Remember me
▼ Content

Global cooling in 2030 it's true???



Page 3 of 4<1234>
04-09-2016 02:07
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Emissivity is a constant based on...what, exactly?

Every source I see says it's a variable. Why, exactly, are you right and all of them wrong?
04-09-2016 02:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Leafsdude wrote:Emissivity is a constant based on...what, exactly?

Emissivity is defined as a constant.

Emissivity is a constant per its definition ... in science.

Leafsdude wrote:Every source I see says it's a variable.

You refuse to get your information from any science sites. You stick exclusively to warmizombie sites that manipulate you, presumably because you like to be manipulated.

Leafsdude wrote:Why, exactly, are you right and all of them wrong?

I just go by what science says and I don't let warmizombie f**ks manipulate me.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 02:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
DRKTS wrote: The burden of proof is on the both sides of any scientific argument.

Nope. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative assertion.

If the party of the affirmative assertion wishes to bow out and leave the assertion unsupported then that is always an option. No one is somehow required to prove something false.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 03:04
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Hank wrote:Great explanation. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered.

IBdaMann wrote:
AWESOME! I must put this in my signature.


WOW I've only been here a short time and I've already made IBdaMann's world-famous signature. I feel honored.

IBdaMann wrote:
Hank, why don't you go win the Nobel prize in physics with your discovery?


Hey don't you remember I was the one that said I wasn't smart enough to understand everything. You are the one that think you can tell everyone how smart you are. But wait...weren't you the one that was telling me how the Stefan-Boltzman would show how wrong I am. What happened to that? What numbers do you plug into the equation to come up with the temperature of the earth? I'm waiting with baited breath because I've never seen you post anything except statements about how smart you are and how stupid everyone else is.
04-09-2016 03:15
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:Please then explain how we are not living on a dead ice bound planet.

IBdaMann wrote:
Why do you think any explanation is needed?

There is no such thing as any "greenhouse effect."

Everything is as it is.

What needs to be explained?


Now this is as much proof that IBdaMann doen't know a thing about science as anyone ever needs. It absolutely shows when he's cornered with a question he can't answer he reverts to no answer is needed. And that's the opposite of science as science trys to answer questions about how the material world works.
04-09-2016 03:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:Please then explain how we are not living on a dead ice bound planet.

IBdaMann wrote:
Why do you think any explanation is needed?

There is no such thing as any "greenhouse effect."

Everything is as it is.

What needs to be explained?


Now this is as much proof that IBdaMann doen't know a thing about science as anyone ever needs. It absolutely shows when he's cornered with a question he can't answer he reverts to no answer is needed. And that's the opposite of science as science trys to answer questions about how the material world works.


Great rant.

Now, what needs to be explained?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 03:41
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]DRKTS wrote:Please then explain how we are not living on a dead ice bound planet.

IBdaMann wrote:
Why do you think any explanation is needed?

There is no such thing as any "greenhouse effect."

Everything is as it is.

What needs to be explained?


Now this is as much proof that IBdaMann doen't know a thing about science as anyone ever needs. It absolutely shows when he's cornered with a question he can't answer he reverts to no answer is needed. And that's the opposite of science as science trys to answer questions about how the material world works.


Great rant.

Now, what needs to be explained?


.


Exactly what DRKTS asked. Why is the temperature of the earth 30 degrees warmer than the temperature of the moon when they are the same distance from the sun.
04-09-2016 03:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Hank wrote:Hey don't you remember I was the one that said I wasn't smart enough to understand everything.

I'll take you on your word.

Hank wrote: But wait...weren't you the one that was telling me how the Stefan-Boltzman would show how wrong I am.

Would you like it to?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 03:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Hank wrote:Hey don't you remember I was the one that said I wasn't smart enough to understand everything.

I'll take you on your word.

Hank wrote: But wait...weren't you the one that was telling me how the Stefan-Boltzman would show how wrong I am.

Would you like it to?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 03:49
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank wrote:Hey don't you remember I was the one that said I wasn't smart enough to understand everything.

I'll take you on your word.

Hank wrote: But wait...weren't you the one that was telling me how the Stefan-Boltzman would show how wrong I am.

Would you like it to?


.


I've been waiting on you to show me but right after you explain to all of us the answer to DRKTS question. Why is the temperature of the earth 30 degrees warmer than the temperature of the moon when they are the same distance from the sun.
04-09-2016 04:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Hank wrote:Why is the temperature of the earth 30 degrees warmer than the temperature of the moon when they are the same distance from the sun.


