General Question in General Forum.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > General Question in General Forum. > Page 3

Page 3 of 4

19-08-2022 03:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	duncan61 wrote: Swann wrote CO2 molecules don't really interact with sunlight's wavelengths. Only after the Earth absorbs sunlight and reemits the energy as infrared waves can the CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb the energy. I agree with this.I am studying the Stefan-Boltzmann law to make a connection but have not done so yet.[I am getting all matter absorbs and radiates energy so to me it means that matter that absorbs and radiates energy more efficiently can make a difference No duncan, you didn't understand what you were taught, apparently. I just finished explaining that all matter, always, everywhere adheres to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Along comes Swan claiming that CO2 doesn't really interact with "sunlight's wavelengths" ... and instead of calling BOOOLSCH'T, instead of saying "Aha! Gotcha!" as I told you, your response was "I agree." I don't get it. You won't call boooolsch't on anything that runs directly counter to physics. One more time: all matter, always, everywhere, absorbs electromagnetic energy to some extent, and radiates thermally to that same extent per Kirchhoff's law. Every body of matter, always, everywhere, radiates at the fourth power of its absolute temperature and has an EMISSIVITY value that determines its absorption/emission efficiency considering all wavelengths. This is Stefan-Boltzmann. [Ergo, Stefan-Boltzmann never has a wavelength term, so tell Swan that ALL matter "interacts" with sunlight] You are stuck on this phrase "can make a difference." This is as totally meaningless as it is totally undefined. There is no "can make a difference" in science. Either something causes a specific difference or it is not recognized as making any particular difference. Science does not deal in the undefined. Science does not establish that anything "can make an undefined difference." Of course, your objective is totally transparent. Like all warmizombies, you are trying to show that Stefan-Boltmann supports some sort of temperature increase which will therefore support your religious belief that earth's temperature is increasing. I'm trying to tell you that Stefan-Boltzmann shows that that is impossible, unless you show how your mystical, magical source (i.e. gravity for you, CO2 for other warmizombies) directly increases earth's emissivity. Until you show that, it will not simply be presumed and the math will never work out in your favor. The earth's TEMPERTAURE value will never change.
19-08-2022 07:33
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I am pleased to be debating this.The short wave UV light coming from the sun passes through the atmospere.It is the long wave Infra Red just above visible light that is emitted from the warm surface that excites the carbon molecule.This fits in with Stefan-Boltzmann law.CO2 is natural and manmade.By burning material the oxygen molecules bond with carbon molecules and CO2 is born.At this point I have no issue with CO2 slowing the flow of energy from the surface making the air slightly warmer than it would with less CO2 however the amount is minimal.
19-08-2022 13:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	duncan61 wrote:I am pleased to be debating this. There is no debate to be had. duncan61 wrote:The short wave UV light coming from the sun passes through the atmospere. Much does. Are you claiming that all of it does? Scenario: A CO2 cloud in a close orbit to the sun, closer than Mercury. You claim that this cloud is approaching absolute zero temperature. Brilliant. duncan61 wrote:It is the long wave Infra Red just above visible light that is emitted from the warm surface that excites the carbon molecule. So you did it. You fell for the "magical wavelengths" gibber-babble. Well, you did it to yourself. Just be aware that as you refer to these magical wavelengths going forward, I will be mocking you. duncan61 wrote:This fits in with Stefan-Boltzmann law. Nope. Your claims that zero solar radiation is absorbed by CO2 is stupid and runs counter to Stefan-Boltzmann. duncan61 wrote: I have no issue with CO2 slowing the flow of energy from the surface making the air slightly warmer than it would with less CO2 however the amount is minimal. How much slower are you claiming this energy is travelling? Assuming that without the CO2, the energy would be travelling right at the speed of light, how much slower than the speed of light are you claiming it therefore travels because of the magical superpower of CO2? .
19-08-2022 17:04
Roj475 ★☆☆☆☆ (69)	IBdaMann wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:On the basis you believe I hold a particular position, I would welcome sources for the claims made here You are the only source for your particular positions. ... and you are the only source needed. I could write an entire profile on you from the few posts that you have created on this site. Let's review: . I have not presented any position. Members of this community keep telling me I have. IBdaMann wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote: Into the Night wrote: So it's essentially another random number they are using to generate random numbers for data. Hard to say without a link for the basis of this. The internet is your inerrant Bible. Anything written on the internet must be true, and if there is no link for something, you can't possibly be expected to do any thinking on your own. Roj475 wrote: duncan61 wrote:I went to the beach today and the sea is in the same place If this water was in the same place I assume it is without tides and would more likely be a lake or a river... You are certain the ocean is rising. Any water source that has not risen must be a lake or a river, right? You dismissed the conclusive evidence to the contrary, i.e. that the ocean hasn't risen discernible in more than a century, because you are not free to believe as you wish; you believe as you are instructed. You OBEY those who do your thinking for you. Roj475 wrote: Into the Night wrote:No link necessary. That's attempting to prove a negative. That's a fallacy, dude. A poster has claimed data.... Another poster refers to the previous poster's position and adds a negative position, but the whole time... The data was never in existence. This incoherent gibberish confirms that others are doing your thinking for you. You are otherwise totally confused on this subject matter. You cannot even articulate what it is you supposedly understand in a given discussion. This raises the question: Why do you even believe what you believe? Of course, the answer is that you are simply believing as ordered. Your thoughts are not you own. You should ask others how obvious this is. . I am open minded but the members of this community keep telling me how I think. After telling me three times, they come to a conclusion I was never part of. . IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:All well and good, but the position I am arguing is ... Correction: The position you are NOT arguing, but nonetheless hold, is that the ocean is rising. I do not have a position until I see the story specific to NASA that the poster claimed... You most certainly do have whatever position your thought-masters tell you to have. Your attempts to deny the obvious are childish and only serve to affirm the obvious. Why don't you just give us your thoughts on capitalism right now? You know, get it out of the way up front. . Any particular part? IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:Alternatively, where is the NASA information so I can make a position on it? Why do you believe that NASA has anything to do with the ocean? Well, of course, ... you were told to believe it. Do you really not understand how obvious it is that someone else controls your thinking? NASA? The ocean? Not even Swan is that absurd. What's next? Venus temperature data from HUD? I asked for information. I made no claims... The members of this community keep telling me what I am doing and then decide that is what I am doing. IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:Swan says it is rising and turning desert green... You guys need to get your story straight on which one will be more believable in your world. You obviously lump all differing views together as the same view. This is a result of extreme intolerance to differing views, which results from being too stupid to learn and from a profound hatred of science and math. Why are you under the impression that everyone must agree? Of course, ... it's because that's what you were told to believe, i.e. that everyone is to agree with the positions that are handed to you by those who do your thinking for you. . I have not presented any position. Members of this community keep telling me I have. IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:This wasn't the question I came here to ask, but would I be right in saying that this site, climate-debate.com, is more denial site than a debate site? You came to this site, you saw what you consider to be a prohibited position that was allowed to remain posted without being censored away, and you immediately labelled the entire site a "denial" site. This tells me that Climate Change is your religion. One cannot deny something that hasn't been shown to be true, and you haven't shown Climate Change to be true. You simply presume it to be true, because you were told to believe it to be true by those who do your thinking for you. Also apparent is your need to hurl slurs at those who were not bent over furniture and indoctrinated as you were. Your total cognitive