive this demon! Sagredo: And now we see the importance of drawing our *system boundaries* correctly. Before releasing it, the system of balloon plus air is a wee top-heavy because of the lighter helium contained at a low position near the Piazza pavement. After rising, the helium is near the birds of the sky and the system's center of gravity must have dropped closer to the pavement. Thus was gravitational potential energy converted to kinetic energy for the balloon's motion. Simplicio: Into the Night wrote: Neither is a solid ball. A football contains trapped air and is made of a different material than a nerf ball, which also contains trapped air... Sagredo: I wonder if Roger Staubach knew that when he was throwing the ball against Denver in Super Bowl XII... (music) ...catch a painted pony on the spinning wheel ride... Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 10-10-2019 01:04

10-10-2019 07:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	VernerHornung wrote: Cooler objects heating hotter ones happens every time my car mechanic turns on his arc welder. The power plant's furnace at 1500K drives a steam turbine at 650K, dumping heat, and the turbine generates electricity which then heats the welding arc to 5000K. A false equivalence based on a compositional error fallacy. You cannot heat the warmer surface using colder air. Welding tips convert energy to thermal energy. You cannot melt steel without a hotter welding tip than the steel. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: Basically there is a point at which it's effect is saturated. But I don't understand why it would be saturated yet. CO2 equivalent to Earth's CO2 column is saturated in the lab, but for some reason mysterious to me, not in the *air* over planets. Obviously, the lab experiment is faulty. VernerHornung wrote: But even there, a "law of diminishing returns" applies to adding more, sort of like economics. Venus stands at 2½ times Earth's absolute temperature after having 1000 tons of the stuff squatting over each square yard of real estate. The "return" on extra CO2 is far worse than on extra rays from Stefan-Boltzmann. * You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. VernerHornung wrote: The "settled science" folks are cognizant of this, of course, but they resort to various hair-trigger feedback effects (CO2-ocean evaporation, CO2-ice melt-lower albedo) to get their consensus figure of 3.5˚C for doubled CO2, and I've trouble believing our climate is so tipsy. Earth somehow went from bacterial mats to trilobites to tyrannosaurs to people with sudden climate excursions witnessed only upon asteroid impacts. How do you know? Were you there? VernerHornung wrote: Computer modeling has a poor record when unverified by experiment. Experiment don't verify models. If you can measure something, you don't need a computer model at all. VernerHornung wrote: In 1983, Richard Turco & colleagues published the TTAPS study which had predicted a calamitous "nuclear winter" to follow WWIII. A variant of this model was run during the Gulf War to forecast cooling in Iran caused by soot from Saddam's torching the wells. Guess what? Nada. The soot had no effect on regional weather. "Well, it dissipated," said the talking heads in Scientific American. Yeah. Maybe we don't understand radiative transfer as well as we thought. No, the model is wrong. It's just random numbers. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote:I find Venus to be especially fascinating with it's upper atmosphere so cold it forms CO2 ice. Climate, weather & geology, on Earth or other planets, should be topics of fascination. Politics took away all the *fun* we used to have in the Space Age. We rooted for each craft as it left Earth, hoping it would get to its destination and show us sights no human had dreamed of before. Even if it was Russia's. Politics did nothing. You can still enjoy the thrill of a spacecraft being launched to do something that has not been done before. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-10-2019 08:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Both bombs were tested. I had the names reversed. My error. More than one error. Fact check: "There was only enough weapons-grade uranium available for *one* bomb, and *confidence* in the gun-type design was high, so on July 14, 1945, most of the uranium bomb ('Little Boy') began its trip westward to the Pacific without its design having ever been fully tested. A test of the plutonium bomb seemed vital, however, both to confirm its novel implosion design and to gather data on nuclear explosions in general." US Department of Energy Trinity Test https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/trinity.htm Nope. Little Boy was tested at Sorroco, NM. VernerHornung wrote: Only enough uranium for *one* bomb. Yeah, they tested it. On Hiroshima. ~ Nope. In Sorroco, NM VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: He is not talking about the interior of any sphere. I must concede it was the interior of a "spherical-ish" shape, perhaps a doorknob or football. Irrelevant. He is not talking about any interior of anything. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: You can't create energy out of nothing. ...deleted unrelated material... Making up contrived examples does not change this law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-10-2019 17:20
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: Two unrelated equations are the source of pressure??? The ideal gas law is hardly unrelated to pressure. Together with the equation for *hydrostatic equilibrium* (e.g. balloons), it is used to determine the rate of pressure drop at each height above sea level, in dry air, which satisfies dP/dh = –mgP/kT, where m is the mean molecular mass of air (about 28.9) times the atomic mass unit (1.67x10^-27 kg), g the acceleration of gravity, and k is Boltzmann's constant. If T were constant, the pressure would drop exponentially with height, that is, P = Po exp (–mgh/kT) where Po is the sea level pressure. Since T also drops with height, the actual relationship is more complex; however this equation will hold for a thin layer of air where T is nearly constant, a thing called the local isothermal condition. Fundamental Planetary Science Jack Lissauer & Imke Pater Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/Fundamental_Planetary_Science_Physics_Chemistry_and_Habitability_by_Jack_J._Liss The other equation, the first law, determines *how much* of the initial heat Q the air receives from the ground by conduction will be available to radiate away once that air has reached height h, having done pressure-volume work on the way up. (This work presumably manifests as jet streams and so on in the upper troposphere.) If you enjoy remaining in a state of total ignorance, gab on. I'd rather learn something about it. Into the Night wrote: Most of the radiance of Earth is from the surface. You cannot trap light. Most of the *visible-band radiance, you mean, and even that includes a lot of cloud tops. In the 15μm band almost all the rays to space originate in the upper troposphere. Astronomers before the space age were vexed by the inability to see much of the infrared cosmos from the ground. The GOES satellite stations show this cutoff dramatically. They resolve surface features at visible and near-visible wavelengths up to 2.2μm, yet at 3.9μm and longer, the view is of cloudscapes, water vapor and CO2. Check it out at NOAA https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/index.php Into the Night wrote:* There is no sequence. CO2 radiates the same as any matter does. Yes, there is a sequence of spectral bands for each of the various atoms & molecules, from UV all the way to radio waves. Why else would we bother to build special telescopes? Or launch our UV and IR scopes into orbit, to get them above the bands the air blocks? The following graphic shows the difference between sunlight coming down at short wavelengths and Earth's rays going up at long. It also shows how emissions from Earth depend on temperatures aloft. Into the Night wrote: You can't paint air. Ah, but you can. God and man have painted on it a beautiful portrait with dust, clouds and gases. ~ Into the Night wrote: Obviously, the lab experiment is faulty. Or it was done at sea level, where *pressures* are higher than in the friendly skies. Temperature and pressure dependence make radiative transfer a horrid mess. Into the Night wrote: Nope. Little Boy was tested at Sorroco, NM. Blather away. Every book & web site on the topic says otherwise. Into the Night wrote: Politics did nothing. My fervor to believe that is boundless. Yet I'm unsure given the "alternative facts" prevalent in the spacewarp near Trumpon, beginning with the sizes of its Inauguration Day audiences. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
