Energy and resource crisis in the future

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Technology > Energy and resource crisis in the future > Page 8

Page 8 of 10

29-12-2019 06:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Xadoman wrote:So the key to global warming/cooling is the emissivity of earth? There is no Global Warming. Xadoman wrote: Why are you so sure that the emissivity of earth stays the same all the time? What reason do I have to believe that it changes? . 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
29-12-2019 07:03
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman wrote: Why are you so sure that the emissivity of earth stays the same all the time? What reason do I have to believe that it changes? tmiddles wrote: ... NASA Albedo Also common sense. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
29-12-2019 08:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman wrote: Why are you so sure that the emissivity of earth stays the same all the time? What reason do I have to believe that it changes? tmiddles wrote: ... NASA Albedo Also common sense. Argument from randU fallacy. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it either. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit 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
29-12-2019 10:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: NASA Albedo. Also common sense. Ergo, no reason whatsoever. . 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
29-12-2019 12:54
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	There is no Global Warming. How would you call coming out of the ice age? What reason do I have to believe that it changes? Because it is possible to change it. We could cover the eath with silver lining and the earth would cool down. Edited on 29-12-2019 12:55

29-12-2019 14:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Xadoman wrote: There is no Global Warming. How would you call coming out of the ice age? What reason do I have to believe that it changes? Because it is possible to change it. We could cover the eath with silver lining and the earth would cool down. And it was covered with ice once. IBD doesn't believe in the ice age but of course there was one. Xadoman, Here's an interesting thing about INT/IBD: aside from having wacked out ideas they both suffer from the Trump like pride that prevents admitting you are wrong. So if you can get them to say something stupid (which is pretty easy) they have to own it from then on. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
29-12-2019 20:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Xadoman wrote: There is no Global Warming. How would you call coming out of the ice age? What reason do I have to believe that it changes? Because it is possible to change it. We could cover the eath with silver lining and the earth would cool down. How do you know there was an 'ice age'? 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
29-12-2019 20:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Xadoman wrote: There is no Global Warming. How would you call coming out of the ice age? What reason do I have to believe that it changes? Because it is possible to change it. We could cover the eath with silver lining and the earth would cool down. And it was covered with ice once. How do you know? Were you there? tmiddles wrote: IBD doesn't believe in the ice age but of course there was one. How do you know? Were you there? 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
29-12-2019 22:17
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	And it was covered with ice once. IBD doesn't believe in the ice age but of course there was one. Xadoman, Here's an interesting thing about INT/IBD: aside from having wacked out ideas they both suffer from the Trump like pride that prevents admitting you are wrong. So if you can get them to say something stupid (which is pretty easy) they have to own it from then on. So the ice age was also a myth? I am always opened to new ideas and remain sceptic of anything. I still do not belive in global warming as it is explained today - the heat trapping thing with the back radiaton from co2 . On the other hand I am not sure why the emissivity of earth should always stay the same. Giant volcanic eruptions that send small particles to atmosphere and block sunlight could lead us to global cooling. Edited on 29-12-2019 22:27
29-12-2019 22:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Xadoman wrote: And it was covered with ice once. IBD doesn't believe in the ice age but of course there was one. Xadoman, Here's an interesting thing about INT/IBD: aside from having wacked out ideas they both suffer from the Trump like pride that prevents admitting you are wrong. So if you can get them to say something stupid (which is pretty easy) they have to own it from then on. So the ice age was also a myth? Don't see what else you could call it. Sure, we've seen evidence of massive glaciers that don't exist anymore, but was that some kind of 'ice age' or just a glacier that retreated? Xadoman wrote: I am always opened to new ideas and remain sceptic of anything. A good position to take. Xadoman wrote: I still do not belive in global warming as it is explained today - the heat trapping thing with the back radiaton from co2 . On the other hand I am not sure why the emissivity of earth should always stay the same. Giant volcanic eruptions that send small particles to atmosphere and block sunlight could lead us to global cooling. Such particulates would lower temperatures at the surface, but the temperature of the Earth wouldn't change. Those particulates have a temperature too. They absorb sunlight and emit infrared light just like anything else on 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
29-12-2019 23:59
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Such particulates would lower temperatures at the surface, but the temperature of the Earth wouldn't change. I am not entirely convinced. The emissivity of earth may change a little and according to Stephan-Boltzmann, the temperature of earth may change because of it.