surrender is entirely your own fault and you did it to yourself. Your transparent attempts to blame others for your own stupidity is as obvious as the sun to those with light sensitivity issues. . It would seem I will fit in just great in America... Oh, I am. Sure you will be pleased to know I replaced an American whom wasn't fit for purpose. IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:I typically reside in more scientific forums where a paper is presented with conflicting positions for you to decide which appears more plausible. Here you broadcast your desperation to be perceived as a thmart perthon. You are scientifically illiterate and you know it, so you and other under-educated individuals sit around in chat rooms role-playing science geniuses who are debating the merits of thettled thienth! You're fine as long as nobody with any actual understanding of science and math joins the conversation because that would immediately burst the delusional fantasy bubble that you worked so hard to build. So why did you come to this site? You could see that there are no censors here to shield you from the science and the math that are freely discussed here. There are no censors to delete posts that point out that you are a scientifically illiterate moron who doesn't even know what science is. So why are you here? Obviously you are here to hurl slurs at those who were not indoctrinated into your stupid religion, who do not assume any of the stupid things that you simply believe on faith, and who do not worship as you do. . I came to this site, pretty much as my first post, to say Greta is a pain and life would be an improvement without her involvement in climate etc... IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:I was avoiding denial wording and go for population driven positions. I already covered this is a previous post. You take this right out of the Marxist playbook. You try to bully/coerce others into believing as you believe, not through logical arguments, but through attempts to lay on shame of being outside the majority, and of course you claim to represent the majority. That doesn't work here. On this site you will simply be reminded that you haven't presented any sort of coherent argument, and you will be reminded that you are scientifically illiterate and have no business bothering the adults at the adults table. Have you tried YAP (Yet Another Political) forum? That place is loaded with censors and all those whose views deviated from the proscribed position of the YAP collective have been banned (I am one of them). I'm sure it will be far more to your liking. . We agree on having not placed an argument, hopefully you will stop claiming I believe what I am told now. IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:As I said at the start, I appreciate this is not a climate debating forum as the only posters here are firmly entrenched in a camp they will never deviate away from. Not only do you lump all differing views together as the same view, you view it as a competing religion of fanatics. It's hilarious that you view science and math as a competing religion that must be defeated. Roj475 wrote:GW still exists in text but for the general population that are unable to grasp it will still snow if a temperature average increased from -10 to -8; then CC was needed to assist the education gap. You felt compelled to rush to the defense of your faith the moment you felt it was not being accorded full reverence. You weren't about to allow Global Warming to be diminished and dismissed. It is far too important to you, religions being what they are. You think nobody sees this. You are mistaken. . You will be pleased to know this will likely be my last post, bar maybe a response to capitalism form above but I do not have the concentration span to filter through posts this long, bores me. IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:If you believe GW has been replaced, then this is an oversight on your part or is not inkeeping with your long term goal of never moving from a set position regardless. You totally give yourself away. You need for others to revere Global Warming as you revere it. You are not going to sit idly by and let others speak dismissively about your core religious tenets. Roj475 wrote: duncan61 wrote:Yes I did and what outages do you speak of. "Perth smashed its previous heatwave records last week, after sweltering through six days in a row over 40℃ – and 11 days over 40℃ this summer so far. On top of that, Perth has suffered widespread power outages and a bushfire in the city's north." You did not post this as mere random trivia. You posted this as conclusive proof that Global Warming is not to be dismissed, that Global Warming is real and is active in our lives. So the NEXT question you won't answer is "What does smashing previous cold-wave records prove?" Let me know when you get around to providing an unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics right on its face. . I do not recall saying there was an issue, nor do I recall saying anything should be done... The Earth has warmed and cooled. I do not recall saying anything on why these events have happened over the planet's history. IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation. It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake. Like most Marxists, you ignore the opposing observation that kills your argument and pretend it was never mentioned. Instead, you quickly change the subject to some bogus position that you are assigning to your opposition and misdirect attention towards that. I didn't fall for it, just to let you know. Harvey is correct that you have absolutely no "The Data" and you have backed yourself into a corner with no avenue for escape. Your debate is over. You lose. . I didn't realise there was a winner or a loser in requesting information. If it pleases you, I am the loser here... Damn! IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:Harvey does not believe there is past data to compare with. I didn't fall for your misdirection. You have not produced any such "The Data." The meat was hung for you, you swung and you missed. Wait, you're a Brit, right? You don't get that reference, do you? . Yes, but relocated to work in America... I would like to return but the pay is too good here. Maybe this is the capitalism thing, America, the land of opportunity... Thank you for that. IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:Is it the movement Age in Genesis that believe the Earth to be 6000 years old. Your need to attack Christians is kind of a giveaway that you're a Marxist, which is kind of a giveaway that you suck at economics as well as sucking at math and science and logic. This is enough for now. Additional revelations available upon request. . Citing the belief of a group of people is not an attack.... I appreciate American's have a strange concept when it comes to attacking though.
20-08-2022 01:03
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I am pleased to be debating this. There is no debate to be had. duncan61 wrote:The short wave UV light coming from the sun passes through the atmospere. Much does. Are you claiming that all of it does? Scenario: A CO2 cloud in a close orbit to the sun, closer than Mercury. You claim that this cloud is approaching absolute zero temperature. Brilliant. duncan61 wrote:It is the long wave Infra Red just above visible light that is emitted from the warm surface that excites the carbon molecule. So you did it. You fell for the "magical wavelengths" gibber-babble. Well, you did it to yourself. Just be aware that as you refer to these magical wavelengths going forward, I will be mocking you. duncan61 wrote:This fits in with Stefan-Boltzmann law. Nope. Your claims that zero solar radiation is absorbed by CO2 is stupid and runs counter to Stefan-Boltzmann. duncan61 wrote: I have no issue with CO2 slowing the flow of energy from the surface making the air slightly warmer than it would with less CO2 however the amount is minimal. How much slower are you claiming this energy is travelling? Assuming that without the CO2, the energy would be travelling right at the speed of light, how much slower than the speed of light are you claiming it therefore travels because of the magical superpower of CO2? . The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light.Your opinion is losing traction. duncan61

20-08-2022 05:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	duncan61 wrote:The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light. Well, you would have us believe that based on your exhaustive physics acumen. How is it again? The earth's thermal radiation, ... which is electromagnetic radiation, ... which is radiating from the earth, ... which would otherwise be traveling at the speed of light, ... is nonetheless slowed by the magical superpowers of CO2? Did I get that right? You had one job, duncan. You were supposed to tell this board roughly how much below the speed of light the electromagnetic radiation radiating from the earth is slowed by CO2. This board needs to know this because everybody knows that the extent to which CO2 reduces the radiance radiating from the earth is the extent to which the earth's temperature increases, per Stefan-Boltzmann's inverse relationship between RADIANCE and TEMPERATURE, right? duncan61 wrote:Your opinion is losing traction. So we're back to science merely being my opinion and that Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to the earth or to any place that is inconvenient. Too funny. [I knew you couldn't remain honest for more than a couple of posts]
20-08-2022 06:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	duncan61 wrote:I am going to think about this for a while No, you're not.