10-10-2019 19:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: You can't paint air. Ah, but you can. God and man have painted on it a beautiful portrait with dust, clouds and gases. ~ That was laughably lame. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Nope. Little Boy was tested at Sorroco, NM. Blather away. Every book & web site on the topic says otherwise. Little Boy was tested at the Trinity bomb site in Sorroco, New Mexico. Exactly three weeks later it was dropped on Hiroshima. You, however, are such a slave to warmizombie mind-control that you can be made to believe anything and to disbelieve anything. You apparently bow to the sheer quanitity of available warmizombie paraphernalia, church material, misinformation and propaganda that you are compelled to dismiss truthful information from actual people who simply don't share your political agenda. Please, take a poll and find out how many people on this site acknowledge the Sorroco bomb site versus those who deny it in deference to the wide-spanning domain of warmizombie mind control-bait. By the way, in true Marxist form you switched to speaking in mindless absolutes about "Every book & web site on the topic" saying otherwise ... like you checked them all. You probably don't realize how you transparently announce that others are controlling your thinking. So I have to ask, how did you miss Wikipedia? From Wikipedia: The Hiroshima bombing was the second man-made nuclear explosion in history, after the Trinity test. * L * O * S * E * R * VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Politics did nothing. My fervor to believe that is boundless. Yet I'm unsure given the "alternative facts" prevalent in the spacewarp near Trumpon, beginning with the sizes of its Inauguration Day audiences. Speak up. What do you want to know? I attended the inauguration with family and extended family. Anything you want to know. Ask away. ... or are you required to dismiss firsthand experience in deference to warmizombie misinformation? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist Edited on 10-10-2019 19:23
10-10-2019 19:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Two unrelated equations are the source of pressure??? ...deleted unrelated material... Contextomy fallacy. You have lost all context. Done here. VernerHornung wrote: If you enjoy remaining in a state of total ignorance, gab on. I'd rather learn something about it. Bulverism fallacy.YALIF. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Most of the radiance of Earth is from the surface. You cannot trap light. Most of the *visible-band radiance, you mean, No. You cannot trap light. Any light. Frequency doesn't matter. VernerHornung wrote:* and even that includes a lot of cloud tops. Cloud tops are not the surface or a frequency. VernerHornung wrote: In the 15μm band almost all the rays to space originate in the upper troposphere. WRONG. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. VernerHornung wrote: Astronomers before the space age were vexed by the inability to see much of the infrared cosmos from the ground. They CAN see infrared with ground equipment. VernerHornung wrote: The GOES satellite stations show this cutoff dramatically. No, it doesn't. A notch in response is not a zero. VernerHornung wrote: They resolve surface features at visible and near-visible wavelengths up to 2.2μm, yet at 3.9μm and longer, the view is of cloudscapes, water vapor and CO2. Check it out at NOAA ...deleted Holy Link to unrelated material... You are attempting to insert a frequency term into Stefan-Boltzmann. It does not have a frequency term. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: There is no sequence. CO2 radiates the same as any matter does. Yes, there is a sequence of spectral bands Frequency is not a sequence. VernerHornung wrote: for each of the various atoms & molecules, from UV all the way to radio waves. Spectral response is not a sequence. VernerHornung wrote: Why else would we bother to build special telescopes? Special education? VernerHornung wrote: Or launch our UV and IR scopes into orbit, to get them above the bands the air blocks? UV and IR scopes already exist on the ground. We put telescopes into space to remove distortions caused by moving air. VernerHornung wrote: The following graphic shows the difference between sunlight coming down at short wavelengths and Earth's rays going up at long. It also shows how emissions from Earth depend on temperatures aloft. * You can't destroy energy into nothing. * You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. * There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: You can't paint air. Ah, but you can. God and man have painted on it a beautiful portrait with dust, clouds and gases. Not paint, dumbass. You have lost context here as well. Done here. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Obviously, the lab experiment is faulty. Or it was done at sea level, where *pressures* are higher than in the friendly skies. Temperature and pressure dependence make radiative transfer a horrid mess. Makes no difference. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Nope. Little Boy was tested at Sorroco, NM. Blather away. Every book & web site on the topic says otherwise. You don't get to use every 'book and web site' as a reference. Argument from randU fallacy. Argument of ignorance fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Politics did nothing. My fervor to believe that is boundless. Yet I'm unsure given the "alternative facts" prevalent in the spacewarp near Trumpon, beginning with the sizes of its Inauguration Day audiences. Contextomy fallacy. YALIF. You have lost all context. Done here as well. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 10-10-2019 20:00
11-10-2019 13:50
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: We live BELOW the emitting surface of Earth. You do know that don't you? Apparently YOU don't understand what a radiating surface is. BTW, you are now in paradox and are being irrational. You are now claiming that only the top of the atmosphere radiates, but that room interiors radiate. Which is it, dude? ITN everything radiates. If you're talking about the relationship between the Sun, Earth and the cosmos, for the radiance from the sun which is not reflected, it's primarily the atmosphere that is the Earth's emitting surface and no, not just the very tippy top. Did you know deep in the Earth there is radiance? Also in a room. You can have radiance in a house, with a mouse, in a box or with a fox. What you decide your object is (in this case our planet Earth) determines what your surface for radiance is. The Universe is one giant everything, we decide what we are calling "the object". If I am using my human body as the object and I'm inside a room then yes it's my skin, the air in the room, and the walls that are the players. VernerHornung wrote: A decent web page on Venera 13 is at http://mentallandscape.com/V_Venera11.htm Nice! Thanks for that. I thought it would be smaller for some reason. VernerHornung wrote: do so *indirectly, ... a massive discharge creating a circuit between air and ground. Venus has about as much lightning as Earth. Wow I totally forgot about energy that wasn't thermal or radiant! It's easy to forget electricity isn't just a man made form of energy. VernerHornung wrote:* ... this model was run during the Gulf War to forecast cooling in Iran caused by soot from Saddam's torching the wells. Guess what? Nada. The soot had no effect on regional weather.... Wow! That seems strange. I've heard about nuclear winter plenty. Don't we have volcanic eruptions with a similar effect? Have those not caused cooling? VernerHornung wrote:Even if it was Russia's. Yeah I have to say I admire Russia's achievement. I'm going to go have a drink with Karl Marx now and