Both bodies (earth and moon) have the same average temperature as far as anyone can tell.

Now let's get to Stefan-Boltzmann showing you that you are in error. We probably won't even need any numbers. But first we need for you to make an erroneous statement for Stefan-Boltzmann to flag, so ...

In your own words, explain how "greenhouse effect" increases earth's temperature.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 04:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Triple post


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 04-09-2016 04:53
04-09-2016 08:40
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Emissivity is defined as a constant.

Emissivity is a constant per its definition ... in science.


Where? By whom?

You refuse to get your information from any science sites.


What makes a site a "science" site?

You stick exclusively to warmizombie sites that manipulate you, presumably because you like to be manipulated.


Based on what?

And saying because I "believe" that emissivity is a variable would be circular reasoning.

I just go by what science says and I don't let warmizombie f**ks manipulate me.


You sound like a conspiracy nut.
04-09-2016 15:43
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Hank wrote:Why is the temperature of the earth 30 degrees warmer than the temperature of the moon when they are the same distance from the sun.

IBdaMann wrote:
Both bodies (earth and moon) have the same average temperature as far as anyone can tell.


Let's assume you are right and that the average temperature of the moon is the same as the average temperature of the earth. Why then does the moon have temperature extremes of +-130 degrees and the earth is nowhere close to that?

IBdaMann wrote:
Now let's get to Stefan-Boltzmann showing you that you are in error. We probably won't even need any numbers. But first we need for you to make an erroneous statement for Stefan-Boltzmann to flag, so ...

In your own words, explain how "greenhouse effect" increases earth's temperature.

No I'm not smart enough to answer that question. You just tell me why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows my error.
04-09-2016 18:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Hank wrote:Let's assume you are right and that the average temperature of the moon is the same as the average temperature of the earth.

...as far as anyone can tell. What I am correct about is our (in)ability to establish an average temperature to any useful accuracy.


Hank wrote:Why then does the moon have temperature extremes of +-130 degrees and the earth is nowhere close to that?

Both the earth and the moon have identical temperature extremes at the tops of their atmospheres.

The earth and moon have very different atmospheres so they have different temperature profiles at bottoms of their respective atmospheres.

Hank wrote:No I'm not smart enough to answer that question.

Coward. Why the abject FEAR of simply expressing your current understanding?

ANSWER: Because you can't bear to have Stefan-Boltzmann destroy your WACKY religion.

Consider that already done by default.

At least you inadvertently acknowledge that it is a religion with you, that your "greenhouse effect " beliefs are NOT based on any science you have reviewed and understand but are based entirely on blind faith that you hold very dear.


Hank wrote:You just tell me why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows my error.

It already has.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 18:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Leafsdude wrote:You sound like a conspiracy nut.

To Christians I say "You go right on ahead believing that Jesus is your lord and savior. More power to you."

To you I say "You go right on ahead believing emissivity is a variable. More power to you."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 18:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:You sound like a conspiracy nut.

To Christians I say "You go right on ahead believing that Jesus is your lord and savior. More power to you."

To you I say "You go right on ahead believing emissivity is a variable. More power to you."

If you're describing a situation in which emissivity varies, then emissivity is a variable. If you change the emissivity of a rock by painting it with high-emissivity paint or change the emissivity of a planet by altering the constituents of its atmosphere, then emissivity is a variable in the equations that describe that process.

Perhaps you're getting confused with fundamental constants, such as the speed of light in a vacuum or the charge on an electron? These are indeed always constant.
04-09-2016 18:49
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Hank wrote:Why then does the moon have temperature extremes of +-130 degrees and the earth is nowhere close to that?

IBdaMann wrote:
Both the earth and the moon have identical temperature extremes at the tops of their atmospheres.

The earth and moon have very different atmospheres so they have different temperature profiles at bottoms of their respective atmospheres.


WOW. So the difference in the temperature extremes at the surface of the earth and the moon is because of the difference in the atmospheres? Thanks for confirming what DRKTS said at the very beginning, that the atmosphere of the earth insulates the earth since the moon has relatively zero atmosphere. That insulation is called greenhouse gases. And I give you a lot of credit for being able to admit you were wrong.

Hank wrote:You just tell me why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows my error.

IBdaMann wrote:
It already has.


I'll take that as you don't know how since you can't present the reason.
04-09-2016 18:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:If you're describing a situation in which emissivity varies, then emissivity is a variable.