30-12-2019 04:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Xadoman wrote: Such particulates would lower temperatures at the surface, but the temperature of the Earth wouldn't change. I am not entirely convinced. The emissivity of earth may change a little and according to Stephan-Boltzmann, the temperature of earth may change because of it. Are you familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor? After you look that up, as long as we are using the word "may" to engage in empty speculation ... May earth's emissivity be changing right now to conform to Global Warming dogma? May Jesus Christ be making imperceptibly small changes to earth's emissivity, you know, using His omnipotence? May earth's emissivity be changing drastically due to Climate Change except that Climate is simply hiding all that extra HEAT at the bottom of the ocean ... specifically the Indian Ocean off the coast of Sri Lanka? May Climate Gremlins be effectively maintaining earth's emissivity per Climate's direct orders? [note: the answer to all three is "yes" and Occam's Razor eliminates all of them from consideration] . 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
30-12-2019 04:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Xadoman wrote:Why are you so sure that the emissivity of earth stays the same all the time? Why are you asking? Have you observed it changing? . 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
30-12-2019 11:34
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Why are you asking? Have you observed it changing? Why are you so sure that the emissivity of earth can not change ? Could you point me to a physical law that requires it?
30-12-2019 20:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Xadoman wrote: Why are you asking? Have you observed it changing? Why are you so sure that the emissivity of earth can not change ? Could you point me to a physical law that requires it? Why would it? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit 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

30-12-2019 20:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Xadoman wrote: Why are you asking? Have you observed it changing? Why are you so sure that the emissivity of earth can not change ? Could you point me to a physical law that requires it? Hey, stay focused ... Have YOU ever observed the earth's emissivity changing? Did you bother to look up Occam's Razor or is it pointless to discuss this topic with you? . 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
30-12-2019 23:11
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Did you bother to look up Occam's Razor or is it pointless to discuss this topic with you? I looked it up from wiki. As much as I understood the simplest solution was preferred or smth.
31-12-2019 03:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Xadoman wrote: Did you bother to look up Occam's Razor or is it pointless to discuss this topic with you? I looked it up from wiki. As much as I understood the simplest solution was preferred or smth. Have YOU ever observed the earth's emissivity changing or is it pointless to even attempt to discuss this with you? . 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
31-12-2019 08:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Have YOU ever observed the earth's emissivity changing or is it pointless to even attempt to discuss this with you? . We all have. The simple fact that ocean covered by clouds has a different emmissivity than ocean under clear skys proves it changes. Here IBD you too may now witness this truth: To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change from hour to hour due to cloud cover fluctuations alone is proven false by any image of Earth from space.
31-12-2019 18:49
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Have YOU ever observed the earth's emissivity changing or is it pointless to even attempt to discuss this with you? I do not know. That is why I ask. This could explain an ice age.