talk about it VernerHornung wrote: a physics lesson with Galileo Galelei on Trumpon as Sagredo fills his helium party balloon and releases it in the Piazza del Petrolio Very nicely done! VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Nope. Little Boy was tested at Sorroco, NM. IBdaMann wrote: Little Boy was tested at the Trinity bomb site in Sorroco, Blather away. Every book & web site on the topic says otherwise. ITN/IBD is never bothered by facts. This is of course a matter of historical record. Where or where are the valid data sets! Ha ha. "Although all of its components had been tested, no full test of a gun-type nuclear weapon occurred before the Little Boy was dropped over Hiroshima" But then they still insist that this commercial doesn't exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UoQff8MMVM "I'm Donald Trump and I approve this message. The politicians can pretend it's something else but Donald Trump calls it radical islamic terrorism. That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on. He'll quickly cut the heads off ISIS and take their oil. And he'll stop illegal imigration by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for. We will make america great again." Into the Night wrote:He never called for a ban on Muslims. .... The ability to deny reality is an amazing thing from guys who can write in complete sentences. VernerHornung wrote: It also shows how emissions from Earth depend on temperatures aloft. I want to understand this better. I didn't even know we had special telescopes as you've described! Very interesting stuff. "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
11-10-2019 19:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmainstream-media wrote: ITN everything radiates. Awesome! You paid attention for once and are now repeating back to Into the Night what you had to learn from him. tmainstream-media wrote: If you're talking about the relationship between the Sun, Earth and the cosmos, for the radiance from the sun which is not reflected, it's primarily the atmosphere that is the Earth's emitting surface and no, not just the very tippy top. I noticed that you weren't all over VernerHornung like flies on shit when he made that obviously stupid comment about the 15μm band of earth's radiance originating in the upper troposphere. Instead, you opted to tell Into the Night what he taught you. Weird. tmainstream-media wrote: Did you know deep in the Earth there is radiance? Also in a room. You can have radiance in a house, with a mouse, in a box or with a fox. ... and repeatable examples ... you would not, could not, in the rain. Not in the dark. Not on a train. Not in a car. Not in a tree. You do not like them, you see. Not in a house. Not in a box. Not with a mouse. Not with a fox. You will not present them here or there. You do not like them anywhere! tmainstream-media wrote: If I am using my human body as the object ... ... you are clinging for dear life to a non-repeatable demonstration of your faith. tmainstream-media wrote: Wow I totally forgot about energy that wasn't thermal or radiant! It's easy to forget electricity isn't just a man made form of energy. You certainly don't want to forget any of your options. From The Manual: Heat: noun In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient. tmainstream-media wrote: VernerHornung wrote: ... this model was run during the Gulf War to forecast cooling in Iran caused by soot from Saddam's torching the wells. Guess what? Nada. The soot had no effect on regional weather.... Wow! That seems strange. I've heard about nuclear winter plenty. Don't we have volcanic eruptions with a similar effect? Have those not caused cooling? Let me guess, you completely buy his assumption that such a model actually exists, that is was "run" and that it delivered those conclusions ... without ever asking to see that model. Am I right? You just believe whatever the F you are told to regurgitate without question. Without question. Of course, you refer to those who are not thoroughly gullible as "discussion killers" ... as though being lucid, rational and wary is somehow a bad thing. tmainstream-media wrote: ITN/IBD is never bothered by facts. Why should I be bothered by facts? They are good things. While we're on the subject, why do you refer to your WACKY religious dogma as "facts" and as "what we know"? tmainstream-media wrote: This is of course a matter of historical record. ... which historical revisionists such as yourself are want to butcher. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2019 21:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: We live BELOW the emitting surface of Earth. You do know that don't you? Apparently YOU don't understand what a radiating surface is. BTW, you are now in paradox and are being irrational. You are now claiming that only the top of the atmosphere radiates, but that room interiors radiate. Which is it, dude? ITN everything radiates. Fine. You finally agree with me. tmiddles wrote: If you're talking about the relationship between the Sun, Earth and the cosmos, for the radiance from the sun which is not reflected, No, the Sun radiates. Reflection does not matter. You are still locked in paradox. You are still irrational. Guess you don't agree with me after all. You are simply being irrational. tmiddles wrote: it's primarily the atmosphere that is the Earth's emitting surface and no, not just the very tippy top. WRONG. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. The surface of the Earth is both hotter and made of denser material. Most of the radiance of Earth comes from the surface, not the atmosphere. tmiddles wrote: Did you know deep in the Earth there is radiance? Also in a room. You can have radiance in a house, with a mouse, in a box or with a fox. What you decide your object is (in this case our planet Earth) determines what your surface for radiance is. The Universe is one giant everything, we decide what we are calling "the object". Irrational. You are still locked in paradox. You MUST clear your paradox. tmiddles wrote: If I am using my human body as the object and I'm inside a room then yes it's my skin, the air in the room, and the walls that are the players. Irrational. You MUST clear your paradox. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: VernerHornung wrote: do so *indirectly, ... a massive discharge creating a circuit between air and ground. Venus has about as much lightning as Earth. Wow I totally forgot about energy that wasn't thermal or radiant! It's easy to forget electricity isn't just a man made form of energy. Did you know that our use of electricity was all learned from observing lightning? tmiddles wrote:* VernerHornung wrote: ... this model was run during the Gulf War to forecast cooling in Iran caused by soot from Saddam's torching the wells. Guess what? Nada. The soot had no effect on regional weather.... Wow! That seems strange. I've heard about nuclear winter plenty. Don't we have volcanic eruptions with a similar effect? Have those not caused cooling? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote:Even if it was Russia's. Yeah I have to say I admire Russia's achievement. I'm going to go have a drink with Karl Marx now and talk about it Good luck. He's dead. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: a physics lesson with Galileo Galelei on Trumpon as Sagredo fills his helium party balloon and releases it in the Piazza del Petrolio Very nicely done! I see you completely fell for an irrelevant contrived example again. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: Nope. Little Boy was tested at Sorroco, NM. IBdaMann wrote: Little Boy was tested at the Trinity bomb site in Sorroco, Blather away. Every book & web site on the topic says otherwise. ITN/IBD is never bothered by facts. This is of course a matter of historical record. Where or where are the valid data sets! Ha ha. Inversion fallacy. tmiddles wrote: "Although all of its components had been tested, no full test of a gun-type nuclear weapon occurred before the Little Boy was dropped over Hiroshima" It was tested in Sorroco, NM. tmiddles wrote: But then they still insist that this commercial doesn't exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UoQff8MMVM "I'm Donald Trump and I approve this message. The politicians can pretend it's something else but Donald Trump calls it radical islamic terrorism. RDCF. We never claimed the commercial doesn't exist. You are just taking it out of context again. [b]tmiddles wrote: That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on. He never did. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: He'll quickly cut the heads off ISIS and take their oil. He never has. It's ISIS that cuts the heads of other people. tmiddles wrote: And he'll stop illegal imigration by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for. He never said that either. RDCF. The wall is being built. A lot of it has already been built. It IS reducing illegal immigration. tmiddles wrote: We will make america great again." An so he has. BTW, 'America' is a proper name. It is capitalized. So Amerigo Vespucci, the navigator that America is named after. tmiddles wrote: [/b] Into the Night wrote:He never called for a ban on Muslims. .... The ability to deny reality is an amazing thing from guys who can write in complete sentences. YALIF. Bulverism 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-10-2019 22:33