If you are using Newton's model of gravity then you have to treat the constant of gravity as a constant. You don't get to treat it as a variable. The moment you try to treat the constant of gravity as a variable then it is "Game over. Full stop."

If you are using the black/grey/whitebody model then you have to treat the emissivity constant and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant as constants. You don't get to treat them as variables. The moment you try to treat the constants as variables then it is "Game over. Full stop."

I hope that helps.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 19:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Hank wrote:WOW. So the difference in the temperature extremes at the surface of the earth and the moon is because of the difference in the atmospheres?

Yes, the bottom of any atmosphere is dependent on the entirety of the atmosphere itself.

Hank wrote:Thanks for confirming what DRKTS said at the very beginning, that the atmosphere of the earth insulates the earth since the moon has relatively zero atmosphere.

In which post did he state this and in which post did I disagree with it beyond the use of the word "insulates"?

Hank wrote:That insulation is called greenhouse gases.

When did an "atmosphere" equate to religious, supernatural substances?

.and you don't need to double down on intellectual cowardice. You already won that hand.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 19:22
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
In which post did he state this and in which post did I disagree with it beyond the use of the word "insulates"?


So you admit that earth's atmosphere insulates it from the temperature of space.

IBdaMann wrote:
When did an "atmosphere" equate to religious, supernatural substances?

.and you don't need to double down on intellectual cowardice. You already won that hand.


So still no response to why it shows I'm wrong. Didn't expect it anyway. I've never seen you post anything that was scientific evidence and don't expect you every will.
04-09-2016 20:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Hank wrote:Why then does the moon have temperature extremes of +-130 degrees and the earth is nowhere close to that?

IBdaMann wrote:
Both the earth and the moon have identical temperature extremes at the tops of their atmospheres.

The earth and moon have very different atmospheres so they have different temperature profiles at bottoms of their respective atmospheres.


WOW. So the difference in the temperature extremes at the surface of the earth and the moon is because of the difference in the atmospheres? Thanks for confirming what DRKTS said at the very beginning, that the atmosphere of the earth insulates the earth since the moon has relatively zero atmosphere. That insulation is called greenhouse gases. And I give you a lot of credit for being able to admit you were wrong.

Hank wrote:You just tell me why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows my error.

IBdaMann wrote:
It already has.


I'll take that as you don't know how since you can't present the reason.


The atmosphere does not act as insulation to do this. It acts as a mass. Like any mass, it can absorb energy from radiation (that radiation does not necessarily come from the surface).
Since that mass is in contact with the much denser mass we call the surface, it can also be heated by that contact and by convection.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2016 22:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Hank wrote:
So you admit that earth's atmosphere insulates it from the temperature of space.

No, it does not. The term "insulation" does not apply and is inappropriate. I was asking where I disagreed beyond the use of the word "insulation."


Hank wrote: So still no response to why it shows I'm wrong.

Stefan-Boltzmann can't show you how you're wrong if you won't face it.

Once you muster the courage and intellectual fortitude to simply post your understanding of how "greenhouse effect" increases earth's temperature then Stefan-Boltzmann can show you how you're wrong. While you remain an EVASIVE coward, you have no one to blame but yourself for not facing Stefan-Boltzmann.

Hank wrote:Didn't expect it anyway.

By design. You still need time to muster the required courage to be honest with yourself


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-09-2016 23:39
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Into the Night wrote:
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Hank wrote:Why then does the moon have temperature extremes of +-130 degrees and the earth is nowhere close to that?

IBdaMann wrote:
Both the earth and the moon have identical temperature extremes at the tops of their atmospheres.

The earth and moon have very different atmospheres so they have different temperature profiles at bottoms of their respective atmospheres.


WOW. So the difference in the temperature extremes at the surface of the earth and the moon is because of the difference in the atmospheres? Thanks for confirming what DRKTS said at the very beginning, that the atmosphere of the earth insulates the earth since the moon has relatively zero atmosphere. That insulation is called greenhouse gases. And I give you a lot of credit for being able to admit you were wrong.

Hank wrote:You just tell me why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows my error.

IBdaMann wrote:
It already has.


I'll take that as you don't know how since you can't present the reason.


The atmosphere does not act as insulation to do this. It acts as a mass. Like any mass, it can absorb energy from radiation (that radiation does not necessarily come from the surface).
Since that mass is in contact with the much denser mass we call the surface, it can also be heated by that contact and by convection.


So at night does the flow reverse?
05-09-2016 00:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:If you're describing a situation in which emissivity varies, then emissivity is a variable.

