Remember me
▼ Content

Global cooling in 2030 it's true???



Page 4 of 4<<<234
06-09-2016 01:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Hank wrote:What causes temperature to change?

Hank, that is an excellent question. There are three causes:

1. A change in the volume.

2. A chemical reaction

3. A change in the amount of energy.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-09-2016 01:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Just because a quantity is regarded as constant in one context doesn't mean that it is always constant in any context.

"Emissivity" only has meaning within the context of black/greybody science in which it is a constant.

The term has no meaning as anything beyond a constant.

If you can see how our current science, with emissivity as a constant, is insufficient then this is a perfect opportunity for you to develop it as it should be. I'll help you develop it as long as I get to share the Nobel prize with you.

Let's do it.

What do you think happens to the emissivity of, say, a metal surface as it tarnishes?
06-09-2016 03:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote:What do you think happens to the emissivity of, say, a metal surface as it tarnishes?

"Emissivity" has no meaning outside its defined state of a constant, so if you need to know, say, the difference between two different bodies, e.g. one tarnished and one not then you can run the numbers on both and subtract.

Again, if you believe you discovered a deficiency in the science let's fix it.

...but let's set this point aside for the moment and just address your assertion that CO2 alters earth's emissivity to some substantive extent,.

Let's imagine that emissivity is a variable and that we have a body with a constant energy source and increasing atmospheric "greenhouse gas" (and we'll go with whatever you say that is).

How does emissivity change?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-09-2016 03:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:What do you think happens to the emissivity of, say, a metal surface as it tarnishes?

"Emissivity" has no meaning outside its defined state of a constant, so if you need to know, say, the difference between two different bodies, e.g. one tarnished and one not then you can run the numbers on both and subtract.

Again, if you believe you discovered a deficiency in the science let's fix it.

...but let's set this point aside for the moment and just address your assertion that CO2 alters earth's emissivity to some substantive extent,.

Let's imagine that emissivity is a variable and that we have a body with a constant energy source and increasing atmospheric "greenhouse gas" (and we'll go with whatever you say that is).

How does emissivity change?

No, we're taking about one metal surface. It tarnishes. What happens to its emissivity as time passes?

Edit: You wouldn't be EVADING the question, would you?

Edited on 06-09-2016 03:49
06-09-2016 03:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:What do you think happens to the emissivity of, say, a metal surface as it tarnishes?

"Emissivity" has no meaning outside its defined state of a constant, so if you need to know, say, the difference between two different bodies, e.g. one tarnished and one not then you can run the numbers on both and subtract.

Again, if you believe you discovered a deficiency in the science let's fix it.

...but let's set this point aside for the moment and just address your assertion that CO2 alters earth's emissivity to some substantive extent,.

Let's imagine that emissivity is a variable and that we have a body with a constant energy source and increasing atmospheric "greenhouse gas" (and we'll go with whatever you say that is).

How does emissivity change?

No, we're taking about one metal surface. It tarnishes. What happens to its emissivity as time passes?

Edit: You wouldn't be EVADING the question, would you?


Were you planning on reading my post at some point?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-09-2016 04:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:What do you think happens to the emissivity of, say, a metal surface as it tarnishes?

"Emissivity" has no meaning outside its defined state of a constant, so if you need to know, say, the difference between two different bodies, e.g. one tarnished and one not then you can run the numbers on both and subtract.

Again, if you believe you discovered a deficiency in the science let's fix it.

...but let's set this point aside for the moment and just address your assertion that CO2 alters earth's emissivity to some substantive extent,.

Let's imagine that emissivity is a variable and that we have a body with a constant energy source and increasing atmospheric "greenhouse gas" (and we'll go with whatever you say that is).

How does emissivity change?

No, we're taking about one metal surface. It tarnishes. What happens to its emissivity as time passes?

Edit: You wouldn't be EVADING the question, would you?


Were you planning on reading my post at some point?

Before we go on, we need you to understand that emissivity can be a variable under certain circumstances. So, imagine a metal surface. It tarnishes. What happens to its emissivity as time passes?
06-09-2016 05:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote:Before we go on, we need you to understand that emissivity can be a variable under certain circumstances.

Really? We can't go on unless I agree that a constant can be treated as a variable?