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: They CAN see infrared with ground equipment. GOES can see the ground in bands 3 to 7 (0.8-3.9μm) and 13 to 15 (10.3-12.3μm), which lie in atmospheric windows; however the ground does *not* appear in the other IR bands. These are used to study features in the middle and upper atmosphere such as clouds and water vapor. The Earth's surface doesn't radiate a significant amount at wavelengths shorter than 4μm, so the images in bands 3 to 6 are dark if taken while GOES is over the night side; in daylight they show mostly cirrus or altostratus clouds, vegetation cover and snow. Band 7 (3.9μm) has a mix emphasizing precipitation & storms; it may show water or land under clear skies. On October 10, a dusting of snow from Colorado up to the Dakotas was evident in band 5. The longwave atmospheric bands provide a night view as the air continues to radiate 'round the clock. Into the Night wrote: You are attempting to insert a frequency term into Stefan-Boltzmann. It does not have a frequency term. Stefan-Boltzmann applies only to perfect blackbodies, where every frequency is absorbed and emitted according to the Planck curve. S-B can be employed as an approximation for many solids and liquids, where an emissivity constant ε accounts for their lower efficiency. But it does not apply to radiative transfer through a gas. If you have sunlight propagating downward through air, or infrared on its way up from the surface, you *must* perform a line-by-line calculation at each wavelength. Hate to break the news to you, but the physics ain't new. Your galaxy of "contextomy," randU and YALIF means nothing to people outside your own head, or whatever circle of friends you've confided in. We all maintain private mental worlds and good thing, as they help keep us oriented from day to day. No one else has a right to criticize your fantasies. Nonetheless we can't communicate in terms of fantasy others don't share with us. IBdaMann wrote: Little Boy was tested at the Trinity bomb site in Sorroco, New Mexico. Exactly three weeks later it was dropped on Hiroshima. I'm sorry sir, but that claim's false and it won't become true regardless of how often you and ITN reiterate it. Anyone reading this forum can verify the historical details for themselves and none of the sources will mention a test of the Little Boy. There was only one test, July 16, 1945, before the bombings of Japan, and the plutonium device which became Fat Man at Nagasaki was the device tested. A nice book on development of these weapons at Los Alamos is 109 East Palace: Robert Oppenheimer and the Secret City of Los Alamos Jennet Conant Simon & Schuster, 2005 The address was a mail drop. The author is granddaughter of James B. Conant, director of the Manhattan Engineer District during the war. Yet I can cite sources until blue in the face and it will do no good. The Trumpists have brought in their own hall of mirrors where facts that don't suit them are twisted or denied over and over again until they've worn out their opponents. It began on Inauguration Day over the size of the crowd on the mall. Yeah, a media (CNN) harboring visceral hatred toward Trump made the crowd an issue in a petty comparison with Obama, and Trump had every right to defend his *legitimacy* as the nation's chief executive. Instead of telling the press that we don't elect our presidents according to how many people will attend the festival, however, Sean Spicer chose to double down and Kellyanne Conway introduced the phrase "alternative facts." If this trend doesn't alarm you, then be sure we'll sooner or later elect an über-Democrat who'll feel entitled to treat the truth with a similarly cavalier attitude because of the precedent being set now. IBdaMann wrote: * L * O * S * E * R * Your sagacious whispers in gray are cute. But I didn't need to search Wikipedia for this information; it's been a topic of interest to me more than half a century. Another nice book, used for civil defense planning and focused on what the early low-yield fission devices did to animals, people, cities and military equipment per results in Japan in WWII and at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s is The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 3rd ed. Samuel Glasstone & Philip Dolan US Depts. of Energy, Defense, 1977 https://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/NTPR/4-Rad_Exp_Rpts/36_The_Effects_of_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf see §2.36, Trinity test and identity of device tested §2.25, Castle Bravo shot and fallout both as I said in my last post. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 12-10-2019 23:28
12-10-2019 22:39
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	tmiddles wrote: I thought it would be smaller for some reason. The lander weighed about a ton. It had a pressure hull designed to resist 100 atmospheres, and coolant water that boiled off to go out the pair of steam pipes sticking up on the left side. I'm unable to much admire Marx or Russia, but the USSR did have a couple bright sides and *this* was one of them. ~ tmiddles wrote: Don't we have volcanic eruptions with a similar effect? Have those not caused cooling? Mount Pinatubo (Philippines, 1991) caused roughly 1˚F of estimated global cooling, and the Tambora eruption of 1815 (Indonesia) may have caused the "year without a summer" in Maine. tmiddles wrote: You can have radiance in a house, with a mouse, in a box or with a fox. Yup, even if the rays from the mouse's snout won't make it to outer space. tmiddles wrote: I totally forgot about energy that wasn't thermal or radiant! It's easy to forget electricity isn't just a man made form of energy. And so, possibly, have the climate scientists. I should stress that lightning on Venus and Earth *doesn't* transfer enough energy back to the ground to affect the global heat flow balance. But climate studies on Earth are dominated by surface radiation, 390 W/m^2 in the IPCC diagram, versus "thermals" (24 Watts) and "latent heat" (cloud condensation, 78 Watts). Have they overlooked anything? I dunno. But if they have, the model will be unreliable. Even the radiation physics alone is Byzantine. tmiddles wrote: But then they still insist that this commercial [Muslim tempban, Wall] doesn't exist: Gawd. That thing ran to monotony here when Trump started his campaign. But Trumpism airbrushes yesterday faster than any photo artist deleting a purged Soviet official ever did. Michael Cohen went from legal sidekick to "rat" in about a minute; by now I imagine he never existed, either. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
12-10-2019 23:09
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: Frequency is not a sequence. Spectral response is not a sequence. *Sequence* of 20 nitrogen infrared lines near wavelength 1.3μm ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