If you are using Newton's model of gravity then you have to treat the constant of gravity as a constant. You don't get to treat it as a variable. The moment you try to treat the constant of gravity as a variable then it is "Game over. Full stop."

If you are using the black/grey/whitebody model then you have to treat the emissivity constant and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant as constants. You don't get to treat them as variables. The moment you try to treat the constants as variables then it is "Game over. Full stop."

I hope that helps.

Not really. The gravitational constant, G, is a fundamental constant of nature. Emissivity isn't. It depends on the nature of the surface of the body in question. If the nature of that surface changes, the emissivity changes.
05-09-2016 00:08
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Hank wrote: So still no response to why it shows I'm wrong.

IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann can't show you how you're wrong if you won't face it.

Once you muster the courage and intellectual fortitude to simply post your understanding of how "greenhouse effect" increases earth's temperature then Stefan-Boltzmann can show you how you're wrong. While you remain an EVASIVE coward, you have no one to blame but yourself for not facing Stefan-Boltzmann.


On 9/2 IBdaMann wrote:
So, when Stefan-Boltzman destroys your "greenhouse effect" beliefs, are you going to pout that you no longer accept it?


On 9/4 IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative assertion.

If the party of the affirmative assertion wishes to bow out and leave the assertion unsupported then that is always an option. No one is somehow required to prove something false.


I'll take you at your word. You made the affirmative assertion and as you said the burden of proof rests with the affirmative assertion. You need to show how the Stefan-Boltzman destroys my "greenhouse effect". Stating something you can't back up makes you a liar.
05-09-2016 03:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Hank wrote:I'll take you at your word.

Fair enough.

Hank wrote:You need to show how the Stefan-Boltzman destroys my "greenhouse effect".

What is your current "greenhouse effect"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-09-2016 04:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:Not really. The gravitational constant, G, is a fundamental constant of nature. Emissivity isn't.

Gravitational constant, emissivity, pi, Planck's constant, Euler's constant and the number 63.2 are all constants and are all different.

I don't see how you can argue that any of them can be variables because they are different.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-09-2016 04:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Hank wrote:So at night does the flow reverse?

Yes, things cool at night, for the most part.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-09-2016 11:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Not really. The gravitational constant, G, is a fundamental constant of nature. Emissivity isn't.

Gravitational constant, emissivity, pi, Planck's constant, Euler's constant and the number 63.2 are all constants and are all different.

I don't see how you can argue that any of them can be variables because they are different.

Gravitational constant, G = 6.67408 × 10^-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2
Pi = 3.14159265359...
Planck's constant, h = 6.62607004 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s
Euler's constant, e = 1.569034853...
63.2 = 63.2

Emissivity? Depends, doesn't it.
Edited on 05-09-2016 11:26
05-09-2016 14:05
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Hank wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Hank wrote:Why then does the moon have temperature extremes of +-130 degrees and the earth is nowhere close to that?

IBdaMann wrote:
Both the earth and the moon have identical temperature extremes at the tops of their atmospheres.

The earth and moon have very different atmospheres so they have different temperature profiles at bottoms of their respective atmospheres.


WOW. So the difference in the temperature extremes at the surface of the earth and the moon is because of the difference in the atmospheres? Thanks for confirming what DRKTS said at the very beginning, that the atmosphere of the earth insulates the earth since the moon has relatively zero atmosphere. That insulation is called greenhouse gases. And I give you a lot of credit for being able to admit you were wrong.

Hank wrote:You just tell me why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows my error.

IBdaMann wrote:
It already has.


I'll take that as you don't know how since you can't present the reason.


The atmosphere does not act as insulation to do this. It acts as a mass. Like any mass, it can absorb energy from radiation (that radiation does not necessarily come from the surface).
Since that mass is in contact with the much denser mass we call the surface, it can also be heated by that contact and by convection.


So at night does the flow reverse?


So does this absorption rate and convection rate change if the composition of the mass changes?
05-09-2016 15:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:Gravitational constant, G = 6.67408 × 10^-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2
Pi = 3.14159265359...
Planck's constant, h = 6.62607004 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s
Euler's constant, e = 1.569034853...
63.2 = 63.2

Emissivity? Depends, doesn't it.


We need to back up. Apparently you need to review what a constant is and what a variable is.

A constant is a value that does not change. A variable varies.

Blood type is a constant. Sure, WHICH blood type depends on the person in question but YOUR blood type never varies.