31-12-2019 19:26
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	tmiddles wrote: To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change from hour to hour due to cloud cover fluctuations alone is proven false by any image of Earth from space. So are you in the camp of believers in satellite temperature "data"? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
31-12-2019 19:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Have YOU ever observed the earth's emissivity changing or is it pointless to even attempt to discuss this with you? . We all have. Nope. Nobody has observed earth's emissivity change. It's just that you are a moron who doesn't know that different things are different things. It's just that you believe you are omniscient and that you KNOW everything, just because of your strong devotion to Global Warming. It's just that you believe that you can declare different things to be the same thing because you are the omnipotent deity governing this universe. You believe that you determine other people's opinions and beliefs ... by fiat. You're an idiot. tmiddles wrote: The simple fact that ocean covered by clouds has a different emmissivity than ocean under clear skys proves it changes. The simple fact that you haven't the vaguest idea whether the earth's efficiency at absorbing and emitting electromagnetic radiation changes proves that you suffer from delusions that you are somehow a god who makes those determinations. The simple fact that you confuse the differing absorptivities of differing substances with the emissivity of the body (earth) proves that your resolve to remain scientifically illiterate has never been stronger. I would normally have a lot to say on the matter, but you have no intention of listening and every intention of ignoring ... because you presume to already know everything. Please carry on. tmiddles wrote:Here IBD you too may now witness this truth: I am witnessing you and that is sufficient. To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change [/quote] My declared position for the day? 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 31-12-2019 19:52
31-12-2019 20:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Xadoman wrote:I do not know. That is why I ask. This could explain an ice age. Was there an ice age? Clarification on my question: Look at Greenland; it is buried under kilometers of ice. Look at next-door Canada (west) and Norway and Sweden (east); they are NOT buried under kilometers of ice. We are not in an "ice age" yet there is a particular geographical location that is experiencing "ice age" conditions. When you speak of an "ice age" ... you claim that all/most of a hemisphere was buried under ice at the same time. Give me a rational basis to believe that either the northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere was buried under ice all at once and then I'll gladly answer your question. At the moment, I believe that many individual places in both the northern and southern hemispheres were, individually, buried under ice at some point, but not necessarily at the same time. Nonetheless, I'm open to examining any and all evidence that you provide. [find-WASTHEREANICEAGE] . 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 31-12-2019 20:05
01-01-2020 00:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Have YOU ever observed the earth's emissivity changing or is it pointless to even attempt to discuss this with you? . We all have. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you. tmiddles wrote: The simple fact that ocean covered by clouds has a different emmissivity than ocean under clear skys proves it changes. You don't know the emissivity of either. You are making up numbers again. Argument from randU fallacy. tmiddles wrote: To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change from hour to hour due to cloud cover fluctuations alone is proven false by any image of Earth from space. You don't know the emissivity of Earth, any clouds, or any ocean. Argument from randU fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). 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
01-01-2020 01:48
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	I asked about the emissivity because global warming supporters are very creative to invent feedback loops to overheat or cool down the planet. I want to be absolutely sure on my stand to fight back. I read from somewhere that the emissivity of ice and snow was almost like black body so I think probably the emissivity of various materials/particulates on earth that are naturally present are quite similar and overall do not matter much.
01-01-2020 01:57
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change from hour to hour due to cloud cover fluctuations alone is proven false by any image of Earth from space. So are you in the camp of believers in satellite temperature "data"? Was that a question you were relating to the emissivity of Earth being variable? Emissivity is sort of how reflective vs. absorptive a surface is to all radiance. So you can in fact observe a change in emissivity with your own eyes for the frequencies of radiance we're able to see (The range of visible wavelengths is 400 to 700 nanometers). To debunk the weird and absurd claim that Earth has an unchanging emissivity the satellite images are sufficient to show that the amount of visible light Earth reflects fluctuates. So that's not really a satellite temperature reading. Was there a thread on that here? I'm not really sure what you're referencing. IBdaMann wrote: Please carry on. Thanks I will. And you're right I don't care what you have to say anymore. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change from hour to hour due to cloud cover fluctuations alone is proven false by any image of Earth from space. You don't know the emissivity of Earth, any clouds, or any ocean. I don't need to. I know that if the reflecitivity/albedo of an object changes for any frequency of light it's emissivity has changed. Xadoman wrote:...various materials/particulates on earth that are naturally present are quite similar and overall do not matter much. I would agree with that. You just made the right argument very well. Steer clear of the dead wrong assertion that emissivity doesn't change at all though. Snow/Ice reflect white light of course but they absorb infrared and other frequencies very well. Also while cloud cover is erratic hour by hour it evens out in the long run. In the long run Earth's emissivity is pretty predictable and stable. "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 01-01-2020 02:12
01-01-2020 02:32
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change from hour to hour due to cloud cover fluctuations alone is proven false by any image of Earth from space. So are you in the camp of believers in satellite temperature "data"? Was that a question you were relating to the emissivity of Earth being variable? Emissivity is sort of how reflective vs. absorptive a surface is to all radiance. So you can in fact observe a change in emissivity with your own eyes for the frequencies of radiance we're able to see (The range of visible wavelengths is 400 to 700 nanometers). To debunk the weird and absurd claim that Earth has an unchanging emissivity the satellite images are sufficient to show that the amount of visible light Earth reflects fluctuates. So that's not really a satellite temperature reading. Was there a thread on that here? I'm not really sure what you're referencing. IBdaMann wrote: Please carry on. Thanks I will. And you're right I don't care what you have to say anymore. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change from hour to hour due to cloud cover fluctuations alone is proven false by any image of Earth from space. You don't know the emissivity of Earth, any clouds, or any ocean. I don't need to. I know that if the reflecitivity/albedo of an object changes for any frequency of light it's emissivity has changed. Xadoman wrote:...various materials/particulates on earth that are naturally present are quite similar and overall do not matter much. I would agree with that. You just made the right argument very well. Steer clear of the dead wrong assertion that emissivity doesn't change at all though. Snow/Ice reflect white light of course but they absorb infrared and other frequencies very well. Also while cloud cover is erratic hour by hour it evens out in the long run. In the long run Earth's emissivity is pretty predictable and stable. "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 There is a way to observe how much IR the Earth emits. Point a solar panel or ir device towards the ground in the direction of the Sun. It's face/lense would need a cowling to prevent the Sun from directly interacting with the measuring device. That would show how much energy is being refracted. I don't think that has been done yet. As for the atmosphere, less oxygen in it decreases the atmosphere'emissivity.