13-10-2019 01:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Frequency is not a sequence. Spectral response is not a sequence. *Sequence* of 20 nitrogen infrared lines near wavelength 1.3μm ~ Have I mentioned that your reading comprehension is abysmal? Frequency is not a sequence. Spectral response is not a sequence. Yes, a sequence of lines is a sequence ... of lines. Once again Into the Night is correct and you apparently cannot read. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2019 20:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: They CAN see infrared with ground equipment. GOES can see the ground in bands 3 to 7 (0.8-3.9μm) and 13 to 15 (10.3-12.3μm), which lie in atmospheric windows; however the ground does *not* appear in the other IR bands. These are used to study features in the middle and upper atmosphere such as clouds and water vapor. The Earth's surface doesn't radiate a significant amount at wavelengths shorter than 4μm, so the images in bands 3 to 6 are dark if taken while GOES is over the night side; in daylight they show mostly cirrus or altostratus clouds, vegetation cover and snow. Band 7 (3.9μm) has a mix emphasizing precipitation & storms; it may show water or land under clear skies. On October 10, a dusting of snow from Colorado up to the Dakotas was evident in band 5. The longwave atmospheric bands provide a night view as the air continues to radiate 'round the clock. You are still attempting to insert a frequency term into Stefan-Boltzmann. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Into the Night wrote: You are attempting to insert a frequency term into Stefan-Boltzmann. It does not have a frequency term. Stefan-Boltzmann applies only to perfect blackbodies,[/quote] WRONG. It applies to all bodies. You are are now deleting the emissivity term. You can't just change the equation. VernerHornung wrote: where every frequency is absorbed and emitted according to the Planck curve. WRONG. You are inserting a frequency term again. VernerHornung wrote: S-B can be employed as an approximation for many solids and liquids, where an emissivity constant ε accounts for their lower efficiency. No. It is completely accurate for all bodies. VernerHornung wrote: But it does not apply to radiative transfer through a gas. Yes it does. It applies to all bodies, even the gas itself. VernerHornung wrote: If you have sunlight propagating downward through air, or infrared on its way up from the surface, you *must* perform a line-by-line calculation at each wavelength. WRONG. You are adding a frequency term again. VernerHornung wrote: Hate to break the news to you, but the physics ain't new. You are not discussing physics. VernerHornung wrote: Your galaxy of "contextomy," randU and YALIF means nothing to people outside your own head, or whatever circle of friends you've confided in. I have explained all of these terms. Pay attention. VernerHornung wrote: We all maintain private mental worlds and good thing, as they help keep us oriented from day to day. No one else has a right to criticize your fantasies. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a fantasy. Neither are the laws of thermodynamics. These theories have not yet been falsified. You can't just discard them. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Little Boy was tested at the Trinity bomb site in Sorroco, New Mexico. Exactly three weeks later it was dropped on Hiroshima. I'm sorry sir, but that claim's false and it won't become true regardless of how often you and ITN reiterate it. The claim is not false. Obviously this is another bit of religion to you and nothing anyone can say will enlighten you. VernerHornung wrote: Anyone reading this forum can verify the historical details for themselves and none of the sources will mention a test of the Little Boy. Argument of ignorance. You don't get to quote all sources at once. VernerHornung wrote: There was only one test, July 16, 1945, before the bombings of Japan, and the plutonium device which became Fat Man at Nagasaki was the device tested. A nice book on development of these weapons at Los Alamos is 109 East Palace: Robert Oppenheimer and the Secret City of Los Alamos Jennet Conant Simon & Schuster, 2005 The address was a mail drop. The author is granddaughter of James B. Conant, director of the Manhattan Engineer District during the war. Yet I can cite sources until blue in the face and it will do no good. Apparently the book does not mention the test done at Socorro, NM. False authority fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: The Trumpists have brought in their own hall of mirrors where facts that don't suit them are twisted or denied over and over again until they've worn out their opponents. No, that's the Democrats creating halls of mirrors. VernerHornung wrote: It began on Inauguration Day over the size of the crowd on the mall. Yeah, a media (CNN) harboring visceral hatred toward Trump made the crowd an issue in a petty comparison with Obama, and Trump had every right to defend his *legitimacy* as the nation's chief executive. ...deleted irrelevant material... He didn't have to defend his legitimacy. He won the election. Only the fake news media and Democrats made an issue out of this. It's irrelevant. VernerHornung wrote: If this trend doesn't alarm you, then be sure we'll sooner or later elect an über-Democrat who'll feel entitled to treat the truth with a similarly cavalier attitude because of the precedent being set now. ...deleted irrelevant material... What precedent? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-10-2019 14:20
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Did you know deep in the Earth there is radiance? Also in a room. You can have radiance in a house, with a mouse, in a box or with a fox. ... and repeatable examples ... You're saying there are no repeatable examples that EVERYTHING radiates? One can only wonder what you think a repeatable example is. Actually I don't wonder. I know it's another fraud coming from you. IN 5 YEARS ITN/IBD HAVE NEVER PRESENTED AN EXAMPLE OF ANYTHING THEY CONSIDER TO BE VALID Into the Night wrote: ...you are now in paradox and are being irrational... Yet I don't have a super power that prevents you from figuring things out. "IT IS ALL UNKNOWABLE" says ITN. Champion of useless verbage. Science and Technology rock on without you. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on. He never did. RDCF. Ha ha ha. You are arguing with TRUMP!!! That's the script from the commercial moron. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Little Boy was tested at the Trinity bomb site in Sorroco, New Mexico. Exactly three weeks later it was dropped on Hiroshima. I'm sorry sir, but that claim's false and it won't become true regardless of how often you and ITN reiterate. By ITN/IBD logic it was first tested in November 1911, during the Italo-Turkish War. That was the first bomb dropped from an airplane. Yes a different design, a different bomb, means a debut dopes. IBD has the gall to actually name it "Little Boy" which of course was NOT the type of bomb used in Sorroco. The military takes code names pretty seriously! You don't just mix them up willy nilly. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: Don't we have volcanic eruptions with a similar effect? Have those not caused cooling? Mount Pinatubo (Philippines, 1991) caused roughly 1˚F of estimated global cooling, and the Tambora eruption of 1815 (Indonesia) may have caused the "year without a summer" in Maine. You're too good at this Verner!! VernerHornung wrote:...Trumpism airbrushes yesterday... Very true. Airbrushes today too. It's very Orwellian. Oceania is at war with Eurasia and all historic documents agree. However, Winston remembers a time five years ago when Oceania was instead at war with Eastasia. He struggles with philosophical idea of "truth". Which is more true, what everyone knows and what's in the newspapers, or the memories within his head? IBdaMann wrote: Once again Into the Night is correct and you apparently cannot read. Once again it's an ITN/IBD delaying tactic with vocabulary games. No attempt made to actually explain how things work. Into the Night wrote: VernerHornung wrote: If this trend doesn't alarm you, then be sure we'll sooner or later elect an über-Democrat ... What precedent? You really need to buy a dictionary ITN. prec·e·dent noun /ˈpresəd(ə)nt/ an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. Like calling for a ban on Muslims entering the country and getting away with it. Oh it's such a long list. "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