Emissivity is a constant value of a body whose value depends on which body you are discussing.

A number is a constant value but its value, e.g. 63.2, depends on the particular number in question.

Quiz: F (x) = Ax^2 + Bx + C

What are A, B and C, constants or variables? (Hint: their values depend on other things)


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-09-2016 15:21
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Gravitational constant, G = 6.67408 × 10^-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2
Pi = 3.14159265359...
Planck's constant, h = 6.62607004 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s
Euler's constant, e = 1.569034853...
63.2 = 63.2

Emissivity? Depends, doesn't it.


We need to back up. Apparently you need to review what a constant is and what a variable is.

A constant is a value that does not change. A variable varies.

Blood type is a constant. Sure, WHICH blood type depends on the person in question but YOUR blood type never varies.

Emissivity is a constant value of a body whose value depends on which body you are discussing.

A number is a constant value but its value, e.g. 63.2, depends on the particular number in question.

Quiz: F (x) = Ax^2 + Bx + C

What are A, B and C, constants or variables? (Hint: their values depend on other things)


.


Blood type is a variable because it does DEPEND on the person. The key word is DEPENDS. A lot of things are constant within certain parameters but are variable outside those parameters. Pi doesn't depend on any parameters, it's constant.
05-09-2016 15:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Hank wrote:So does this absorption rate and convection rate change if the composition of the mass changes?

Why ask irrelevant questions about absorption and convection in order to EVADE the topic?

Does the body's average temperature change if the composition of the mass changes?

What does Stefan-Boltzmann say? Let Stefan-Boltzmann show you how you are an indoctrinated warmizombie dupe. Just rip that Band-aid off and get it over with.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-09-2016 18:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Gravitational constant, G = 6.67408 × 10^-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2
Pi = 3.14159265359...
Planck's constant, h = 6.62607004 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s
Euler's constant, e = 1.569034853...
63.2 = 63.2

Emissivity? Depends, doesn't it.


We need to back up. Apparently you need to review what a constant is and what a variable is.

A constant is a value that does not change. A variable varies.

Blood type is a constant. Sure, WHICH blood type depends on the person in question but YOUR blood type never varies.

Emissivity is a constant value of a body whose value depends on which body you are discussing.

A number is a constant value but its value, e.g. 63.2, depends on the particular number in question.

Quiz: F (x) = Ax^2 + Bx + C

What are A, B and C, constants or variables? (Hint: their values depend on other things)

In the context of this equation, A, B and C are constants. That's what the F(x) means - that F is a function of x. The equation represents the dependency of F on x, assuming that A, B and C are constants.

Just because a quantity is regarded as constant in one context doesn't mean that it is always constant in any context. Take, for example, the mass of the sun, Msun. This is assumed to be a constant when calculating spacecraft trajectories and the like. However, that doesn't mean that Msun is always a constant. In fact, the sun is losing about 4 million tons per second as a result of nuclear reactions. While this amount is insignificant for spacecraft trajectories, it is highly significant when calculating the radiation output of the sun, and so Msun must be treated as variable for such calculations. So sometimes Msun is taken as constant, and sometimes not.

Likewise, emissivity is taken to be a constant when calculating the radiation emitted from unchanging surfaces of varying temperature. When the nature of the surface in question is changing, though, then emissivity must be treated as a variable. Here, for example, emissivity must be treated as a variable:

Variable Emissivity Surfaces for Micro and Nano-satellites

The only exceptions to this are the fundamental constants, such as G, pi, etc.
05-09-2016 19:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-09-2016 23:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Hank wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Hank wrote:Why then does the moon have temperature extremes of +-130 degrees and the earth is nowhere close to that?

IBdaMann wrote:
Both the earth and the moon have identical temperature extremes at the tops of their atmospheres.

The earth and moon have very different atmospheres so they have different temperature profiles at bottoms of their respective atmospheres.


WOW. So the difference in the temperature extremes at the surface of the earth and the moon is because of the difference in the atmospheres? Thanks for confirming what DRKTS said at the very beginning, that the atmosphere of the earth insulates the earth since the moon has relatively zero atmosphere. That insulation is called greenhouse gases. And I give you a lot of credit for being able to admit you were wrong.

Hank wrote:You just tell me why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows my error.

IBdaMann wrote:
It already has.


I'll take that as you don't know how since you can't present the reason.


The atmosphere does not act as insulation to do this. It acts as a mass. Like any mass, it can absorb energy from radiation (that radiation does not necessarily come from the surface).
Since that mass is in contact with the much denser mass we call the surface, it can also be heated by that contact and by convection.


