Remember me
▼ Content

Energy and resource crisis in the future



Page 9 of 9<<<789
02-01-2020 05:23
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
IBdaMann wrote:
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 have. I saw a cloud forming.
Edited on 02-01-2020 05:23
02-01-2020 06:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
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 have. I saw a cloud forming.


Irrelevant.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-01-2020 09:55
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
[b]The temperature of Earth is unknown.


yhttps://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
yhttps://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
yhttps://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
To name a few.
02-01-2020 11:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Xadoman wrote:
...as soon as I found out that both ice and snow have a near black body emissivity I knew it does not matter much.

So up till now I had the same conclusion you had about the emissivity of snow and ice. Unfortunately we were both wrong. Emissivity as its studied in industry is only concerned with infrared. So the tables you see online for the emissivity of various objects, when they don't identify what wavelength is used, is in the infrared and not the visible light or ultraviolet Spectrum. As you can see from the graph below snow has a very high Albedo in the visible light spectrum and it drops to even out with other materials in the infrared Spectrum. Albedo the counterpart, inverse, to emissivity, the higher the Albedo the lower the emissivity, the higher the emissivity the lower the Albedo. So I hope that answers that question! I'm pretty embarrassed I had that wrong this whole time. I was really wondering how it was that snow and ice would have such a high emissivity when they appear to be white which means they're bouncing back visible light but this answers that finally. Oops!
http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/satmet/lesson3/surfacerad.html


This was an excellent read here I recommend it:
https://skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm
02-01-2020 13:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
James___ wrote: I have. I saw a cloud forming.

How do you know the earth's emissivity changed, or do you not know that different things are different things?

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-01-2020 14:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
Xadoman wrote: Some of those global warming feedback loops sounded pretty logical to me.

Well, they shouldn't. A "feedback" is shorthand for a violation of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. It is either a powerful miracle of the good news of Climate or a fell miracle of Global Warming. If you fall for it then that's on you.

Xadoman wrote: White ice and snow are belived to reflect a lot of light ...

You mean it reflects a lot of visible light when you are supposed to not be excluding infrared, ultraviolet, HF, and all others, right?

Xadoman wrote: 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.

Unfortunately, that is something else that is not known. There has never been any sort of financial profit motive to perform exhaustive tests on materials to learn their precise, accurate absorptivities at every wavelength. Ergo, it hasn't happened. This is why the term "emissivity" applies to a single body and not to any substances / materials. If I read about how earth's emissivity must be affected by the existence of certain substances, I immediately dismiss and move on to the next item up for bids.



.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-01-2020 14:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
IBdaMann wrote: [note: the answer to all three is "yes" and Occam's Razor eliminates all of them from consideration]


Clarification: Occam's Razor eliminates them from consideration from science. If one insists that additional assumptions are required for religious reasons then they are perfectly acceptable within the context of that religion. Occam's Razor simply prevents them from becoming science.

My apologies to any Christians who might have inferred that I was saying Occam's Razor simply eliminates the idea that Jesus is omnipotent or such.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-01-2020 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
MarcusR wrote:
[b]The temperature of Earth is unknown.


yhttps://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
yhttps://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
yhttps://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
To name a few.


None of these know the temperature of the Earth. They are publishing random numbers as data. There are simply not enough thermometers on Earth to get any idea of its temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. 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
02-01-2020 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
...as soon as I found out that both ice and snow have a near black body emissivity I knew it does not matter much.

So up till now I had the same conclusion you had about the emissivity of snow and ice. Unfortunately we were both wrong. Emissivity as its studied in industry is only concerned with infrared.

Emissivity has no frequency. There is no frequency term in either emissivity or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't just add random variables to a law of physics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-01-2020 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: [note: the answer to all three is "yes" and Occam's Razor eliminates all of them from consideration]


Clarification: Occam's Razor eliminates them from consideration from science. If one insists that additional assumptions are required for religious reasons then they are perfectly acceptable within the context of that religion. Occam's Razor simply prevents them from becoming science.

My apologies to any Christians who might have inferred that I was saying Occam's Razor simply eliminates the idea that Jesus is omnipotent or such.


.