14-10-2019 20:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Did you know deep in the Earth there is radiance? Also in a room. You can have radiance in a house, with a mouse, in a box or with a fox. ... and repeatable examples ... You're saying there are no repeatable examples that EVERYTHING radiates? One can only wonder what you think a repeatable example is. Actually I don't wonder. I know it's another fraud coming from you. IN 5 YEARS ITN/IBD HAVE NEVER PRESENTED AN EXAMPLE OF ANYTHING THEY CONSIDER TO BE VALID RDCF. Into the Night wrote: ...you are now in paradox and are being irrational... Yet I don't have a super power that prevents you from figuring things out. "IT IS ALL UNKNOWABLE" says ITN. Champion of useless verbage. RDCF. You are still locked in paradox. You cannot clear it by redirecting and lying. 1) Radiance is only from the top of the atmosphere. 2) Radiance is from walls inside a closed room. Which is it, dude? tmiddles wrote: Science and Technology rock on without you. That they do. You are not discussing either science or technology. Redirection fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on. He never did. RDCF. Ha ha ha. You are arguing with TRUMP!!! That's the script from the commercial moron. RDCF. You are again making a contextomy fallacy. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Little Boy was tested at the Trinity bomb site in Sorroco, New Mexico. Exactly three weeks later it was dropped on Hiroshima. I'm sorry sir, but that claim's false and it won't become true regardless of how often you and ITN reiterate. By ITN/IBD logic it was first tested in November 1911, during the Italo-Turkish War. The Trinity project did not exist in 1911, dumbass. tmiddles wrote: That was the first bomb dropped from an airplane. Yes a different design, a different bomb, means a debut dopes. IBD has the gall to actually name it "Little Boy" which of course was NOT the type of bomb used in Sorroco. Nope. It was the same design. tmiddles wrote: The military takes code names pretty seriously! You don't just mix them up willy nilly. I am not mixing anything up. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Once again Into the Night is correct and you apparently cannot read. Once again it's an ITN/IBD delaying tactic with vocabulary games. No attempt made to actually explain how things work. RDCF. Lie. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: VernerHornung wrote: If this trend doesn't alarm you, then be sure we'll sooner or later elect an über-Democrat ... What precedent? You really need to buy a dictionary ITN. I know what 'precedent' means, dumbass. What precedent? tmiddles wrote: Like calling for a ban on Muslims entering the country and getting away with it. RDCF. He didn't call for a ban on Muslims. tmiddles wrote: Oh it's such a long list. Void argument fallacy. What precedent? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

15-10-2019 01:17
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	IBdaMann wrote: ...all over VernerHornung like flies on shit when he made that obviously stupid comment about the 15μm band of earth's radiance originating in the upper troposphere. 15μm band roughly matching 220K Planck curve seen by Nimbus 4 satellite over Niger in 1970. Because of the match with this curve, the 15μm radiation must originate where the air is at 220K or –53˚C. That's pretty high, above 35000 ft in the midlatitude zone and even higher in the tropics as here. The surface is at 320K. I reckon this hardly dovetails with your preconceived notions. But it's a fact. Surface rays in the 15μm band are absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 or H2O molecules several times as they progress upward toward space, and only some of them make it to the top. The *last* rays to be emitted, from high in the air, are the ones Nimbus 4 detected. Satellites currently in operation see this pattern as well regardless of location, though the emission temps will vary a bit, usually colder than shown here. IBdaMann wrote: Spectral response is not a sequence. Indeed. Spectral response in the blue diagram happens to include *several sequences. And yes, each is a sequence in the mathematical sense, a list of frequencies {ν1, ν2, ν3, ...} where the nus are specified by a quantum-mechanical formula. Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension as of yet. ~; Never* try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
15-10-2019 01:37
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	tmiddles wrote: The military takes code names pretty seriously! You don't just mix them up willy nilly. Yup, though the physicists called the copy of Fat Man's innards which they detonated at Trinity "the Gadget." Later they started calling such items "physics packages." I guess code names don't appeal to scientists. tmiddles wrote: You really need to buy a dictionary ITN. prec·e·dent noun And this from the fellas who demanded everyone have *five* dictionaries on their "Word Smithy" thread. IBD & ITN were the only two who participated there except a couple they shouted down. All the words in the so-called Politiplex "Manual" are IBdaMann's, of course. https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-word-smithy-d6-e2379 (Oh, dear. An unholy link!) Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
15-10-2019 02:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ...all over VernerHornung like flies on shit when he made that obviously stupid comment about the 15μm band of earth's radiance originating in the upper troposphere. 15μm band roughly matching 220K Planck curve seen by Nimbus 4 satellite over Niger in 1970. Because of the match with this curve, the 15μm radiation must originate where the air is at 220K or –53˚C. That's pretty high, above 35000 ft in the midlatitude zone and even higher in the tropics as here. The surface is at 320K. I reckon this hardly dovetails with your preconceived notions. But it's a fact. Surface rays in the 15μm band are absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 or H2O molecules several times as they progress upward toward space, and only some of them make it to the top. You are still attempting to add a frequency term to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Won't work, dude. Photons don't 'bounce'. An absorbed photon is destroyed...utterly. It no longer exists. Absorption of surface IR by CO2 does not warm the Earth. It's just another way for the surface to heat the colder atmosphere. The surface is COOLED by this action. ...deleted remain irrelevant material... VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spectral response is not a sequence. Indeed. Spectral response in the blue diagram happens to include *several sequences. And yes, each is a sequence in the mathematical sense, a list of frequencies Nope. A list of frequencies is not a sequence. VernerHornung wrote:* where the nus are specified by a quantum-mechanical formula. Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension as of yet. Not a sequence. Your reading comprehension still sucks. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-10-2019 02:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: The military takes code names pretty seriously! You don't just mix them up willy nilly. Yup, though the physicists called the copy of Fat Man's innards which they detonated at Trinity "the Gadget." Later they started calling such items "physics packages." I guess code names don't appeal to scientists. Not talking about Fat Man. Contextomy fallacy. Pay attention to the conversation dude. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: You really need to buy a dictionary ITN. prec·e·dent noun And this from the fellas who demanded everyone have *five* dictionaries on their "Word Smithy" thread. You haven't read the rules of the thread then! I never demanded any number of dictionaries. Indeed, I pointed out that no dictionary owns any word. No dictionary defines any word. You couldn't use them for a reference in that thread. VernerHornung wrote: IBD & ITN were the only two who participated there except a couple they shouted down. All the words in the so-called Politiplex "Manual" are IBdaMann's, of course. While he undoubtedly appreciates the credit you give him, he will of course, decline it. Many people were involved in creating The Manual. The sources for each of these is the Church of Global Warming itself. So far, the Church has not provided any alternate definitions for any word or phrase defined in The Manual. As far as I am concerned, The Manual is the most complete and accurate dictionary of these terms to date. VernerHornung wrote: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-word-smithy-d6-e2379 (Oh, dear. An unholy link!) You link to it, but you obviously haven't read even the first article in it (where I specify the rules). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-10-2019 07:22