20-08-2022 08:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Roj475 wrote:I have not presented any position. Members of this community keep telling me I have. I detailed many of your positions in a rather lengthy post. Your denial of your having broadcast your positions is typical of someone who is very much ashamed of his positions. I'm glad you raised this point again. One position you revealed that was very telling, that I did not previously mention was this: Roj475 wrote:I can say the Republic party doesn;t exist as we only see change by the Democratic party... We see the problems in the background by the Republic tenure, but they are not to be considered about based on your argument... Probably a good thing to be honest! Roj475 wrote:I am open minded I'm not buying it. Maybe duncan will believe you. Try him. Roj475 wrote: ... the members of this community keep telling me how I think. They read what you write. Roj475 wrote:After telling me three times, they come to a conclusion I was never part of.. After being told three times, you fall into steep denial. Roj475 wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Why don't you just give us your thoughts on capitalism right now? You know, get it out of the way up front. Any particular part? The whole thing. Tell us how you really feel. If you're looking for the ideal starting point, I recommend giving us your thoughts on how we should redistribute the wealth. Second, you can tell us what we should tax next. Roj475 wrote:I asked for information. You were asked to provide the "The Data" that you used. Roj475 wrote: I made no claims... We've been over this. You've expressed a myriad of your positions and I detailed them in a lengthy post. The problem is getting you to shut up with your positions and to answer some of the questions put to you. Second time: What is the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that doesn't violate physics on its face? Roj475 wrote:The members of this community keep telling me what I am doing and then decide that is what I am doing. The members of this forum read what you write, see what you're doing and ... well, they realize what you are doing. What part of this confuses you? [You are easily confused, apparently] Roj475 wrote:It would seem I will fit in just great in America... There's a niche for everyone. Roj475 wrote:Oh, I am. Sure you will be pleased to know I replaced an American whom wasn't fit for purpose. I imagine he kept telling customers how the burgers are really made and had to be let go. Then they encountered you and realized that customers won't be able to understand you should you begin to do likewise. They realized they had discovered gold and hired you on the spot. Then they asked you what your first language is. Roj475 wrote:I came to this site, pretty much as my first post, to say Greta is a pain and life would be an improvement without her involvement in climate etc... But your first post was to decry the lack of censorship for differing views. You referred to those who don't worship as you do as being denialists who are entrenched in an extreme political position. You came here to be a bullying Marxist thinking that you were going to intimidate the members of this board with your scientific illiteracy and your mathematical incompetence. As the moron that you are, you really did come to the wrong place. This site is an adult's table where intelligent conversations are possible, not where intelligent conversations are prohibited. You definitely need a different site, one more suitable as a kid's table. Roj475 wrote:We agree on having not placed an argument, hopefully you will stop claiming I believe what I am told now. I'm afraid you will have to demonstrate some independent thinking with critical reasoning before I can dismiss your obvious regurgitations as mere coincidence. Give me your rationale for believing in greenhouse effect. Notice that I didn't ask you for anyone else's position/opinion; I asked for your position in your own words. Explain why a rational adult should believe in greenhouse effect beyond merely pointing to other faithful worshipers of like mind. Science is preferred. Roj475 wrote:You will be pleased to know this will likely be my last post, bar maybe a response to capitalism form above but I do not have the concentration span to filter through posts this long, bores me. I appreciate your acknowledgment of your cognitive shortcomings. I don't know why you believe that I will somehow be pleased that this will likely be your last post. I am not a Marxist. I am not interested in anyone being silenced or becoming silent. Because I am not a Marxist, I am not an intellectual coward. I do not panic in abject fear from differing views. I welcome all ideas and all forms of amusement. Roj475 wrote:I do not recall saying there was an issue, nor do I recall saying anything should be done... I already covered this, as did your schoolteachers while you were sleeping. Your expression was implicit, not explicit. And a failure on the part of your recollection doesn't change anything. Roj475 wrote:The Earth has warmed and cooled. I understand that you were told to say that, and to never question it. Under what context are you making this claim and why should a rational adult believe it? Roj475 wrote:I do not recall saying anything on why these events have happened over the planet's history. ... yet you implicitly express certainty that these events happened over the planet's history. Why should any rational adult accept your position? Roj475 wrote:I didn't realise there was a winner or a loser in requesting information. Are you saying that you truly had no idea how much of a loser you are? Roj475 wrote: IBdaMann wrote:The meat was hung for you, you swung and you missed. Wait, you're a Brit, right? You don't get that reference, do you? Yes, but relocated to work in America... I would like to return but the pay is too good here. So you did NOT catch the reference ... because you're a Brit. Roj475 wrote:Maybe this is the capitalism thing, America, the land of opportunity... Thank you for that. I could write an essay on what you just revealed right here. Roj475 wrote:Citing the belief of a group of people is not an attack Nice pivot. The subject of the sentence was your need to attack Christians, not what constitutes such an attack. As a typical Marxist, you presume everyone is as stupid as you are, even those who are so much smarter than you are. You don't have the wherewithal to realize how you give yourself away, post after post. If you were a light bulb, I'd have no way of knowing that you had been turned on. Roj475 wrote:.... I appreciate American's have a strange concept when it comes to attacking though. Probably the sharpest form of attack is to just highlight what a Brit writes.