01-01-2020 13:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Xadoman wrote: I asked about the emissivity because global warming supporters are very creative to invent feedback loops to overheat or cool down the planet. That they are. Xadoman wrote: I want to be absolutely sure on my stand to fight back. It really is very simple. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. The Church of Global Warming has not yet defined 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Xadoman wrote: I read from somewhere that the emissivity of ice and snow was almost like black body Nope. The ideal black body is a reference point only. The emissivity of ice or snow can vary. Xadoman wrote: so I think probably the emissivity of various materials/particulates on earth that are naturally present are quite similar and overall do not matter much. This is an argument from randU 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
01-01-2020 13:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change from hour to hour due to cloud cover fluctuations alone is proven false by any image of Earth from space. You don't know the emissivity of Earth, any clouds, or any ocean. I don't need to. tmiddles wrote: I know that if the reflecitivity/albedo of an object changes for any frequency of light it's emissivity has changed. Emissivity has no frequency term. Neither does the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't just change the law by adding a new term. tmiddles wrote: Xadoman wrote:...various materials/particulates on earth that are naturally present are quite similar and overall do not matter much. I would agree with that. You just made the right argument very well. Steer clear of the dead wrong assertion that emissivity doesn't change at all though. Snow/Ice reflect white light of course but they absorb infrared and other frequencies very well. Also while cloud cover is erratic hour by hour it evens out in the long run. In the long run Earth's emissivity is pretty predictable and stable. No. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. 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
01-01-2020 13:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change from hour to hour due to cloud cover fluctuations alone is proven false by any image of Earth from space. So are you in the camp of believers in satellite temperature "data"? Was that a question you were relating to the emissivity of Earth being variable? Emissivity is sort of how reflective vs. absorptive a surface is to all radiance. So you can in fact observe a change in emissivity with your own eyes for the frequencies of radiance we're able to see (The range of visible wavelengths is 400 to 700 nanometers). To debunk the weird and absurd claim that Earth has an unchanging emissivity the satellite images are sufficient to show that the amount of visible light Earth reflects fluctuates. So that's not really a satellite temperature reading. Was there a thread on that here? I'm not really sure what you're referencing. IBdaMann wrote: Please carry on. Thanks I will. And you're right I don't care what you have to say anymore. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: To say that the emmisivity of Earth cannot change from hour to hour due to cloud cover fluctuations alone is proven false by any image of Earth from space. You don't know the emissivity of Earth, any clouds, or any ocean. I don't need to. I know that if the reflecitivity/albedo of an object changes for any frequency of light it's emissivity has changed. Xadoman wrote:...various materials/particulates on earth that are naturally present are quite similar and overall do not matter much. I would agree with that. You just made the right argument very well. Steer clear of the dead wrong assertion that emissivity doesn't change at all though. Snow/Ice reflect white light of course but they absorb infrared and other frequencies very well. Also while cloud cover is erratic hour by hour it evens out in the long run. In the long run Earth's emissivity is pretty predictable and stable. "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 There is a way to observe how much IR the Earth emits. Point a solar panel or ir device towards the ground in the direction of the Sun. Won't work. You don't know how much is reflected light vs emitted light. James___ wrote: It's face/lense would need a cowling to prevent the Sun from directly interacting with the measuring device. That would show how much energy is being refracted. I don't think that has been done yet. The Sun's output is not related to the percentage of light reflected from Earth. James___ wrote: As for the atmosphere, less oxygen in it decreases the atmosphere'emissivity. Why would it? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit 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