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: WRONG. It applies to all bodies. You are are now deleting the emissivity term. You can't just change the equation...WRONG. You are inserting a frequency term again. You're not really arguing with me, but with these authors: Fundamental Planetary Science Jack Lissauer & Imke Pater Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/Fundamental_Planetary_Science_Physics_Chemistry_and_Habitability_by_Jack_J._Liss Here's what they have to say about emission from gases and Planck's function: (p. 97) (p. 87) No Stefan-Boltzman constant σ and no emissivity coefficient ε here. But there is a frequency term, in fact *two* of them, the ν in 2hν^3/c^2 and in hν/kT. Into the Night wrote: The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a fantasy. Neither are the laws of thermodynamics. These theories have not yet been falsified. You can't just discard them. They *haven't* been discarded. Stefan-Boltzman is a consequence of Planck's function for blackbody radiation. Note that σ = h/k, and the ratio h/k also appears in Planck's law. If you're curious what happened to the emissivity ε, in the case of gases it becomes the frequency- and density-dependent κ in the radiative transfer equations: You will find a discussion of these on pp. 100-102 in the book, along with sections on blackbodies and the spectroscopic lines of gases. Note presence of frequency ν again. Too bad Arthur Eddington & Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, the astronomers who derived these equations so they could theorize about stellar photospheres, were unable to water them down to a convenient mantra for you. I don't know how to solve them, a thing I believe is done with numerical integration on computers. But I do know they are among the equations used to support the greenhouse effect theory. They're also used in automotive engineering, with those thermometers arrayed 'round the Chevy's block. Into the Night wrote: The sources for each of these is the Church of Global Warming itself. So far, the Church has not provided any alternate definitions for any word or phrase defined in The Manual. As far as I am concerned, The Manual is the most complete and accurate dictionary of these terms to date. I'm glad you like it. As for why the Church hasn't provided any material, perhaps it's because it doesn't exist. I'm under the impression few of our global warming nutcrackers are into religion anyway. The left watches Bill Maher and reads Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. Into the Night wrote: Indeed, I pointed out that no dictionary owns any word. No dictionary defines any word. You couldn't use them for a reference in that thread. Hmm... Into the Night wrote: 3. If a dictionary definition is used, at least five dictionaries must be used. The definitions must all be listed here along with the dictionaries used, no links allowed. https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-word-smithy-d6-e2379.php I went ahead and put the link in even though it's disallowed, since I forgot to .php it last time. And boldface where you've contradicted yourself. Apparently we could use them, as long as we used at least five. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 15-10-2019 07:25
15-10-2019 15:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	VernerHornung wrote:You're not really arguing with me, but with these authors: Nope, the argument is yours until you bring one of these "authors" to Climate-Debate to be cross-examined. So ... explain your inclusion of a frequency (or wavelength) term in Stefan-Boltzmann. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-10-2019 21:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: WRONG. It applies to all bodies. You are are now deleting the emissivity term. You can't just change the equation...WRONG. You are inserting a frequency term again. You're not really arguing with me, but with these authors: No, I am arguing with YOU. It is YOU making these claims here. VernerHornung wrote: Here's what they have to say about emission from gases and Planck's function: No Stefan-Boltzman constant σ and no emissivity coefficient ε here. But there is a frequency term, in fact *two* of them, the ν in 2hν^3/c^2 and in hν/kT. Not the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are still denying this law. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a fantasy. Neither are the laws of thermodynamics. These theories have not yet been falsified. You can't just discard them. They *haven't* been discarded. Yes they have. By you and by others in the Church of Global Warming. VernerHornung wrote: Stefan-Boltzman is a consequence of Planck's function for blackbody radiation. Note that σ = h/k, and the ratio h/k also appears in Planck's law. If you're curious what happened to the emissivity ε, in the case of gases it becomes the frequency- and density-dependent κ in the radiative transfer equations: There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There IS an emissivity constant in the law. It is a measured constant. VernerHornung wrote: You will find a discussion of these on pp. 100-102 in the book, along with sections on blackbodies and the spectroscopic lines of gases. Note presence of frequency ν again. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. VernerHornung wrote: Too bad Arthur Eddington & Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, the astronomers who derived these equations so they could theorize about stellar photospheres, were unable to water them down to a convenient mantra for you. I don't know how to solve them, a thing I believe is done with numerical integration on computers. But I do know they are among the equations used to support the greenhouse effect theory. Define 'global warming'. The 'greenhouse effect' cannot be a theory of any kind because it depends on an undefined phrase. It is just a series of rationalizations as a cause of 'global warming', whatever that actually means. Mugging up equations to support what isn't even a theory is not science or mathematics. VernerHornung wrote: They're also used in automotive engineering, with those thermometers arrayed 'round the Chevy's block. They are not used there either. Radiance equations are not used when determining hot spots in a proposed engine design. Chevy doesn't put any thermometers in around the engine block except what is going to go in the car. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: The sources for each of these is the Church of Global Warming itself. So far, the Church has not provided any alternate definitions for any word or phrase defined in The Manual. As far as I am concerned, The Manual is the most complete and accurate dictionary of these terms to date. I'm glad you like it. As for why the Church hasn't provided any material, perhaps it's because it doesn't exist. I'm under the impression few of our global warming nutcrackers are into religion anyway. The left watches Bill Maher and reads Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. And you are no different. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Indeed, I pointed out that no dictionary owns any word. No dictionary defines any word. You couldn't use them for a reference in that thread. Hmm... Into the Night wrote: 3. If a dictionary definition is used, at least five dictionaries must be used. The definitions must all be listed here along with the dictionaries used, no links allowed. https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-word-smithy-d6-e2379.php I went ahead and put the link in even though it's disallowed, since I forgot to .php it last time. And boldface where you've contradicted yourself. Apparently we could use them, as long as we used at least five. Go read the first post in that thread. There I set the rules for the thread. Read the bit about the five dictionaries real carefully. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-10-2019 05:48