20-08-2022 13:29
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote]duncan61 wrote:The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light. Well, you would have us believe that based on your exhaustive physics acumen. How is it again? The earth's thermal radiation, ... which is electromagnetic radiation, ... which is radiating from the earth, ... which would otherwise be traveling at the speed of light, ... is nonetheless slowed by the magical superpowers of CO2? Did I get that right? You had one job, duncan. You were supposed to tell this board roughly how much below the speed of light the electromagnetic radiation radiating from the earth is slowed by CO2. This board needs to know this because everybody knows that the extent to which CO2 reduces the radiance radiating from the earth is the extent to which the earth's temperature increases, per Stefan-Boltzmann's inverse relationship between RADIANCE and TEMPERATURE, right? duncan61 wrote:Your opinion is losing traction. So we're back to science merely being my opinion and that Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to the earth or to any place that is inconvenient. Too funny. For years I have considered you were making it up to suit your personal agenda.Your church is called the church of denial.Where do you get this.The Stefan Boltzmann law does not prove CO2 does not absorb and radiate in all directions.Your claim heat radiates in 360 is correct and thats what CO2 does.You are grouping all matter as one and all matter radiates differently.The air being warmed by the surface does not go to space at the speed of light.You are wrong and you are trying to make the evidence fit.Have a nice life you twisted individual. duncan61
20-08-2022 14:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	duncan61 wrote:For years I have considered you were making it up to suit your personal agenda. Except that there was no agenda. You need to be able to point to an agenda before you can claim there is an agenda. You equate the lack of any agenda with a lack of your agenda, which you equate to an agenda. You are stupid. duncan61 wrote:Your church is called the church of denial. I realize that your command of the English language is almost nonexistent, so I will explain some basics. For you to validly claim some form of denial on the part of someone else, you must fisrt show to be true that which you are claiming is being denied. For example, you cannot claim that I am in denial over the purple cheese monkeys that live on the moon's surface. To the contrary, until you show your postulate to be true, you are merely confirming that you are a babbling idiot. By the way, you are a babbling idiot. By the way, you are a science denier. duncan61 wrote:The Stefan Boltzmann law does not prove CO2 does not absorb and radiate in all directions. You have a double negative in there, rendering it totally correct. That all matter, always, everywhere absorbs electromagnetic energy from, and radiates electromagnetic energy in, all directions is shown by Planck's law, thus it is shown by Stefan-Boltzmann. duncan61 wrote:Your claim heat radiates in 360 You claim heat radiates. I do not. Heat flows and is a power rating, not a speed rating. You, however, are a science denier who insists that power can somehow be slowed, not reduced, but slowed despite not having any speed. You are stupid. I accept physics and therefore I acknowledge that all matter, always, everywhere absorbs electromagnetic energy from, and radiates electromagnetic energy in, all directions, not merely in some two-dimensional circle. You are stupid for thinking that heat flows only in a two-dimensional circle. duncan61 wrote:all matter radiates differently. Yep ... but all matter, always, everywhere absorbs electromagnetic energy from, and radiates electromagnetic energy in, all directions, not merely in some two-dimensional circle. You are stupid for thinking heat flows in a two-dimensional circle. You are stupid for thinking CO2 absorbs no solar radiation. duncan61 wrote:The air being warmed by the surface does not go to space at the speed of light. At what speed then are you claiming the air goes into space? duncan61 wrote:You are wrong You can't find any error in the science I present, and I can't find anything correct in your science denial. You are stupid. duncan61 wrote:and you are trying to make the evidence fit. Science doesn't use supporting evidence. Science doesn't need any supporting evidence. Religion uses "evidence." You are stupid for confusing religion with science. You're a pretty stupid individual, and rather proud of it. Keep working at it. .
20-08-2022 17:30
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	duncan61 wrote: The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light.Your opinion is losing traction. There is a funny ha ha in here. There are the Van Allen radiation belts that are quite good at trapping electromagnetic radiation. They would be very good at preventing heat from leaving the Earth's magnetosphere. This suggests that the Earth is insulated and everyone knows that insulation slows heat moving in or out of a structure. With the tropopause and the mesopause, since they are both very cold they might also slow the speed at which radiant heat (electromagnetic radiation) travels. I'm not sure if any research has been done on this. Edited on 20-08-2022 17:37
20-08-2022 21:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	duncan61 wrote: Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: Satellites can take very good pictures.The Earth is greener than it was in the 70s.African nations jungles seems to be growing in to the Sahara. What African jungles? duncan61 wrote: Perhaps the rainfall has moved north a bit.Shit happens but of course its all bad and manmade. What rainfall? Weather moves in any direction. Why are you trying to focus in individual storms? duncan61 wrote: The barrier reef was surveyed recently and it has more biomass than ever recorded before but wait.Its all going to die soon.So has it warmed and bleached or is it going to happen later.Regards the ocean warming.Get a big mixing bowl and fill it to the top with water then blow a hairdryer on it and let me know when the water heats up.Think about it Bleach has no temperature. The african nations on the edge of the Sahara I do not get the bleach temperature reference. It is refereed to as bleaching as some coral goes white when the algae take off.There is no bleach you know it and I know it you are just being obstinate.You know where I am going with my comments Illiteracy: Failure to capitalize proper nouns. Missing periods at the end of a sentence. Missing space between sentences. Logic errors: Redefinition fallacy (vegetation<->nation, vegetation<->jungle, death<->bleach, algae<->aircraft). Word games. Inversion fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Omniscience fallacy. Math errors: Attempted statistical analysis on no data. Failure to specify and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. I am not a mind reader. Neither are you. Define your terms. You are just making religious chants. 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
20-08-2022 21:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: I am going to get over bonding at a molecular level and it is unlikely I will use the word HEAT ever again.There's still a lot I am not getting.CO2 may be more efficient at absorbing and radiating energy so more means more.Ignoring all the puffing it's possible there has been an increase in CO2 in the troposphere CO2, like most any substance, can absorb and radiate certain frequencies of infrared light. This range of light is a very wide band. Most of the light from the Sun is in the infrared range. Actually that is totally wrong as CO2 does not interact with the Sun's light Yes it does. Swan wrote: CO2 molecules don't really interact with sunlight's wavelengths. Yes it does. Swan wrote: Only after the Earth absorbs sunlight and reemits the energy as infrared waves can the CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb the energy. Most of the Sun's output is infrared. Absorbing visible light does not convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical energy. Chemical energy has no temperature. 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 20-08-2022 21:12
20-08-2022 21:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Swan wrote: duncan61 wrote: Swann wrote CO2 molecules don't really interact with sunlight's wavelengths. Only after the Earth absorbs sunlight and reemits the energy as infrared waves can the CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb the energy. I agree with this.I am studying the Stefan-Boltzmann law to make a connection but have not done so yet.I am getting all matter absorbs and radiates energy so to me it means that matter that absorbs and radiates energy more efficiently can make a difference CO2 was far higher in the distant past when the Earth was greener, so CO2 is a good thing. We could reduce this if all the climate nuts would suicide themselves It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. It is not possible to time travel. Omniscience 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