No apology necessary. Christianity is firmly in the realm of religion. Occam's Razor is not a hard and fast rule either, but a reasonable way to approach the 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
02-01-2020 20:57
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: [note: the answer to all three is "yes" and Occam's Razor eliminates all of them from consideration]


Clarification: Occam's Razor eliminates them from consideration from science. If one insists that additional assumptions are required for religious reasons then they are perfectly acceptable within the context of that religion. Occam's Razor simply prevents them from becoming science.

My apologies to any Christians who might have inferred that I was saying Occam's Razor simply eliminates the idea that Jesus is omnipotent or such.


.


No apology necessary. Christianity is firmly in the realm of religion. Occam's Razor is not a hard and fast rule either, but a reasonable way to approach the unknown.


That's right. If you can't disprove Jesus then he is the Son of God. Thank You.
02-01-2020 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: [note: the answer to all three is "yes" and Occam's Razor eliminates all of them from consideration]


Clarification: Occam's Razor eliminates them from consideration from science. If one insists that additional assumptions are required for religious reasons then they are perfectly acceptable within the context of that religion. Occam's Razor simply prevents them from becoming science.

My apologies to any Christians who might have inferred that I was saying Occam's Razor simply eliminates the idea that Jesus is omnipotent or such.


.


No apology necessary. Christianity is firmly in the realm of religion. Occam's Razor is not a hard and fast rule either, but a reasonable way to approach the unknown.


That's right. If you can't disprove Jesus then he is the Son of God. Thank You.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. It is not possible to prove whether Jesus ever existed or not.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
02-01-2020 22:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman wrote: Some of those global warming feedback loops sounded pretty logical to me.

Well, they shouldn't. A "feedback" is shorthand for a violation of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Note that the explanation of how that is the case is missing here.

Having temperature increase, melt white ice that is replaced by dark ground/ocean, thereby increasing the emissivity of Earth, does not violate any law of thermodynamics. Anyone making that claim should begin by citing a reliable source.

IBdaMann wrote:
You mean it reflects a lot of visible light when you are supposed to not be excluding infrared, ultraviolet, HF, and all others, right?
Most of the energy that comes from the sun as radiance is above the infrared range. Infrared from the sun isn't excluded. The infrared coming from the sun doesn't change what happens to the visible light coming from the sun.

IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman wrote:...ice and snow have a near black body emissivity...

...There has never been ...exhaustive tests on materials to learn their precise, accurate absorptivities at every wavelength....
This is a false statement.
First: We know roughly what the emissivity is (see graph above) and that's good enough, as it usually is. The ridiculous claim that is something isn't known to infinite precision it isn't known at all dismisses everything.
Second: There are thousands of studies on emissivity. See in my sig how ITN dismissed a study on infra red emissivity on human skin. & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

"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 02-01-2020 22:27
02-01-2020 23:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman wrote: Some of those global warming feedback loops sounded pretty logical to me.

Well, they shouldn't. A "feedback" is shorthand for a violation of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Note that the explanation of how that is the case is missing here.

RQAA. Already explained, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
Having temperature increase, melt white ice that is replaced by dark ground/ocean, thereby increasing the emissivity of Earth, does not violate any law of thermodynamics.

Why would temperature increase?
tmiddles wrote:
Anyone making that claim should begin by citing a reliable source.

The 1st law of thermodynamics, which you are denying.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you are denying.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you are denying.
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You mean it reflects a lot of visible light when you are supposed to not be excluding infrared, ultraviolet, HF, and all others, right?
Most of the energy that comes from the sun as radiance is above the infrared range.

WRONG. Most of the light coming from the Sun is infrared and below.
tmiddles wrote:
Infrared from the sun isn't excluded.

YOU are excluding it by discounting it, liar.
tmiddles wrote:
The infrared coming from the sun doesn't change what happens to the visible light coming from the sun.

Absorption of visible light does not result in conversion to thermal energy. It usually results in chemical energy.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman wrote:...ice and snow have a near black body emissivity...

...There has never been ...exhaustive tests on materials to learn their precise, accurate absorptivities at every wavelength....
This is a false statement.

It is a true statement.
tmiddles wrote:
First: We know roughly what the emissivity is (see graph above) and that's good enough, as it usually is.

Nope. You have no idea. It's not about any range or inaccuracies of measurement.
tmiddles wrote:
The ridiculous claim that is something isn't known to infinite precision it isn't known at all dismisses everything.

RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Second: There are thousands of studies on emissivity.

Nope.
tmiddles wrote:
See in my sig how ITN dismissed a study on infra red emissivity on human skin. & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Not a study. Random numbers quoted by you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-01-2020 03:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
See in my sig how ITN dismissed a study on infra red emissivity on human skin. & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Not a study. Random numbers quoted by you.
I invite anyone curious about what a fraud ITN is to click through the link.
03-01-2020 12:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
See in my sig how ITN dismissed a study on infra red emissivity on human skin. & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Not a study. Random numbers quoted by you.
I invite anyone curious about what a fraud ITN is to click through the link.


YALIFNAP 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
03-01-2020 14:05
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
tmiddles, what are your thoughts on global warming. Do you think the emissivity of earth could change due to various naturally occuring events on earth. For example the ice melting releaving the dark ground under it or smth. I have seen many times that if the ice and snow have some black coloured stains from soil or oil it is starting to melt quicker at that place. For example we usually use to clean the ice from snow with shovels when we wanted to play hockey but one year I used my tractor and the small drops of oil eventually ruined the ice on a sunny day. They started to melt into the ice.
Edited on 03-01-2020 14:06
03-01-2020 14:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
Xadoman wrote:tmiddles, what are your thoughts on global warming. Do you think the emissivity of earth could change due to various naturally occuring events on earth.

Nice goalpost shift! Excellent retreat into the subjunctive!

I see that your official answer is that there is no rational basis for presuming that the earth's emissivity is changing, even less for presuming which way, i.e. increasing or decreasing.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-01-2020 14:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote: I invite anyone curious about what a fraud ITN is to click through the link.

I invite anyone curious to see a real-life God delusion to read through tmiddles' posts and watch how TRIGGERED het gets at even the slightest hint that there's something he doesn't know, and how he blames Into the Night for pointing out his fabrications that he claims are "what we know."


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-01-2020 02:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Xadoman wrote:
tmiddles, what are your thoughts on global warming. Do you think the emissivity of earth could change due to various naturally occuring events on earth. For example the ice melting releaving the dark ground under it or smth. I have seen many times that if the ice and snow have some black coloured stains from soil or oil it is starting to melt quicker at that place. For example we usually use to clean the ice from snow with shovels when we wanted to play hockey but one year I used my tractor and the small drops of oil eventually ruined the ice on a sunny day. They started to melt into the ice.


Of course the emissivity can change and one of the best strategies is to use that to our advantage. So a quick aside from your questions purpose:

Reflective/white roads and roofs can lower temperatures in cities that use a lot of energy to run AC.

If ice melts and is replaced by dark ground or water it will result in more of the suns energy being absorbed before it's returned to space. More "hang time" for thermal energy and a higher mean temp from the planet.

Will that cause some crazy hockey stick? I don't think so. I haven't heard a lot about that being the issue. But it certainly holds water as an argument.

My thoughts on global warming in general:
- The stakes are very high and it should be taken seriously
- It's clearly the flavor of the month and people are morons more than they aren't when they talk about it. So the consensus conclusions on it's reality should be dismissed as a first step before you really look at it.
- Personally, so far, I'm leaning towards it's probably no big deal. BUT that's like saying you're pretty sure there is no bullet in the chamber in a game of Russian roulette. Not a game to be playing.

Oh and the initial assertion that the emissivity of Earth is not a constant and now asking the question do you think it could change in a dangerous way is not a shifting of the goal post. The assertion that it's a constant is just weird and Xadoman and I wasted a little time dismissing it.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
04-01-2020 03:25
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Of course the emissivity can change and one of the best strategies is to use that to our advantage. So a quick aside from your questions purpose:

Reflective/white roads and roofs can lower temperatures in cities that use a lot of energy to run AC.

If ice melts and is replaced by dark ground or water it will result in more of the suns energy being absorbed before it's returned to space. More "hang time" for thermal energy and a higher mean temp from the planet.

Will that cause some crazy hockey stick? I don't think so. I haven't heard a lot about that being the issue. But it certainly holds water as an argument.