01-01-2020 13:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Xadoman wrote:I want to be absolutely sure on my stand to fight back. Be sure to fully understand the rebuttal you choose to argue. Note that the ITN/IBD claim that things are unknown is based on the assertion that because something cannot be known exactly, it gives you license to claim it's not known at all: Into the Night wrote: It really is very simple. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Follow that to it's conclusion and you get: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... It's not even a weak argument, it's not an argument at all. Nothing is ever known with infinite precision so it disqualifies all measurement, research and empirical knowledge. It is as useful and relevant as claiming nothing can be known because this might all be a dream. "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 01-01-2020 14:05
01-01-2020 15:10
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	It really is very simple. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. The Church of Global Warming has not yet defined 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Claiming that only adds a lot of fuel to the fire. I myself see that winters have gotten a lot milder during last years here in Estonia. I feel and see it with my own senses. The thickness of ice on the lake could be also measured which I have done every winter. When the house is on fire I am not going to wait till the temperature in my room is going to rise. I would leave as soon as possible. It's not even a weak argument, it's not an argument at all. Nothing is ever known with infinite precision so it disqualifies all measurement, research and empirical knowledge. It is as useful and relevant as claiming nothing can be known because this might all be a dream. Agreed. Likewise to me it does not matter whether the earth is flat or round. I myself see it as flat and can live my all life thinking it is flat. I do not consider earth s curvature in my calculations when I mark the foundation of my house or smth. Nope. The ideal black body is a reference point only. The emissivity of ice or snow can vary. 0.96665443... or smth is pretty close to 1 for me. Almost the same, 0.987872387236 or smth was for green grass and trees.This approximation allows me to conclude that the emissivity of various naturally existing materials/particulates on earth is almost the same. In theory we could build a silver lining around the earth s atmosphere and cool down the earth but as you yourself said , no point is such speculations.
01-01-2020 17:50
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: It's face/lense would need a cowling to prevent the Sun from directly interacting with the measuring device. That would show how much energy is being refracted. I don't think that has been done yet. The Sun's output is not related to the percentage of light reflected from Earth. James___ wrote: As for the atmosphere, less oxygen in it decreases the atmosphere'emissivity. Why would it? The Sun's output is not related to the percentage of light reflected from Earth. The Earth's energy budget is. https://ag.tennessee.edu/solar/Pages/What%20Is%20Solar%20Energy/Earth-Energy-Budget.aspx According to that, emitted IR on land should be 28% of incoming IR. Are the oceans the same? The ground itself can be shielded during the day to see if it is emitting IR. If not then all IR being emitted by the ground/water would be refracted IR from the Sun. This could allow for an interesting set of experiments. Incoming IR within a few mile radius could be observed at different altitudes. This would be the "trust but verify" saying being put into use. Why a few mile radius is that a solar panel or other IR instrument could be placed on the top of a weather balloon on a clear day with little or no wind. And one below it could be facing down as well. Then we might have a better understanding of how much heat/energy is actually in our atmosphere. With less oxygen in the atmosphere, it becomes denser. This has to do with how reactive O2 is vs N2 or CO2. N2 has a triple bond while O2 has a double bond (number of electrons that they share). https://materialsn16.imascientist.ie/question/what-is-the-difference-between-oxygen-and-nitrogen-molecules/ Or you can simply say that N2 has a shorter bond length than O2, ie, the atoms are closer together. To put this context, burning trees/deforestation is decreasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. It will increase the atmospheres density which allows for more water vapor to be absorbed (conservation of momentum applies here).