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	IBdaMann wrote: Nope, the argument is yours until you bring one of these "authors" to Climate-Debate to be cross-examined. The link to Lissauer & Imke's book is in my last post. I need not bring them here in person; citing sources is perfectly acceptable in debate. My argument is that you cannot use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine the temperature of a planet's solid surface if there is atmosphere above it. The Stefan-Boltzmann law requires that absorption and emission be equal at every frequency as they are in blackbodies. But at certain frequencies, absorption and emission by the gases are *not equal:* (p. 100) Therefore, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation does not apply. Transmission of radiation through a gas and thermal emission from a surface are *two different situations.* My apologies for the giant print. It's a hassle to resize when no one's paying much heed anyway. Lissauer & Imke's material on radiation and radiative heat transport is too lengthy to reproduce here for those who can't be troubled to retrieve the original from the link I provided. IBdaMann wrote: So ... explain your inclusion of a frequency (or wavelength) term in Stefan-Boltzmann. I'm not using Stefan-Boltzmann at all; I've begun to treat the atmosphere the way it should be, as a gas instead of an emitting gray body surface. Now it's time for you to explain how the temperature of a planet should be calculated, giving an example. You haven't done that since I've been around. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
16-10-2019 15:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Nope, the argument is yours until you bring one of these "authors" to Climate-Debate to be cross-examined. The link to Lissauer & Imke's book is in my last post. I need not bring them here in person; citing sources is perfectly acceptable in debate. Not if you cannot answer my questions. Your understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann and of the laws of thermodynamics is abysmal. You are incapapble of debating. Throwing "references" around does not answer the questions that you are not answering. VernerHornung wrote: My argument is that you cannot use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine the temperature of a planet's solid surface if there is atmosphere above it. ... and your argument is saying nothing. 1. Neither Into the Night nor I are advocating your error of trying to subdivide the body in order to violate the laws of physics 2. Neither Into the Night nor I are attempting to apply Stefan-Boltzmann to calculate temperature of a planet whose emissivity is not known. We have simply been acknowledging that Stefan-Boltzmann calculates the radiance of a body of known temperature and emissivity. 3. Your argument does not fit into any higher-level model that remains consistent with physics. Once again ... you have said nothing. VernerHornung wrote: The Stefan-Boltzmann law requires that absorption and emission be equal at every frequency as they are in blackbodies. Nope. It's not Stefan-Boltzmann that requires that. Stefan-Boltzmann is merely the relationship between temperature and radiance. There is no frequency term in Stefan-Boltzmann. Do you know why? VernerHornung wrote: Therefore, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation does not apply. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. If your argument includes the words "Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply" then you will probably not get very far. VernerHornung wrote: Transmission of radiation through a gas and thermal emission from a surface are *two different situations.* You are the one infusing the unnecessary and confusing convolution. Just treat the earth as one body and your life will be much simpler. You will not succeed in getting the earth to violate physics by convoluting your model with wavelengths and atmospheric layers and weather and lots of unnecessary crap. It's just "the earth." That's all you need. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: So ... explain your inclusion of a frequency (or wavelength) term in Stefan-Boltzmann. I'm not using Stefan-Boltzmann at all; I've begun to treat the atmosphere the way it should be, as a gas instead of an emitting gray body surface. How about you just stop treating the atmosphere separately? It's just the earth. Nome-Sayn? VernerHornung wrote: Now it's time for you to explain how the temperature of a planet should be calculated, giving an example. You haven't done that since I've been around. Easy. Stefan-Boltzmann can be used for that. All you need is earth's emissivity. Yup. That's all you need. Good luck. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-10-2019 22:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Nope, the argument is yours until you bring one of these "authors" to Climate-Debate to be cross-examined. The link to Lissauer & Imke's book is in my last post. I need not bring them here in person; Then you are being mindless. You are making the arguments of others that aren't here, instead of making your own arguments. Learn to think for yourself, dude. VernerHornung wrote: citing sources is perfectly acceptable in debate. But not in philosophy. You are attempting a philosophical argument, not a debate. VernerHornung wrote: My argument is that you cannot use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine the temperature of a planet's solid surface if there is atmosphere above it. Correct. Temperature is the independent variable in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Radiance is the dependent variable. Unless the emissivity is known, you cannot calculate the temperature of anything using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Emissivity is a measured constant. VernerHornung wrote: The Stefan-Boltzmann law requires that absorption and emission be equal at every frequency as they are in blackbodies. WRONG. Nothing requires a flat spectral response in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Divisional error fallacy. Math error: equivocating derivitave addition and multiplication. VernerHornung wrote: But at certain frequencies, absorption and emission by the gases are *not equal:* There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. VernerHornung wrote: Therefore, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation does not apply. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to all bodies. You are still attempting to delete the emissivity term. VernerHornung wrote: Transmission of radiation through a gas and thermal emission from a surface are *two different situations.* * You cannot treat two systems as if they are the same system. VernerHornung wrote: My apologies for the giant print. It's a hassle to resize when no one's paying much heed anyway. Lissauer & Imke's material on radiation and radiative heat transport is too lengthy to reproduce here for those who can't be troubled to retrieve the original from the link I provided. Presenting the arguments of others as your own is summarily dismissed. You do not get to speak for others. You only get to speak for you. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: So ... explain your inclusion of a frequency (or wavelength) term in Stefan-Boltzmann. I'm not using Stefan-Boltzmann at all; I know. You are just denying it completely. That's my point. You cannot just discard it. VernerHornung wrote: I've begun to treat the atmosphere the way it should be, as a gas instead of an emitting gray body surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to all matter, regardless of its state. VernerHornung wrote: Now it's time for you to explain how the temperature of a planet should be calculated, giving an example. You haven't done that since I've been around. It can't. * The emissivity of Earth is unknown. * It is not possible to measure the temperature of 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 4 of 6

Join the debate Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please):

Threads	Replies	Last post
Basic Mistakes in Math, Just an FYI, 2 x 2 ≠ 4.	0	27-01-2024 19:01
Math Help	53	08-12-2023 01:56
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22