My thoughts on global warming in general:
- The stakes are very high and it should be taken seriously
- It's clearly the flavor of the month and people are morons more than they aren't when they talk about it. So the consensus conclusions on it's reality should be dismissed as a first step before you really look at it.
- Personally, so far, I'm leaning towards it's probably no big deal. BUT that's like saying you're pretty sure there is no bullet in the chamber in a game of Russian roulette. Not a game to be playing.

Oh and the initial assertion that the emissivity of Earth is not a constant and now asking the question do you think it could change in a dangerous way is not a shifting of the goal post. The assertion that it's a constant is just weird and Xadoman and I wasted a little time dismissing it.


Agreed. In conclusion - the emissivity of earth changes constantly a little bit but overall we could say that it does not matter much.
04-01-2020 03:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Xadoman wrote:
Agreed. In conclusion - the emissivity of earth changes constantly a little bit but overall we could say that it does not matter much.
Yeah though a long term chance could matter. I actually see this as an opportunity IF climate change becomes a threat. Check out this guy: Bjørn Lomborg

He talks about possible solution. I agree with him that humans are very good at solving problems not just creating them. Reflective asphalt, sea ships that create clouds, ect.

It IS important to know what is and is not a constant. Speed of light = constant, Stefan-Boltzman equation has a constant in it. Emissivity of something may or may not change and in the case of Earth it changes but day to day it doesn't matter.
04-01-2020 10:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
tmiddles, what are your thoughts on global warming. Do you think the emissivity of earth could change due to various naturally occuring events on earth. For example the ice melting releaving the dark ground under it or smth. I have seen many times that if the ice and snow have some black coloured stains from soil or oil it is starting to melt quicker at that place. For example we usually use to clean the ice from snow with shovels when we wanted to play hockey but one year I used my tractor and the small drops of oil eventually ruined the ice on a sunny day. They started to melt into the ice.


Of course the emissivity can change

The emissivity is a measured constant.
tmiddles wrote:
and one of the best strategies is to use that to our advantage.
So a quick aside from your questions purpose:

And now for some more denial of science and math.
tmiddles wrote:
Reflective/white roads and roofs can lower temperatures in cities that use a lot of energy to run AC.

Roads and roofs are already pretty reflective.
tmiddles wrote:
If ice melts and is replaced by dark ground or water it will result in more of the suns energy being absorbed before it's returned to space.

There is no sequence. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
tmiddles wrote:
More "hang time" for thermal energy

Nope. It is not possible to trap thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
and a higher mean temp from the planet.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are just making up numbers again.
tmiddles wrote:
Will that cause some crazy hockey stick?

Random numbers don't mean anything. Not even the so-called 'temperature' in the so-called 'hockey stick' graphs.
tmiddles wrote:
I don't think so. I haven't heard a lot about that being the issue. But it certainly holds water as an argument.

Random number don't mean anything.
tmiddles wrote:
My thoughts on global warming in general:

Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
- The stakes are very high and it should be taken seriously

Pascal's Wager fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
- It's clearly the flavor of the month and people are morons more than they aren't when they talk about it. So the consensus conclusions on it's reality should be dismissed as a first step before you really look at it.

Defining 'global warming' and 'climate change' is the first step.
tmiddles wrote:
- Personally, so far, I'm leaning towards it's probably no big deal.
BUT that's like saying you're pretty sure there is no bullet in the chamber in a game of Russian roulette. Not a game to be playing.

Irrational. Which is it, dude?
tmiddles wrote:
Oh and the initial assertion that the emissivity of Earth is not a constant

The emissivity is a measured constant.
tmiddles wrote:
and now asking the question do you think it could change in a dangerous way is not a shifting of the goal post.

You ARE shifting the goal posts through the use of random numbers YOU made up.
tmiddles wrote:
The assertion that it's a constant is just weird

Emissivity is a measured constant.
tmiddles wrote:
and Xadoman and I wasted a little time dismissing it.

Emissivity is a measured constant.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-01-2020 10:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
Of course the emissivity can change and one of the best strategies is to use that to our advantage. So a quick aside from your questions purpose:

Reflective/white roads and roofs can lower temperatures in cities that use a lot of energy to run AC.

If ice melts and is replaced by dark ground or water it will result in more of the suns energy being absorbed before it's returned to space. More "hang time" for thermal energy and a higher mean temp from the planet.