20-08-2022 21:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Roj475 wrote: Swan wrote: CO2 was far higher in the distant past when the Earth was greener, so CO2 is a good thing. We could reduce this if all the climate nuts would suicide themselves America seems to have a unique way to reduce the population compared to other countries of which climate nuts are not the main target group. The population is not being reduced. Hallucination. 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

20-08-2022 21:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Swan wrote: James_ wrote: Roj475 wrote: Swan wrote: CO2 was far higher in the distant past when the Earth was greener, so CO2 is a good thing. We could reduce this if all the climate nuts would suicide themselves America seems to have a unique way to reduce the population compared to other countries of which climate nuts are not the main target group. America is at war with itself. Lincoln was one of the greatest president's that America ever had, and in his greatness he sent America to war with itself, and this was the right decision. Which America? Mexico? Canada? Brazil? Argentina? The USA? The CSA? They are all Americans, dude. Swan wrote: We need another Lincoln to eradicate the commies pretending to be socialist. What's to pretend?????!? Communism is a form of socialism! Swan wrote: It is so bad at this point that America has North Korean immigrants that came here to be free that want to go home so that they can be free of commie liberal shits. https://www.yahoo.com/video/north-korean-defector-says-shes-230644169.html Ah. I see you believe in quoting 'Pravda' as the gospel truth. 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
20-08-2022 21:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	duncan61 wrote: I am pleased to be debating this.The short wave UV light coming from the sun passes through the atmospere. [quote]duncan61 wrote: It is the long wave Infra Red just above visible light that is emitted from the warm surface that excites the carbon molecule. [quote]duncan61 wrote: This fits in with Stefan-Boltzmann law.CO2 is natural and manmade.By burning material the oxygen molecules bond with carbon molecules and CO2 is born.At this point I have no issue with CO2 slowing the flow of energy from the surface making the air slightly warmer than it would with less CO2 however the amount is minimal. Illiteracy: Missing spaces between sentences. Misspelling 'atmosphere'. Capitalization used where not necessary. Misspelling 'infrared'. Math errors: Use of comparison as absolute. Statistical result claimed with no statistical analysis. Science errors: Infrared light is BELOW the frequencies of visible light, not above. CO2 is not carbon. Discard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law applies to ALL substances, land, water, CO2 and any other gas in the atmosphere. It applies to ALL frequencies of light. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Most of the energy from the Sun is infrared. Absorption of visible light does not convert to thermal energy. You cannot slow or trap heat. You cannot slow or trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Discard of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Discard of Planck's laws. Attempt to describe radiant heat as conductive heat. Logic errors: Argument from randU fallacies. Base rate fallacies. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Special pleading fallacies. You have once again returned to the religion you try to deny. You cannot discard or set aside ANY theory of science for any reason at any time. There is no sequence. 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
20-08-2022 21:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I am pleased to be debating this. There is no debate to be had. duncan61 wrote:The short wave UV light coming from the sun passes through the atmospere. Much does. Are you claiming that all of it does? Scenario: A CO2 cloud in a close orbit to the sun, closer than Mercury. You claim that this cloud is approaching absolute zero temperature. Brilliant. duncan61 wrote:It is the long wave Infra Red just above visible light that is emitted from the warm surface that excites the carbon molecule. So you did it. You fell for the "magical wavelengths" gibber-babble. Well, you did it to yourself. Just be aware that as you refer to these magical wavelengths going forward, I will be mocking you. duncan61 wrote:This fits in with Stefan-Boltzmann law. Nope. Your claims that zero solar radiation is absorbed by CO2 is stupid and runs counter to Stefan-Boltzmann. duncan61 wrote: I have no issue with CO2 slowing the flow of energy from the surface making the air slightly warmer than it would with less CO2 however the amount is minimal. How much slower are you claiming this energy is travelling? Assuming that without the CO2, the energy would be travelling right at the speed of light, how much slower than the speed of light are you claiming it therefore travels because of the magical superpower of CO2? . The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light.Your opinion is losing traction. Light always travels at the speed of light. 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
20-08-2022 22:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	...fixing damaged quoting... duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light. Well, you would have us believe that based on your exhaustive physics acumen. How is it again? The earth's thermal radiation, ... which is electromagnetic radiation, ... which is radiating from the earth, ... which would otherwise be traveling at the speed of light, ... is nonetheless slowed by the magical superpowers of CO2? Did I get that right? You had one job, duncan. You were supposed to tell this board roughly how much below the speed of light the electromagnetic radiation radiating from the earth is slowed by CO2. This board needs to know this because everybody knows that the extent to which CO2 reduces the radiance radiating from the earth is the extent to which the earth's temperature increases, per Stefan-Boltzmann's inverse relationship between RADIANCE and TEMPERATURE, right? duncan61 wrote:Your opinion is losing traction. So we're back to science merely being my opinion and that Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to the earth or to any place that is inconvenient. Too funny. For years I have considered you were making it up to suit your personal agenda. He is not making up the Stefan-Boltzmann law of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which you are simply discarding. duncan61 wrote: Your church is called the church of denial. Inversion fallacy (LIF). You are describing yourself. duncan61 wrote: Where do you get this. RQAA. He already answered this question. So have I. So have others. duncan61 wrote: The Stefan Boltzmann law does not prove CO2 does not absorb and radiate in all directions. Absorption and radiance is always in all directions. duncan61 wrote: Your claim heat radiates in 360 is correct and thats what CO2 does.You are grouping all matter as one and all matter radiates differently.The air being warmed by the surface does not go to space at the speed of light. Light always travels at the speed of light. Light has no temperature. Air does not go into space nor travel at the speed of light. duncan61 wrote: You are wrong and you are trying to make the evidence fit. What evidence???????!? Void argument fallacy. Discard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Argument of the Stone fallacy. duncan61 wrote: Have a nice life you twisted individual. Insult fallacy. Illiteracy: Missing spaces between sentences. Missing apostrophe on contraction. Math errors: Unit error. Science errors: Attempt to insert a 'substance' variable into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, resulting in discarding the law. Attempt to discard the Stefan-Boltzmann law by substance or matter state. Attempt to reduce entropy. Discard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Attempt to create energy out of nothing. Discard of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Attempt to assign temperature to light. Logic errors: Redefinition fallacy (science<->religion, light<->air). Special pleading 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
20-08-2022 22:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James_ wrote: duncan61 wrote: The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light.Your opinion is losing traction. There is a funny ha ha in here. There are the Van Allen radiation belts that are quite good at trapping electromagnetic radiation. They would be very good at preventing heat from leaving the Earth's magnetosphere. It is not possible to trap heat. James_ wrote: This suggests that the Earth is insulated and everyone knows that insulation slows heat moving in or out of a structure. It is not possible to slow heat. Insulation reduces heat. James_ wrote: With the tropopause and the mesopause, since they are both very cold they might also slow the speed at which radiant heat (electromagnetic radiation) travels. I'm not sure if any research has been done on this. The speed of light always travels at the speed of light. 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
21-08-2022 00:24
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I am pleased to be debating this. There is no debate to be had. duncan61 wrote:The short wave UV light coming from the sun passes through the atmospere. Much does. Are you claiming that all of it does? Scenario: A CO2 cloud in a close orbit to the sun, closer than Mercury. You claim that this cloud is approaching absolute zero temperature. Brilliant. duncan61 wrote:It is the long wave Infra Red just above visible light that is emitted from the warm surface that excites the carbon molecule. So you did it. You fell for the "magical wavelengths" gibber-babble. Well, you did it to yourself. Just be aware that as you refer to these magical wavelengths going forward, I will be mocking you. duncan61 wrote:This fits in with Stefan-Boltzmann law. Nope. Your claims that zero solar radiation is absorbed by CO2 is stupid and runs counter to Stefan-Boltzmann. duncan61 wrote: I have no issue with CO2 slowing the flow of energy from the surface making the air slightly warmer than it would with less CO2 however the amount is minimal. How much slower are you claiming this energy is travelling? Assuming that without the CO2, the energy would be travelling right at the speed of light, how much slower than the speed of light are you claiming it therefore travels because of the magical superpower of CO2? . The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light.Your opinion is losing traction. Light always travels at the speed of light. The speed of light however is not a constant IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
21-08-2022 03:05
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I am pleased to be debating this. There is no debate to be had. duncan61 wrote:The short wave UV light coming from the sun passes through the atmospere. Much does. Are you claiming that all of it does? Scenario: A CO2 cloud in a close orbit to the sun, closer than Mercury. You claim that this cloud is approaching absolute zero temperature. Brilliant. duncan61 wrote:It is the long wave Infra Red just above visible light that is emitted from the warm surface that excites the carbon molecule. So you did it. You fell for the "magical wavelengths" gibber-babble. Well, you did it to yourself. Just be aware that as you refer to these magical wavelengths going forward, I will be mocking you. duncan61 wrote:This fits in with Stefan-Boltzmann law. Nope. Your claims that zero solar radiation is absorbed by CO2 is stupid and runs counter to Stefan-Boltzmann. duncan61 wrote: I have no issue with CO2 slowing the flow of energy from the surface making the air slightly warmer than it would with less CO2 however the amount is minimal. How much slower are you claiming this energy is travelling? Assuming that without the CO2, the energy would be travelling right at the speed of light, how much slower than the speed of light are you claiming it therefore travels because of the magical superpower of CO2? . The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light.Your opinion is losing traction. Light always travels at the speed of light. The energy from the sun warms the surface. The flow of thermal energy radiates from the surface are you inferring at the speed of light duncan61
21-08-2022 04:38
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Is anyone watching this? https://www.twitch.tv/ninimusic1001 A short video I made; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9L5AKHBjlM Maybe you'll like this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOn7uCux0uc Edited on 21-08-2022 04:50
21-08-2022 07:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	James_ wrote:Is anyone watching this? https://www.twitch.tv/ninimusic1001 That's some pretty good music there. James_ wrote: A short video I made; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9L5AKHBjlM You're going to have to change the date there at the end. It advertises that your Bessler wheel is coming in June of 2022. I believe that time frame has come and gone, but I'd have to check. James_ wrote: Maybe you'll like this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOn7uCux0uc . Attached image:
21-08-2022 17:24
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]duncan61 wrote:The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light. Well, you would have us believe that based on your exhaustive physics acumen. How is it again? The earth's thermal radiation, ... which is electromagnetic radiation, ... which is radiating from the earth, ... which would otherwise be traveling at the speed of light, ... is nonetheless slowed by the magical superpowers of CO2? Did I get that right? You had one job, duncan. You were supposed to tell this board roughly how much below the speed of light the electromagnetic radiation radiating from the earth is slowed by CO2. This board needs to know this because everybody knows that the extent to which CO2 reduces the radiance radiating from the earth is the extent to which the earth's temperature increases, per Stefan-Boltzmann's inverse relationship between RADIANCE and TEMPERATURE, right? duncan61 wrote:Your opinion is losing traction. So we're back to science merely being my opinion and that Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to the earth or to any place that is inconvenient. Too funny. For years I have considered you were making it up to suit your personal agenda.Your church is called the church of denial.Where do you get this.The Stefan Boltzmann law does not prove CO2 does not absorb and radiate in all directions.Your claim heat radiates in 360 is correct and thats what CO2 does.You are grouping all matter as one and all matter radiates differently.The air being warmed by the surface does not go to space at the speed of light.You are wrong and you are trying to make the evidence fit.Have a nice life you twisted individual. I've suspected that Stefan-Boltzmann is an 'Amphibian' argument, which basically means if you can throw something in water, and it survives, its an amphibian... Stefan-Boltzmann comes from philosophy, so was a little skeptical at first, always limitations, and a 'gotcha' involved. When I actually looked it up, and went into it a little. All I needed was the arbitrary, and imaginary, ideal white and black bodies that don't exist. But, they aren't important anyway, we can only concern ourselves with what falls between. Stefan-Boltzmann falls outside of any of my fields of interests/study, so I remain skeptical of it's value. Not used much on any other site. Obviously not the 'Holy Grail' of climate change. I do believe Stefan-Boltzmann does have some uses, in some situations, but fall short, as an 'amphibian'...
21-08-2022 18:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	HarveyH55 wrote:I've suspected that Stefan-Boltzmann is an 'Amphibian' argument, Nope. There are no semantics involved. Your analogy is silly. The amphibian discussion is a product of inherently ambiguous semantics resulting from natural language, e.g English. Science is unambiguous, being specified formally in math. *Radiance = Kelvin^4 Emissivity * SB_Const There's no ambiguity there. Are you saying that there has existed some person in the history of humanity that has found this relationship to be incorrect to any extent in some way? [No, there has not been] HarveyH55 wrote: Stefan-Boltzmann comes from philosophy, Incorrect. Stefan-Boltzmann is a mathematical calculation. In calculus there are these things called "integrals." They, and their inverses, i.e. "derivitives," provide calculations for related rates. Stefan-Boltzmann is really nothing more than the integral of Planck's law over all wavelengths. If you believe that Stefan-Boltzmann was calculated incorrectly, just point out the error in the math and show what the correct answer is. The world will owe you a pizza. HarveyH55 wrote: ... was a little skeptical at first, Well ... be skeptical no more. You are welcome to do the math to your satisfaction. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2cWoI9L_m0k Was this not what you discovered in your "research"? Instead of rushing to Wikipedia, you could've simply asked for additional clarification. It's just math, unless your questions pertain to Planck's law specifically and to the mechanics of Black Body science. HarveyH55 wrote: ...always limitations, and a 'gotcha' involved. Aaaah, you weren't researching Stefan-Boltzmann. You were mistakenly researching Safemoon-Binance. Now I get it. HarveyH55 wrote:When I actually looked it up, and went into it a little. All I needed was the arbitrary, and imaginary, ideal white and black bodies that don't exist. Aaaah, so you don't believe in the concept of " temperature " because of that theoretical/imaginary limit of "absolute zero" which we all know doesn't exist. Have you ever wondered why sometimes you are perspiring and other times you are shivering? HarveyH55 wrote:Stefan-Boltzmann falls outside of any of my fields of interests/study, Don't you pour lead? HarveyH55 wrote:so I remain skeptical of it's value. Have you ever used a space heater? HarveyH55 wrote:** Obviously not the 'Holy Grail' of climate change. ... because Stefan-Boltzmann is the arch-villain of Global Warming. It kills the idea that earth's temperature can somehow increase by decreasing earth's radiance, i.e. the doctrine of greenhouse effect.