01-01-2020 22:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Xadoman wrote:I want to be absolutely sure on my stand to fight back. Be sure to fully understand the rebuttal you choose to argue. Note that the ITN/IBD claim that things are unknown is based on the assertion that because something cannot be known exactly, it gives you license to claim it's not known at all: False equivalence fallacy. Repetitious distortions and contextomy fallacy (RDCF). 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
01-01-2020 22:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Xadoman wrote: It really is very simple. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. The Church of Global Warming has not yet defined 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Claiming that only adds a lot of fuel to the fire. No.It simply means the Church of Global Warming is making a void argument fallacy. Basing an argument on an undefined word is a fallacy. Oddly enough, it IS possible to worship something that not been defined, however. Xadoman wrote: I myself see that winters have gotten a lot milder during last years here in Estonia. About normal so far, according to the weather station at Tallinn. Xadoman wrote: I feel and see it with my own senses. How you perceive temperature based on your own body temperature is unreliable. Should've listened to Fahrenheit! Xadoman wrote: The thickness of ice on the lake could be also measured which I have done every winter. I don't how you are measuring it. I assume you measure it more than once than a particular day in winter? Xadoman wrote: When the house is on fire I am not going to wait till the temperature in my room is going to rise. I would leave as soon as possible. The world is not on fire, neither is Estonia. Xadoman wrote: It's not even a weak argument, it's not an argument at all. Nothing is ever known with infinite precision so it disqualifies all measurement, research and empirical knowledge. It is as useful and relevant as claiming nothing can be known because this might all be a dream. Agreed. Likewise to me it does not matter whether the earth is flat or round. I myself see it as flat and can live my all life thinking it is flat. I do not consider earth s curvature in my calculations when I mark the foundation of my house or smth. Marking a foundation does not involve altitude. Xadoman wrote: Nope. The ideal black body is a reference point only. The emissivity of ice or snow can vary. 0.96665443... or smth is pretty close to 1 for me. Almost the same, 0.987872387236 or smth was for green grass and trees. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers. Xadoman wrote: his approximation Emissivity isn't an approximation. It's a measured value. Xadoman wrote: allows me to conclude that the emissivity of various naturally existing materials/particulates on earth is almost the same. Circular argument fallacy. You are quoting random numbers, then attempting to use them as a proof. 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
01-01-2020 23:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: The Sun's output is not related to the percentage of light reflected from Earth. ]/quote] The Earth's energy budget is. https://ag.tennessee.edu/solar/Pages/What%20Is%20Solar%20Energy/Earth-Energy-Budget.aspx Nope. You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't destroy energy into nothing. You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. James___ wrote: According to that, emitted IR on land should be 28% of incoming IR. Argument from randU fallacy. There is also no 'should be' in science or data. James___ wrote: Are the oceans the same. Argument from randU fallacy. You are just making up numbers. James___ wrote: The ground itself can be shielded during the day to see if it is emitting IR. No need. It IS emitting IR. James___ wrote: If not then all IR being emitted by the ground/water would be refracted IR from the Sun. IR is not refracted from the Sun. The Sun does not refract it's own light. James___ wrote: This could allow for an interesting set of experiments. Incoming IR within a few mile radius could be observed at different altitudes. This would be the "trust but verify" saying being put into use. Why a few mile radius is that a solar panel or other IR instrument could be placed on the top of a weather balloon on a clear day with little or no wind. Won't work. Already described why. RDCF. James___ wrote: And one below it could be facing down as well. Then we might have a better understanding of how much heat/energy is actually in our atmosphere. Heat is not energy. It is not possible to measure the global energy in the atmosphere. James___ wrote: With less oxygen in the atmosphere, it becomes denser. This has to do with how reactive O2 is vs N2 or CO2. N2 has a triple bond while O2 has a double bond (number of electrons that they share). https://materialsn16.imascientist.ie/question/what-is-the-difference-between-oxygen-and-nitrogen-molecules/ The barometer disagrees with you. James___ wrote: To put this context, burning trees/deforestation is decreasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. You are forgetting that oxygen is created by GROWING those trees and other plants. James___ wrote: It will increase the atmospheres density which allows for more water vapor to be absorbed (conservation of momentum applies here). Water vapor is not 'absorbed'. It is simply part of what is in the atmosphere. Higher pressure does not allow more water evaporation. Instead, it allows LESS. 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 01-01-2020 23:17