Will that cause some crazy hockey stick? I don't think so. I haven't heard a lot about that being the issue. But it certainly holds water as an argument.

My thoughts on global warming in general:
- The stakes are very high and it should be taken seriously
- It's clearly the flavor of the month and people are morons more than they aren't when they talk about it. So the consensus conclusions on it's reality should be dismissed as a first step before you really look at it.
- Personally, so far, I'm leaning towards it's probably no big deal. BUT that's like saying you're pretty sure there is no bullet in the chamber in a game of Russian roulette. Not a game to be playing.

Oh and the initial assertion that the emissivity of Earth is not a constant and now asking the question do you think it could change in a dangerous way is not a shifting of the goal post. The assertion that it's a constant is just weird and Xadoman and I wasted a little time dismissing it.


Agreed. In conclusion - the emissivity of earth changes constantly a little bit but overall we could say that it does not matter much.

WRONG. Emissivity is a measured constant.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-01-2020 10:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Agreed. In conclusion - the emissivity of earth changes constantly a little bit but overall we could say that it does not matter much.
Yeah though a long term chance could matter.

Pascal's Wager fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
I actually see this as an opportunity IF climate change becomes a threat.
...deleted Holy Link...

Define 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
It IS important to know what is and is not a constant.

Emissivity is a measured constant.
tmiddles wrote:
Speed of light = constant,

Speed of light is a measured constant, or a natural constant, depending on context.
tmiddles wrote:
Stefan-Boltzman equation has a constant in it.

It has two. You cannot change the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. You are trying to redefine the equation again.
tmiddles wrote:
Emissivity of something may or may not change

Emissivity is a measured constant.
tmiddles wrote:
and in the case of Earth it changes but day to day it doesn't matter.

Emissivity is a measured constant.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-01-2020 12:34
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Emissivity is a measured constant.


Emissivity has different values for different materials. If we could build a silver lining across the atmosphere the emissivity of earth is drastically lower than it is now. Why do you deny this? Or am I not getting something?
04-01-2020 13:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Xadoman wrote:
...am I not getting something?
yeah, he's just crazy. No point in trying to find out why.

So is IBD. I tried asking them once about a shiny polished steel ball slowly rusting and how this would change the emissivity:
link

The goal here for them is to end discussion.

But they can't prevent us from talking if we don't let them.

Another thing about emissivity is we shouldn't assume 0.95 or 0.98 are basically the same, 0.95 is twice as reflective.
04-01-2020 13:19
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Another thing about emissivity is we shouldn't assume 0.95 or 0.98 are basically the same, 0.95 is twice as reflective.


Thanks. I was not aware of such drastic difference. I wonder how this big difference in reflection could reveal in nature.
04-01-2020 13:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Xadoman wrote:
Another thing about emissivity is we shouldn't assume 0.95 or 0.98 are basically the same, 0.95 is twice as reflective.


Thanks. I was not aware of such drastic difference. I wonder how this big difference in reflection could reveal in nature.


I don't know at all yet I want to learn more about it.
12-01-2020 15:41
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
I watched a documentary about melting glaciers and that was exactly like I thought it to be. The ice was covered with dark residue ( dust, soil etc etc) and it absorbed heat so good that the ice started to melt. That is a perfect example how emissivity of natural things could change. If those glaciers are going to be gone one day, the emissivity of earth has changed quite a bit. The temperature of earth goes up of course. I can not predict how much but according to Stephan_Boltzmann it has to go up because the emissivity increases. Simple as that. Greenhouse gases on the other hand have no effect on this, it is about emissivity.
12-01-2020 17:13
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
Xadoman wrote:
I watched a documentary about melting glaciers and that was exactly like I thought it to be. The ice was covered with dark residue ( dust, soil etc etc) and it absorbed heat so good that the ice started to melt. That is a perfect example how emissivity of natural things could change. If those glaciers are going to be gone one day, the emissivity of earth has changed quite a bit. The temperature of earth goes up of course. I can not predict how much but according to Stephan_Boltzmann it has to go up because the emissivity increases. Simple as that. Greenhouse gases on the other hand have no effect on this, it is about emissivity.