22-08-2022 09:22
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Nice try IBDM. The claim is more CO2 makes the air warmer not the surface.Temperature stations are traditionally between the waist and head high and can be in the alps at 3000 feet. I like the term "residence time". Stefan-Boltzmann states all matter absorbs and radiates. Not all matter absorbs and radiates the same.CO2 absorbs and radiates more than other gasses in the atmosphere. Simple stuff it is just not doing a lot at 400ppm.
22-08-2022 11:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	duncan61 wrote:Nice try IBDM. The claim is more CO2 makes the air warmer not the surface. Nice try, duncan, but until you get a better grasp of the English language, I'll determine what claim is being made. duncan61 wrote:Temperature stations are traditionally between the waist and head high That's not "the earth.". That's not "the globe." Learn English. duncan61 wrote: I like the term "residence time". I'm sure you do. You are lightning fast to latch onto any error that is sufficiently absurd. You are similarly lightning fast to discard science and math. The term " residence time" allows you to do both, and to get an instant double-stupid fix. duncan61 wrote:Stefan-Boltzmann states all matter absorbs and radiates. Not all matter absorbs and radiates the same. I covered this. The emission differences between substances is not a license for you to declare that any body of matter can somehow violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Stefan-Boltzmann is an integral over all wavelengths (hence there is no wavelength term) describing a single body of matter, irrespective of substance (hence there is no "Substance" term) The Stefan-Boltzmann law specifies the relationship: *Radiance = Kelvin^4 Emissivity * SB Until you falsify this relationship, you don't get to violate it. You also do not get to pretend that light somehow travels below the speed of light. You also don't get to treat heat as anything other than a power rating, and Radiance as anything other than a power rating over a surface area. duncan61 wrote:.CO2 absorbs and radiates more than other gasses in the atmosphere. Possibly. You don't know that, but in any event, it is not a license for you to draw erroneous conclusions, i.e. you don't get to cite Stefan-Boltzmann as rationale for violating Stefan-Boltzmann. duncan61 wrote:Simple stuff it is just not doing a lot at 400ppm. In fact, not at any** quantity will it ever violate physics to any extent. .
22-08-2022 17:00
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: *Radiance = Kelvin^4 Emissivity * SB_Const** There's no ambiguity there. Are you saying that there has existed some person in the history of humanity that has found this relationship to be incorrect to any extent in some way? It's persons and not person. It is plural and not singular. The Joules-Thomson throttling process shows that some gasses have a negative coefficient when T = 1/β is calculated. And now Thanks to IBwasaMann we know that W = ε σT4 (1/β) might be the correct answer. That is he showed that while the S-B constant considers matter that it does not consider gasses which I realized his mistake. And with the J-T constant, it shows that most ideal gasses when exposed to a vacuum such as what the upper troposphere has plenty of that ideal gasses will radiate less energy. And this in effect along with the tropopause will help to conserve the heat in the troposphere. I really can't believe how much work you guys are putting into proving that the troposphere has a greenhouse affect associated with it. Attached image: Edited on 22-08-2022 17:04
23-08-2022 21:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	duncan61 wrote: Nice try IBDM. The claim is more CO2 makes the air warmer not the surface.Temperature stations are traditionally between the waist and head high and can be in the alps at 3000 feet. I like the term "residence time". Stefan-Boltzmann states all matter absorbs and radiates. Not all matter absorbs and radiates the same.CO2 absorbs and radiates more than other gasses in the atmosphere. Simple stuff it is just not doing a lot at 400ppm. Discard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no 'substance' factor in the equation. All matter absorbs and radiates the same. 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

23-08-2022 21:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James_ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: *Radiance = Kelvin^4 Emissivity * SB_Const There's no ambiguity there. Are you saying that there has existed some person in the history of humanity that has found this relationship to be incorrect to any extent in some way? It's persons and not person. It is plural and not singular. The Joules-Thomson throttling process shows that some gasses have a negative coefficient when T = 1/β is calculated. And now Thanks to IBwasaMann we know that W = ε σT4 (1/β) might be the correct answer. That is he showed that while the S-B constant considers matter that it does not consider gasses which I realized his mistake. And with the J-T constant, it shows that most ideal gasses when exposed to a vacuum such as what the upper troposphere has plenty of that ideal gasses will radiate less energy. And this in effect along with the tropopause will help to conserve the heat in the troposphere. I really can't believe how much work you guys are putting into proving that the troposphere has a greenhouse affect associated with it. Jamesbabble. 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**
24-08-2022 20:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	duncan61 wrote: I am trying to connect this to IR passing through Oxygen and Nitrogen but being absorbed and radiated by CO2.The word bonding keeps getting a mention.The owner of the bathroom is an engineer and is helping me work through it Oxygen, Nitrogen, AND CO2 absorb and emit infrared light. 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
24-08-2022 20:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I am pleased to be debating this. There is no debate to be had. duncan61 wrote:The short wave UV light coming from the sun passes through the atmospere. Much does. Are you claiming that all of it does? Scenario: A CO2 cloud in a close orbit to the sun, closer than Mercury. You claim that this cloud is approaching absolute zero temperature. Brilliant. duncan61 wrote:It is the long wave Infra Red just above visible light that is emitted from the warm surface that excites the carbon molecule. So you did it. You fell for the "magical wavelengths" gibber-babble. Well, you did it to yourself. Just be aware that as you refer to these magical wavelengths going forward, I will be mocking you. duncan61 wrote:This fits in with Stefan-Boltzmann law. Nope. Your claims that zero solar radiation is absorbed by CO2 is stupid and runs counter to Stefan-Boltzmann. duncan61 wrote: I have no issue with CO2 slowing the flow of energy from the surface making the air slightly warmer than it would with less CO2 however the amount is minimal. How much slower are you claiming this energy is travelling? Assuming that without the CO2, the energy would be travelling right at the speed of light, how much slower than the speed of light are you claiming it therefore travels because of the magical superpower of CO2? . The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light.Your opinion is losing traction. Light always travels at the speed of light. The speed of light however is not a constant The speed of light in a vacuum is a 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 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