02-01-2020 01:40
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	No.It simply means... People want answers. If your all defence is on the basis that things are undefined and unmeasurable then they simply loose interest and find others who have answers to those questions. About normal so far, according to the weather station at Tallinn. Very mild. I use to play hockey during school holidays 20+ years ago. Now we do not even have ice on the lake. How you perceive temperature based on your own body temperature is unreliable. Should've listened to Fahrenheit! Fahrenheit is like inches, foots and stones for me. Too hard for me to comprehend. I prefer celcius. I don't how you are measuring it. I assume you measure it more than once than a particular day in winter? Some years we are able to drive on the lake with cars and I take a measurement for safety. I do not want to go on the lake with a car unless the ice is at least 25 cm thick. Marking a foundation does not involve altitude. Building however does. The foundation of my garage that I poured a couple years ago was 1.8 m tall. I went down the frost line with a foundation to be sure not to have frost heave. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers. Quick glance to google showed me that the emissivity of snow and ice and green grass and trees were almost the same. Why should I not trust those measurement? Emissivity isn't an approximation. It's a measured value. Every measurement is an approximation. You can not measure something with absolute accuracy. Circular argument fallacy. You are quoting random numbers, then attempting to use them as a proof. No, I looked up from google the measured emissivity of snow, ice and green trees. I did not see a dramatic difference between those items. I will use this evidence when somebody who belives in global warming brings up the common feedback loop that is supposed to happen when the ice caps melt.
02-01-2020 01:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Xadoman wrote: I asked about the emissivity because global warming supporters are very creative to invent feedback loops to overheat or cool down the planet. I want to be absolutely sure on my stand to fight back. I read from somewhere that the emissivity of ice and snow was almost like black body so I think probably the emissivity of various materials/particulates on earth that are naturally present are quite similar and overall do not matter much. Different substances have different absorptivities. The earth is comprised of many substances. The earth is one body with one emissivity. Why should I presume the earth has a different emissivity just because some clouds are absorbing some solar radiation as opposed to the earth's solid surface absorbing it? The solar radiation is nonetheless absorbed by the earth. I'm still waiting for a rational basis to believe that your unnecessary convolutions somehow should NOT be cut away by Occam's Razor. . 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
02-01-2020 01:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: Xadoman wrote:I want to be absolutely sure on my stand to fight back. Be sure to fully understand the rebuttal you choose to argue. Note that the ITN/IBD claim that things are unknown is based on the assertion that because something cannot be known exactly, it gives you license to claim it's not known at all: Be careful when reading tmiddles' posts. He tries to slip his logical contradictions by you by diverting your attention onto his attacks on the bogus positions he assigns to others. If you read his words above carefully, he is trying to get you to believe that just because he doesn't really know something that it doesn't mean that doesn't know it. He wants you to believe that he essentially knows everything, even the stuff he doesn't know. You might notice that his single biggest complaint/frustration/issue is when others point out that he doesn't really know what he claims he knows. He HATES that because it flies in the face of his claim of being omniscient. . 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
02-01-2020 02:12
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Different substances have different absorptivities. The earth is comprised of many substances. The earth is one body with one emissivity. Why should I presume the earth has a different emissivity just because some clouds are absorbing some solar radiation as opposed to the earth's solid surface absorbing it? The solar radiation is nonetheless absorbed by the earth. I'm still waiting for a rational basis to believe that your unnecessary convolutions somehow should NOT be cut away by Occam's Razor. Some of those global warming feedback loops sounded pretty logical to me. White ice and snow are belived to reflect a lot of light and and after melting the earth is supposed to absorb heat a lot better. But as soon as I found out that both ice and snow have a near black body emissivity I knew it does not matter much.

Page 8 of 10

Join the debate Energy and resource crisis in the future:

Threads	Replies	Last post
THE FUTURE OF HYDROGEN POWER	31	09-08-2023 19:29
The 'crisis' that will 'steal' the 2024 election.	2	15-05-2023 05:02
Climate Change: The Science of Global Warming and Our Energy Future, just $133.79	4	19-02-2023 14:09
Climate Crisis!	8	04-12-2022 07:10
Make Natural Resource Currency Great Again	1	30-07-2022 22:43