So at night does the flow reverse?


Not quite. At night the surface is kept warmer. The air and the Earth is still losing energy to space as well. The night cools, but at the surface it doesn't cool as much as the Moon.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-09-2016 23:35
05-09-2016 23:36
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Into the Night wrote:
Hank wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Hank wrote:Why then does the moon have temperature extremes of +-130 degrees and the earth is nowhere close to that?

IBdaMann wrote:
Both the earth and the moon have identical temperature extremes at the tops of their atmospheres.

The earth and moon have very different atmospheres so they have different temperature profiles at bottoms of their respective atmospheres.


WOW. So the difference in the temperature extremes at the surface of the earth and the moon is because of the difference in the atmospheres? Thanks for confirming what DRKTS said at the very beginning, that the atmosphere of the earth insulates the earth since the moon has relatively zero atmosphere. That insulation is called greenhouse gases. And I give you a lot of credit for being able to admit you were wrong.

Hank wrote:You just tell me why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows my error.

IBdaMann wrote:
It already has.


I'll take that as you don't know how since you can't present the reason.


The atmosphere does not act as insulation to do this. It acts as a mass. Like any mass, it can absorb energy from radiation (that radiation does not necessarily come from the surface).
Since that mass is in contact with the much denser mass we call the surface, it can also be heated by that contact and by convection.


So at night does the flow reverse?


Not quite. At night the surface is kept warmer. The air and the Earth is still losing energy to space as well. The night cools, but at the surface it doesn't cool as much as the Moon.


Does this absorption rate and convection rate change if the composition of the mass changes?
05-09-2016 23:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Hank wrote:
Hank wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Hank wrote:Why then does the moon have temperature extremes of +-130 degrees and the earth is nowhere close to that?

IBdaMann wrote:
Both the earth and the moon have identical temperature extremes at the tops of their atmospheres.

The earth and moon have very different atmospheres so they have different temperature profiles at bottoms of their respective atmospheres.


WOW. So the difference in the temperature extremes at the surface of the earth and the moon is because of the difference in the atmospheres? Thanks for confirming what DRKTS said at the very beginning, that the atmosphere of the earth insulates the earth since the moon has relatively zero atmosphere. That insulation is called greenhouse gases. And I give you a lot of credit for being able to admit you were wrong.

Hank wrote:You just tell me why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows my error.

IBdaMann wrote:
It already has.


I'll take that as you don't know how since you can't present the reason.


The atmosphere does not act as insulation to do this. It acts as a mass. Like any mass, it can absorb energy from radiation (that radiation does not necessarily come from the surface).
Since that mass is in contact with the much denser mass we call the surface, it can also be heated by that contact and by convection.


So at night does the flow reverse?


So does this absorption rate and convection rate change if the composition of the mass changes?


Convection doesn't change due to composition at all. Convection depends only on the difference of temperature and the state of matter the convection is occurring in.

There being no sun to absorb anything from at night, it is not a factor.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2016 00:41
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Into the Night wrote:
Hank wrote:
Hank wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Hank wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


[quote]Hank wrote:Why then does the moon have temperature extremes of +-130 degrees and the earth is nowhere close to that?

IBdaMann wrote:
Both the earth and the moon have identical temperature extremes at the tops of their atmospheres.

The earth and moon have very different atmospheres so they have different temperature profiles at bottoms of their respective atmospheres.


WOW. So the difference in the temperature extremes at the surface of the earth and the moon is because of the difference in the atmospheres? Thanks for confirming what DRKTS said at the very beginning, that the atmosphere of the earth insulates the earth since the moon has relatively zero atmosphere. That insulation is called greenhouse gases. And I give you a lot of credit for being able to admit you were wrong.

Hank wrote:You just tell me why the Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows my error.

IBdaMann wrote:
It already has.


I'll take that as you don't know how since you can't present the reason.


The atmosphere does not act as insulation to do this. It acts as a mass. Like any mass, it can absorb energy from radiation (that radiation does not necessarily come from the surface).
Since that mass is in contact with the much denser mass we call the surface, it can also be heated by that contact and by convection.


So at night does the flow reverse?


So does this absorption rate and convection rate change if the composition of the mass changes?


Convection doesn't change due to composition at all. Convection depends only on the difference of temperature and the state of matter the convection is occurring in.

There being no sun to absorb anything from at night, it is not a factor.


What causes temperature to change?
Page 3 of 4<1234>





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