24-08-2022 20:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I am pleased to be debating this. There is no debate to be had. duncan61 wrote:The short wave UV light coming from the sun passes through the atmospere. Much does. Are you claiming that all of it does? Scenario: A CO2 cloud in a close orbit to the sun, closer than Mercury. You claim that this cloud is approaching absolute zero temperature. Brilliant. duncan61 wrote:It is the long wave Infra Red just above visible light that is emitted from the warm surface that excites the carbon molecule. So you did it. You fell for the "magical wavelengths" gibber-babble. Well, you did it to yourself. Just be aware that as you refer to these magical wavelengths going forward, I will be mocking you. duncan61 wrote:This fits in with Stefan-Boltzmann law. Nope. Your claims that zero solar radiation is absorbed by CO2 is stupid and runs counter to Stefan-Boltzmann. duncan61 wrote: I have no issue with CO2 slowing the flow of energy from the surface making the air slightly warmer than it would with less CO2 however the amount is minimal. How much slower are you claiming this energy is travelling? Assuming that without the CO2, the energy would be travelling right at the speed of light, how much slower than the speed of light are you claiming it therefore travels because of the magical superpower of CO2? . The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light.Your opinion is losing traction. Light always travels at the speed of light. The speed of light however is not a constant. The speed of light through any given material is a 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 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
24-08-2022 20:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	duncan61 wrote: Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I am pleased to be debating this. There is no debate to be had. duncan61 wrote:The short wave UV light coming from the sun passes through the atmospere. Much does. Are you claiming that all of it does? Scenario: A CO2 cloud in a close orbit to the sun, closer than Mercury. You claim that this cloud is approaching absolute zero temperature. Brilliant. duncan61 wrote:It is the long wave Infra Red just above visible light that is emitted from the warm surface that excites the carbon molecule. So you did it. You fell for the "magical wavelengths" gibber-babble. Well, you did it to yourself. Just be aware that as you refer to these magical wavelengths going forward, I will be mocking you. duncan61 wrote:This fits in with Stefan-Boltzmann law. Nope. Your claims that zero solar radiation is absorbed by CO2 is stupid and runs counter to Stefan-Boltzmann. duncan61 wrote: I have no issue with CO2 slowing the flow of energy from the surface making the air slightly warmer than it would with less CO2 however the amount is minimal. How much slower are you claiming this energy is travelling? Assuming that without the CO2, the energy would be travelling right at the speed of light, how much slower than the speed of light are you claiming it therefore travels because of the magical superpower of CO2? . The energy radiating from the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light.Your opinion is losing traction. Light always travels at the speed of light. The energy from the sun warms the surface. The flow of thermal energy radiates from the surface are you inferring at the speed of light It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the surface. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-08-2022 20:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	duncan61 wrote: Nice try IBDM. The claim is more CO2 makes the air warmer not the surface.Temperature stations are traditionally between the waist and head high and can be in the alps at 3000 feet. I like the term "residence time". Stefan-Boltzmann states all matter absorbs and radiates. Not all matter absorbs and radiates the same.CO2 absorbs and radiates more than other gasses in the atmosphere. Simple stuff it is just not doing a lot at 400ppm. Word games. All matter absorbs and radiates the same. 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
25-08-2022 02:51
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: Nice try IBDM. The claim is more CO2 makes the air warmer not the surface.Temperature stations are traditionally between the waist and head high and can be in the alps at 3000 feet. I like the term "residence time". Stefan-Boltzmann states all matter absorbs and radiates. Not all matter absorbs and radiates the same.CO2 absorbs and radiates more than other gasses in the atmosphere. Simple stuff it is just not doing a lot at 400ppm. Word games. All matter absorbs and radiates the same. So when its over 40.C in Perth the road is not hotter than the grass next to it?What about stuff in the shade duncan61
25-08-2022 03:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	duncan61 wrote: Into the Night wrote:Word games. All matter absorbs and radiates the same. So when its over 40.C in Perth the road is not hotter than the grass next to it?What about stuff in the shade Into the Night correctly pointed out that all matter, always, everywhere, absorbs and radiates according to the same Stefan-Boltzmann law. What he didn't mention is that all matter, always, everywhere absorbs and radiates in equivalent adherence to Kirchhoff's law and Wein's law as well. Strangely, you believe that pointing to some temperature differences forms some sort of valid rebuttal. Do you not understand that temperature difference is an entirely different topic?
25-08-2022 09:23
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	This entire climate debate is about temperature. The genesis of the whole discussion is does manmade CO2 warm the Atmosphere.I have completed my temperature measurements and am very surprised. The readings I have from my desktop digital thermometer is 36.7.C on the grass, the bonnet of my car in the sun and the road.Its all the same. In the shade on a brick wall it fell to 24.8. This is the air temperature not a surface reading.The grass feels heaps colder.I might get a surface measurement.
25-08-2022 15:29
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	duncan61 wrote: This entire climate debate is about temperature. The genesis of the whole discussion is does manmade CO2 warm the Atmosphere.I have completed my temperature measurements and am very surprised. The readings I have from my desktop digital thermometer is 36.7.C on the grass, the bonnet of my car in the sun and the road.Its all the same. In the shade on a brick wall it fell to 24.8. This is the air temperature not a surface reading.The grass feels heaps colder.I might get a surface measurement. You've been chasing another 'alligator'. Just like all things you can throw in the water, and survive is an 'amphibian'. All things the sun shines on, conforms to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.. You are over-thinking it. Philosophically, it's an 'amphibian', a joke... Anyway. Don't know if you ever noticed, but the color of the car paint, has some influence on interior temperature. A car with black paint, gets really hot inside. Kind of sucks in Florida, since it's not always a good idea to leave the windows cracked open at work. Never know when a thunderstorm will blow through. Hot interior sucks, but you can open the windows and doors, and a few minutes later it doesn't burn, much. Wet interior isn't so easy. My current car is white, and haven't had the hot interior so much. It does get hotter than the outside temperature, but not burning hot. Part is the greenhouse effect, no convection with outside air. But, white reflects light, black absorbs...

Page 3 of 4

Join the debate General Question in General Forum.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Does the forum have push notifications?	0	07-04-2024 06:37
12V DC motor question	24	18-02-2024 23:24
General motors buys 20 million parts a month from china	0	28-12-2023 19:18
Spam in forum	9	19-11-2023 23:27
Just one simple question	39	25-10-2023 02:31