Particulates (ash on ice, snow) refract solar radiation. This can change how incoming IR interacts with atmospheric gases. If you check, atmospheric gasses have IR emissions. When IR emissions are absorbed and then emitted again, they are considered to be refracted.
And with ash/snow, it's how it refracts incoming IR. If atmospheric gases absorb it's emissions, then some of the refracted emissions can go back towards the ash. In a way you could say that particulates act as insulation like an electric blanket. And this is where burning trees or coal discharge a lot of ash into the atmosphere.
Edited on 12-01-2020 17:21
13-01-2020 06:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
Emissivity is a measured constant.


Emissivity has different values for different materials.

True. Each one has a measured constant.
Xadoman wrote:
If we could build a silver lining across the atmosphere the emissivity of earth is drastically lower than it is now.

Do you have enough silver?
Xadoman wrote:
Why do you deny this?

What is there to deny? You are just speculating extreme arguments.
Xadoman wrote:
Or am I not getting something?

That's right. You are not getting something.

1) emissivity is across the entire spectrum, not just the visible bands.
2) emissivity is a measured constant.


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
13-01-2020 06:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
...am I not getting something?
yeah, he's just crazy. No point in trying to find out why.

So is IBD. I tried asking them once about a shiny polished steel ball slowly rusting and how this would change the emissivity:
link

RQAA. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
The goal here for them is to end discussion.

Lie. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
But they can't prevent us from talking if we don't let them.

No one is trying to prevent you from taking (and making a fool of yourself).
tmiddles wrote:
Another thing about emissivity is we shouldn't assume 0.95 or 0.98 are basically the same, 0.95 is twice as reflective.

No. Emissivity is not a measure of reflectivity.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 13-01-2020 06:38
13-01-2020 06:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
Another thing about emissivity is we shouldn't assume 0.95 or 0.98 are basically the same, 0.95 is twice as reflective.


Thanks. I was not aware of such drastic difference. I wonder how this big difference in reflection could reveal in nature.


It isn't. He's just making stuff up again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 06:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
James___ wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
I watched a documentary about melting glaciers and that was exactly like I thought it to be. The ice was covered with dark residue ( dust, soil etc etc) and it absorbed heat so good that the ice started to melt. That is a perfect example how emissivity of natural things could change. If those glaciers are going to be gone one day, the emissivity of earth has changed quite a bit. The temperature of earth goes up of course. I can not predict how much but according to Stephan_Boltzmann it has to go up because the emissivity increases. Simple as that. Greenhouse gases on the other hand have no effect on this, it is about emissivity.



Particulates (ash on ice, snow) refract solar radiation. This can change how incoming IR interacts with atmospheric gases. If you check, atmospheric gasses have IR emissions. When IR emissions are absorbed and then emitted again, they are considered to be refracted.
And with ash/snow, it's how it refracts incoming IR. If atmospheric gases absorb it's emissions, then some of the refracted emissions can go back towards the ash. In a way you could say that particulates act as insulation like an electric blanket. And this is where burning trees or coal discharge a lot of ash into the atmosphere.

Absorption and emission is not refraction.


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
13-01-2020 19:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
James___ wrote: This can change how incoming IR interacts with atmospheric gases.

Ignoring the refraction comment for the moment, refresh my memory James__, why do you care how IR "interacts" with atmospheric gases?

James___ wrote: If you check, atmospheric gasses have IR emissions.

If you check, all matter does.


James___ wrote: When IR emissions are absorbed and then emitted again, they are considered to be refracted.

James__, no they are not. Here's how you can tell.

The speed of light differs through different mediums, resulting in refraction. If all you are talking about is the absorption and emission within the same medium, the speed of light is the same and there is no refraction occurring within that context.


.


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
Page 9 of 9<<<789





Join the debate Energy and resource crisis in the future:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Future Of Energy Industry Is Magic Fusion Clean Coal, Not Renewables814-09-2020 23:54
The Secret Global Currency Reset Battle Between Various Groups & Future Revelations909-09-2020 00:03
Covid19's future1310-07-2020 02:08
Climate crisis requires wartime-style mobilisation, says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz126-11-2019 17:02
CNN: Wind farms of the future may be underwater202-05-2019 02:51
Articles
Appendix C - China's Environmental Crisis
Barack Obama: Securing Our Energy Future
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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