It's somehow not good enough that I offered, for argument's sake, to agree to consider emissivity as a variable so you can explain how "greenhouse gas" substantially alters emissivity?

If your answer is that we cannot possibly go forward unless I grant your absurd demand that constants be treated as a variables then I guess we're done.

If your answer is that you can accept my offer and that we can discuss "greenhouse gas" and emissivity then great, but please read my posts. There's no point in my writing them if you aren't going to read them.


So, imagine a body with a constant energy source and increasing atmospheric levels of "greenhouse gas." . How does emissivity change in any substantive way? [/quote]


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-02-2017 21:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
And isn't the Stefan-Boltzmann law to do with temperature not magnetism?

Explain please in detail how you know that the Suns magnetic field is changing and cite sources, also tell us how you know those sources are not manufacturing data,

Thanks,


I haven't see any science papers. And at the moment I don't have any time for it since I'm getting several job offers that are interesting. The information in the Daily Mail very well could be generally accurate.

Modeling the Sun's magnetic field can predict sun-spot cycles and this is the source of changes in the Sun's energy output.
21-02-2017 23:11
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:... sun-spot cycles and this is the source of changes in the Sun's energy output.

Tho sun-spots can effect solar energy luminosity, the Sun's energy output is determined by nuclear reactions near the core of the sun, thousands(?) of years before the energy gets to the solar photosphere.
22-02-2017 08:01
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"effect" should be "affect".
22-02-2017 19:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Just because a quantity is regarded as constant in one context doesn't mean that it is always constant in any context.

"Emissivity" only has meaning within the context of black/greybody science in which it is a constant.

The term has no meaning as anything beyond a constant.

If you can see how our current science, with emissivity as a constant, is insufficient then this is a perfect opportunity for you to develop it as it should be. I'll help you develop it as long as I get to share the Nobel prize with you.

Let's do it.

What do you think happens to the emissivity of, say, a metal surface as it tarnishes?


Through the first law of thermodynamics it remains the same.
22-02-2017 19:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Only - The problem with the CO2 theory is that it acts as if CO2 is the only constituent of the atmosphere and as we know it only comprises some 400 ppm.

So while doubling CO2 doesn't have any appreciable effect because all it does is shorten the distance in which energy radiated from CO2 is absorbed by another CO2 molecule whereas MOST of the atmosphere is made up of other gases that absorb the energy in the CO2 molecules simply from conduction and not from radiation.

Will the smoke from a single candle be detectable in a room with air conditioning?
22-02-2017 23:29
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: The problem with the CO2 theory is that it acts as if CO2 is the only constituent of the atmosphere...

Nah.... It is ONLY old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners who pretend AGW theory only deals with CO2.
24-02-2017 06:26
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
micole66 wrote: It's true that in 2030 it's coming a little ice age?

Meanwhile:
For 386+ STRAIGHT months, global Earth temperatures have been above the 20th century average. This has occurred DESPITE the solar TSI energy output being languid for decades, & below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year period of low solar TSI energy setting a 100 year low). When the sun returns to normal (& it will because it has INCREASED very slowly for 5 billion years), AGW effects will increase strongly. In late 2016, the Present High Arctic Berserker, or PHAB, or FAB ( over- temperatures on nearly 4 million square kilometers of the High Arctic), jumped to 20degC over-temperature. MIND YOU!! This is NOT a local city temperature over say a 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer square. It is over a square almost 2000 kilometers by 2000 kilometers. Within the last 2 years in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, our Earth's North Pole heated above the freezing point of water for short times, on three occasions. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the to date Arctic sea ice average year for the 1980's. The energy to melt such a cube of ice (almost 22 kilometers by 22 kilometers by 65000 feet high) is about 33 times the annual energy used by the United States of America. Lesser ice losses are occurring in the Antarctic (but increasing).
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Global cooling in 2030 it's true???:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why420-06-2019 06:30
It's not true leftists are climate advocates201-05-2019 00:24
IPCC sucks. They have no answer for natural climatic cooling other than painting houses black to decrease019-04-2019 16:32
The dangerous cooling trend in mainland America. How will it impact?125-03-2019 19:38
Does increase in Arctic sea ice indicate global cooling trend?025-03-2019 17:27
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact