Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 3 of 9<12345>>>
06-08-2020 14:58
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
tmiddles wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:...all those frequencies of UV that can be absorbed by atmospheric gases are absorbed before they reach the Troposphere. The Troposphere ...is heated entirely by conduction from the surface because it is transparent to all UV reaching it.
That seems to describe the entire radiance from the Sun as being UV. Here:

it shows, in yellow, the atmospheric absorption and plenty of it is in the infrared. The divots left by H2O and CO2 absorption are visible. So this is absorption, in the Troposphere of inbound Solar radiance is it not?
If so then I would think "heated entirely by conduction from the surface" is not the case.

Pete Rogers. Thanks for that, it is new to me. There is something odd though. I think it is fair to say that everyone; including the proponents of a potent GE: accept that only a small % of IR is intercepted by GG's and that with this exception all the gases in the Atmoshere are transparent to all but these few frequencies. As far as the IR radiating from the surface is concerned all that is capable of absorption is absorbed close to the ground, incidentally. Here is some evidence for this.

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

Pete Rogers. The problem with your diagram for me is that it seems to depend upon and argue for wholesale absorption of IR coming in. I'm going to ask you what you think of this inconsistency if you wouldn't mind because the science behind this diagram seems to conflict with everything so far put forward by both sides of the debate. Here is the relevant science I have been using so far.

https://whyclimatechanges.com/HeatingAir.pdf

Surely it must be the case that only insofar as the IR coming in is of a frequency that can be absorbed will it be absorbed, and that should be limited to the same frquencies we know about that get absorbed going out; a tiny part of the spectrum only in other words: and the absorption of that incoming should take place in the upper atmosphere if Clive Best is scientifically correct about the outgoing.

To put it another way - if mass absorption of IR takes place on the way in, then mass absorption of IR would have to occur on the way out wouldn't you agree, whereas all detection, including from Satellites shows this not to be the case. Please let me know what you think.

Pete Rogers wrote:...the Atmosphere is bounded by vacuum,...is therefore adiabatic
Radiant heat is emitted into space. All of the planets reach thermal equilibrium with the sun by losing energy to space by radiance. On Venus this excludes the surface as an emitter to space and on Earth only a fraction of the ground/water level's radiance makes it directly to space. So the gas atmosphere radiates out into space. I don't see how it's different than the gas cylinder. Also you seemed to describe the pressurized gas cylinder as having energy it needed to lose. It didn't. It was at room temperature already, or maybe even colder. If dry ice is in a sealed tube and warms to room temperature the pressure goes way up but not the temperature.

Pete Rogers. My understanding is that every Planet - including Venus and Earth radiates pretty much all the IR produced by the planet out to space from the planetary surface because - with that small GG exception the Atmosphere is transparent to IR. If you think there is more than this to consider please clarify.

Pete Rogers wrote:...only the Sun and Gravity...are the sources [of energy]
I'm sort of thinking of Gravity as a rubber band in this. The Sun's energy can be transferred to gravity, just as you'd stretch out a rubber band. I really don't understand at this point though how this all works. It's very interesting though.

Pete Rogers. Perhaps my message to IBdaMann where I point out that the compressibility of the Atmosphere causes Gravity to perform negative work, thus converting its Force into enhanced temperature. I haven't thought it fully through, but I think an illustrative analogy might be a river where gravity has the comparitive effect of narrowing the width so the energy per unit volume is increased and the river gets faster. I hope all this helps - let me know what you think

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
06-08-2020 16:43
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise. Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE leaving nothing for the GE to account for so CO2 is of no consequence, including our 3% of it.


You have been listening to nonsense about planetary temperatures and their atmospheric pressures by Steven Goddard (or is it Tony Heller today?) or one of his disciples of deception. They are tricking you.

The act of compressing a gas heats because you are doing work on it. The amount of work you do (i.e., the more you pump) translates directly to the temperature increase. Stop pumping and it soon cools back down to ambient temperatures.

Leave it at the higher pressure and it does not stay warm (otherwise your car tyres would be permanently hot).

There is no pumping action on the atmosphere. Yes, the pressure changes but as often goes down (cools) as it goes up (warms). Net effect zero.

Your 3% figure for CO2 is wrong - it more like 50%. Where you have been misled is that we add about 3% per year. As the years pass the CO2 level builds up because we are adding extra each year.

Some falsely tell you that an atmospheric gas cannot heat the planet. They base their arguments on the fallacy that the heating mechanism that the gas itself become hot and the thermal capacity of the gas is too small to hold enough heat to warm the oceans and land. That is true but the fallacy comes in that this in not the heating mechanism.

What actually happens is the extra GHGs and aerosols change the Earth's energy balance by trapping more heat energy (IR). They act like an additional blanket. The thicker the blanket the more it warms. The blanket on your bed does not get hot and warm you (unless it is electric!) it just inhibits the heat loss from your body making you warmer. That is what the GHGs and aerosols are doing for the Earth to warm up.
06-08-2020 18:06
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
James___ wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible. Letme begin by saying that there is no empirical proof that the Greenhouse Effect (GE) has a thermal consequence though both sides agree that the presence of the atmosphere raises the planetary temperature of Earth by at least 33C which amount is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE). The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it. If the IPCC were right to say this it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position. The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is. Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise. Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE leaving nothing for the GE to account for so CO2 is of no consequence, including our 3% of it. Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation due to the interplay between alterations in solar output, the Milankovic Cycles and Albedo effects.


So you're saying that at 285 ppm CO2, we had a global annual temperature of 287 kelvins, right? And now with 400+ ppm, the global average temperature is now 287.9 kelvins.
As far as the Milankovic Cycles go, I think he got the basic idea right but the details wrong. And I think science is a long way off in understanding what they're missing. Basically scientists can't explain the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

@IBDM, Einstein showed that light bends when moving past a dense astral body like a brown dwarf. Even in looking at his actual notes and he scribbled it on a piece of paper, it's in a museum in NYC, he didn't know which was the change in course. Some scientists have said that when light bent, it moved away from the Sun while you'd expect gravity to have light seem to move closer to it.
Of course this gets back into if there is dark matter and it's denser closer to the Sun so a photon lacking such density reacts to the aether (what Einstein called it) as light moves past the Sun. Einstein's calculations and theory where proven around 1927, about 20 years after he first wrote his paper. Enjoy


Pete Rogers. I am indeed saying that any change in global temperature; you put it at 0.9K here: is due to changes in net insolation. I completely agree with you that the thermal results of the interplay between the many varying factors that affect them (solar output, degree of eccentricity of our orbit, degree of obliquity of our axis, state of precession of our axis, extent of ice, snow and cloud cover (accounting for most of the Albedo Effect) etc.) are beyond our powers to predict.

I don't think we need to go any further than the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics to rule out any thermal contribution from the GE. The extraordinary nature of gas bodies, including our atmosphere; in being compressible: have their temperatures raised when under pressure - without exception. This compressibility causes gravity to do the negative work of reducing volume and so increasing heat content per unit volume and therefore temperature- thus accounting for the ATE.
06-08-2020 19:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7585)
DRKTS wrote: You have been listening to nonsense about planetary temperatures and their atmospheric pressures by Steven Goddard (or is it Tony Heller today?) or one of his disciples of deception. They are tricking you.

The act of compressing a gas heats because you are doing work on it. The amount of work you do (i.e., the more you pump) translates directly to the temperature increase. Stop pumping and it soon cools back down to ambient temperatures.

It's funny how you will agree with me when it suits you, but then revert back to science denial when required to defend your faith.

Like here:

DRKTS wrote: What actually happens is the extra GHGs and aerosols change the Earth's energy balance by trapping more heat energy (IR). They act like an additional blanket. The thicker the blanket the more it warms.

Pure gibberish that says nothing other than "Just deny Stefan-Boltzmann, please!" and "Pretend that there is convection in a vacuum, please!"

DRKTS wrote: The blanket on your bed does not get hot and warm you (unless it is electric!) it just inhibits the heat loss from your body making you warmer.

Right here. You and I had already resolved this egregious error on your part, and yet here you are reverting back to the lie as though it had never been debunked. Let's go through it again:

If you wrap a rock in a blanket, when does its temperature increase?

Liar.


Fraud.


Loser.

.
Attached image:

07-08-2020 02:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
DRKTS wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise. Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE leaving nothing for the GE to account for so CO2 is of no consequence, including our 3% of it.


You have been listening to nonsense about planetary temperatures and their atmospheric pressures by Steven Goddard (or is it Tony Heller today?) or one of his disciples of deception. They are tricking you.

The act of compressing a gas heats because you are doing work on it. The amount of work you do (i.e., the more you pump) translates directly to the temperature increase. Stop pumping and it soon cools back down to ambient temperatures.

Leave it at the higher pressure and it does not stay warm (otherwise your car tyres would be permanently hot).

There is no pumping action on the atmosphere. Yes, the pressure changes but as often goes down (cools) as it goes up (warms). Net effect zero.

Your 3% figure for CO2 is wrong - it more like 50%. Where you have been misled is that we add about 3% per year. As the years pass the CO2 level builds up because we are adding extra each year.

Some falsely tell you that an atmospheric gas cannot heat the planet.

Not false. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
DRKTS wrote:
They base their arguments on the fallacy that the heating mechanism that the gas itself become hot and the thermal capacity of the gas is too small to hold enough heat to warm the oceans and land. That is true but the fallacy comes in that this in not the heating mechanism.

The 1st law of thermodynamics (which you are denying) is not a fallacy. It is a theory of science. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
DRKTS wrote:
What actually happens is the extra GHGs and aerosols change the Earth's energy balance by trapping more heat energy (IR).

Heat is not energy. You cannot trap heat. You cannot create energy out of nothing either. Mantras 20b...20a1.
DRKTS wrote:
They act like an additional blanket.

You can't heat something with a blanket. It will not warm a rock or a dead body.
DRKTS wrote:
The thicker the blanket the more it warms.

Blankets don't warm anything. They reduce heat. You can't create energy out of nothing.
DRKTS wrote:
The blanket on your bed does not get hot and warm you (unless it is electric!) it just inhibits the heat loss from your body making you warmer.
Blankets don't create energy. They reduce heat, allowing your own body to maintain it's own temperature without using so much energy. Putting a blanket on a rock will not warm it.
DRKTS wrote:
That is what the GHGs and aerosols are doing for the Earth to warm up.

Not possible. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-08-2020 02:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers. I am indeed saying that any change in global temperature; you put it at 0.9K here: is due to changes in net insolation.

There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. The temperature of the Earth is unknown.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I completely agree with you that the thermal results of the interplay between the many varying factors that affect them (solar output, degree of eccentricity of our orbit, degree of obliquity of our axis, state of precession of our axis, extent of ice, snow and cloud cover (accounting for most of the Albedo Effect) etc.) are beyond our powers to predict.

The usual buzzword gobbledegook.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I don't think we need to go any further than the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics to rule out any thermal contribution from the GE.

You deny them both.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The extraordinary nature of gas bodies, including our atmosphere; in being compressible:

You cannot warm a gas with static pressure. Mantra 20n.
Pete Rogers wrote:
have their temperatures raised when under pressure - without exception.

Lie. You cannot warm a gas with static pressure. You are denying the ideal gas law again. Mantra 20n.
Pete Rogers wrote:
This compressibility causes gravity to do the negative work of reducing volume and so increasing heat content per unit volume and therefore temperature- thus accounting for the ATE.

Gravity is not work. Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Static pressure does not increase temperature. There is no such thing as ATE. The temperature of the Earth is unknown.

No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Repetition. Buzzwords.


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
09-08-2020 00:09
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Into the Night wrote:

Heat is not energy. You cannot trap heat. You cannot create energy out of nothing either. Mantras 20b...20a1.
....

You can't heat something with a blanket. It will not warm a rock or a dead body.


Heat is IR radiation - the formula is E = hc/wavelength

So heat is a form of energy

Indeed you cannot heat something with a blanket (unless you set it on fire!) but the presence of a blanket round a hot rock will keep it warmer for longer.

I don't know what you think the 1st law says but it is stated (on website site for high-school kids) "The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy [just like I said and you just denied] , and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy."

The Earth is the warm rock - the atmosphere its blanket. The difference is that this rock is continuously being heated by the Sun. No energy is being created or destroyed, merely being transported, redirected, and morphed into different forms of energy (thermal, kinetic, potential, or IR (heat) at a different wavelength or direction)

Its so simple a HS student is supposed to be able to understand it, but you seem to be struggling even with the basics like what heat actually is.
09-08-2020 00:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3515)
DRKTS wrote:
There is no pumping action on the atmosphere. Yes, the pressure changes but as often goes down (cools) as it goes up (warms). Net effect zero.
Well said as usual. This is a "net effect" on the atmosphere as a whole. If the net mean temperature doesn't change but the lower atmosphere temp increases, balanced out by a drop in temp in the upper atmosphere there would be no change in the mean but a higher global temp as we define it anyway right? (The "global temperature" being defined as the ground level temp).
I'd really like to understand this better:
space.com/amp/7685-earth-upper-atmosphere-cooling-dramatically.html

DRKTS wrote:
[ITN seems] to be struggling even with the basics like what heat actually is.
ITN/IBD deny science textbooks at all grade levels:
TWELVE REFERENCES As well as textbooks on Statistics: FOUR Statistics Textbooks Denied

They are just here to waste everyone's time.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 09-08-2020 00:46
09-08-2020 00:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7585)
tmiddles wrote:If the net mean temperature doesn't change but the lower atmosphere temp increases, balanced out by a drop in temp in the upper atmosphere there would be no change in the mean but a higher global temp as we define it anyway right?

... but you have an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't have the upper atmosphere cooling while the lower atmospehre warms any more than you can have hot coffee increase in temperature while the ice floating on top somehow gets colder.

Have you considered maybe answering the questions we'd like you to answer?


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-08-2020 01:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3515)
IBdaMann wrote:
...You can't have the upper atmosphere cooling while the lower atmospehre warms....
Why not?

Doesn't a blanket result in less thermal energy on the outer side?
Edited on 09-08-2020 01:04
09-08-2020 01:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7585)
tmiddles wrote:Doesn't a blanket result in less thermal energy on the outer side?

There's no blanket. You can't subdivide the atomic unit, i.e. earth.

When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-08-2020 03:08
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1331)
tmiddles never fails to go full retard... holy shit...

Sorry, gotta go for a bit... time for me to turn on my oven so I can make some pizza and ice while I retain some water with a spaghetti strainer...
Edited on 09-08-2020 03:09
09-08-2020 06:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3515)
IBdaMann wrote:
When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?
If an ovens heating element was at the top and you placed something in the oven then the top of the oven would get hotter and the base, beyond this obstruction, cooler.
09-08-2020 07:18
James___
★★★★★
(3452)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?
If an ovens heating element was at the top and you placed something in the oven then the top of the oven would get hotter and the base, beyond this obstruction, cooler.



You shouldn't take the bait. Convection heating is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. A body or mass interfering with the radiance of electromagnetic radiation absorbs it.
This allows for the temperature anomaly which you just described. Why play their game? As for me, I am thinking to myself I am Gul Dukat and the Obsidian Order is listening. What do I tell them?
Hopefully you understand how serious this is. The Obsidian Order will demand answers. What do I tell them?
09-08-2020 07:34
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(741)
Can you respond to this reality Tmiddles or anyone who cares

Consider this it is very clear to me
.At no point in time can we take a snapshot and say the global average is XYZ of the entire planet
.We can take readings and collect data at local stations to show a trend for that area and now I have discovered even here the bureau fudges the cold days to make the average appear warmer.Can you understand this simple concept or are you going to find fault.It is 2 seperate things
09-08-2020 07:36
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(741)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?
If an ovens heating element was at the top and you placed something in the oven then the top of the oven would get hotter and the base, beyond this obstruction, cooler.


Rocks being insulated by blankets ovens getting colder when turned on where does this insanity end


duncan61
09-08-2020 08:17
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(741)
Where is this atmospheric blanket that fits in to the CO2 warming theory.At what elevation is it occuring.Are you fooling people that it is in the clouds.That is what the NASA drawings show.I thought the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was diluted in randomly so how much effect can a tiny thing happen thats everywhere.If I pour 500ml hydrocloric acid in lake Ontario how much more acidic is the lake a bit for sure but how much.I have proven the raw data is homogenized you all need to have a good look at a photo of the Planet from space and do the math on the amounts claimed then think about the amount of energy to warm the ocean and melt ice that is at -75 in Antartica.The warming is a good theory you just need to fit 3 zeros in it before the decimal point.DRK Strange you will find the disciples you seek here and other places good on you if it works for you I consider myself a social realist and a lot of us are not going to buy it because someone said so.
09-08-2020 13:46
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
What you all seem to be ignoring is that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system.
09-08-2020 14:18
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(741)
How does that answer my query you see my claim is its not true so the burden of proof is on you to show it is.I would prefer physical proof.Pictures of the summer in the Artic will not cut it I checked the NASA ice shrinking over the last 20 years computer model and it only gives what it is fed but not the truth.That hudson bay froze over 1.2 metres thick 2019 and 2020.Again this is left out the model to suit an agenda.The tagged polar bears were not out there swimming about they were hunting and storing fat on the ice
09-08-2020 23:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Heat is not energy. You cannot trap heat. You cannot create energy out of nothing either. Mantras 20b...20a1.
....

You can't heat something with a blanket. It will not warm a rock or a dead body.


Heat is IR radiation - the formula is E = hc/wavelength

Heat is not IR radiance. IR means infrared light. This is not a formula for heat.
DRKTS wrote:
So heat is a form of energy

Heat is not energy.
DRKTS wrote:
Indeed you cannot heat something with a blanket (unless you set it on fire!) but the presence of a blanket round a hot rock will keep it warmer for longer.

It will not heat the rock, as you claim.
DRKTS wrote:
I don't know what you think the 1st law says but it is stated (on website site for high-school kids) "The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy [just like I said and you just denied],

No, it doesn't.
DRKTS wrote:
and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy.

Define 'thermodynamic process'.
DRKTS wrote:
This means that heat energy

Heat is not energy.
DRKTS wrote:
cannot be created or destroyed.

Heat can be reduced or increased. Blankets reduce heat.
DRKTS wrote:
It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy."

Heat is not energy.
DRKTS wrote:
The Earth is the warm rock - the atmosphere its blanket.

Blankets will keep the sun from heating a rock its covering. You are again creating energy out of nothing. Mantra 20a1.
DRKTS wrote:
The difference is that this rock is continuously being heated by the Sun.

Nope. There is a blanket on the rock.
DRKTS wrote:
No energy is being created or destroyed,

You are creating energy out of nothing. You are also destroying energy into nothing.
DRKTS wrote:
merely being transported, redirected, and morphed into different forms of energy (thermal, kinetic, potential, or IR (heat)

Here you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Heat has no frequency. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term in it. Mantra 20a1...20b1...20b3.
DRKTS wrote:
at a different wavelength or direction)

You are still ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Mantras 20b1...20b3...20b5.
DRKTS wrote:
Its so simple a HS student is supposed to be able to understand it,

High school does not teach science. Mantra 12.
DRKTS wrote:
but you seem to be struggling even with the basics like what heat actually is.

No, that would be YOU. Inversion fallacy. Mantras 17...10b.


No argument presented. Denial of science. Redefinitions.


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
09-08-2020 23:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
Well said as usual. This is a "net effect" on the atmosphere as a whole.

There is no such thing as 'net effect' on the atmosphere. Buzzword fallacy. Mantra 22.
tmiddles wrote:
If the net mean temperature doesn't change
but the lower atmosphere temp increases,

You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. Entropy cannot decrease in any system. Mantra 20a2.
tmiddles wrote:
balanced out by a drop in temp in the upper atmosphere there would be no change in the mean but a higher global temp as we define it anyway right? (The "global temperature" being defined as the ground level temp).

Denying Kirchoff's law again. Mantra 20a5...20a4. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Mantra 25g.
tmiddles wrote:
I'd really like to understand this better:
space.com/amp/7685-earth-upper-atmosphere-cooling-dramatically.html

Easy. It can't happen. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says why. Mantra 20a2.
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
[ITN seems] to be struggling even with the basics like what heat actually is.
ITN/IBD deny science textbooks at all grade levels:
...deleted Holy Quotes and spam...
They are just here to waste everyone's time.

Science isn't a textbook. Mantras 4b...4c...15a...15b...

No argument presented. Denial of science. Spamming. False authorities. Denial of mathematics.


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
09-08-2020 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...You can't have the upper atmosphere cooling while the lower atmospehre warms....
Why not?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you deny. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Doesn't a blanket result in less thermal energy on the outer side?

Thermal energy is not temperature. RQAA.

Denial of science. RQAA.


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
09-08-2020 23:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?
If an ovens heating element was at the top and you placed something in the oven then the top of the oven would get hotter and the base, beyond this obstruction, cooler.


Nope. You are now denying convection.

No argument presented. Denial of science.


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
09-08-2020 23:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?
If an ovens heating element was at the top and you placed something in the oven then the top of the oven would get hotter and the base, beyond this obstruction, cooler.



You shouldn't take the bait. Convection heating is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. A body or mass interfering with the radiance of electromagnetic radiation absorbs it.
This allows for the temperature anomaly which you just described. Why play their game? As for me, I am thinking to myself I am Gul Dukat and the Obsidian Order is listening. What do I tell them?
Hopefully you understand how serious this is. The Obsidian Order will demand answers. What do I tell them?

Convection has nothing to do with the Boltzmann constant or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Denial of science.


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
09-08-2020 23:20
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
"Heat is not a form of energy"

Scientific definitions of heat:

"a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature"

"A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid medium"

"heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter"

"energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature"

"Heat is thermal energy transferred from a hotter system to a cooler system"

Notice a common term mentioned in all these different definitions of "heat" - spoiler alert its "energy"

So into the night can turn in his credibility on all other scientific issues, if he does not even know the scientific definition of "heat"
09-08-2020 23:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
DRKTS wrote:
What you all seem to be ignoring is that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system.


The Earth is a closed system. The Sun-Earth-space system is another closed system. The entire observable Universe is another closed system.

Mantra 20i.

No argument presented. Denial of science.


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
09-08-2020 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
DRKTS wrote:
"Heat is not a form of energy"

Scientific definitions of heat:

"a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature"

"A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid medium"

"heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter"

"energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature"

"Heat is thermal energy transferred from a hotter system to a cooler system"

Notice a common term mentioned in all these different definitions of "heat" - spoiler alert its "energy"

So into the night can turn in his credibility on all other scientific issues, if he does not even know the scientific definition of "heat"


Lie. Your stupid quotations are not the definition of heat, and they deny science. Heat is not energy.

Mantra 20a2...10b...10j...4b...32.


No argument presented. Void authority. Use of 'scientific' as Holy Artifact.


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
10-08-2020 03:23
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(741)
DRKTS wrote:
"Heat is not a form of energy"

Scientific definitions of heat:

"a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature"

"A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid medium"

"heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter"

"energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature"

"Heat is thermal energy transferred from a hotter system to a cooler system"

Notice a common term mentioned in all these different definitions of "heat" - spoiler alert its "energy"

So into the night can turn in his credibility on all other scientific issues, if he does not even know the scientific definition of "heat"


I am with you on this one.Putting hot beer on ice is transference of heat energy.


duncan61
10-08-2020 03:24
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(741)
Can I have your definition of heat ITN so I can use it correctly in future
10-08-2020 03:55
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(741)
Its O.K. I found this which I am happy with

Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another, or from an energy source to a medium or object. ... This is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of pure liquid water by one degree Fahrenheit.
10-08-2020 04:42
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1331)
duncan61 wrote:
Can I have your definition of heat ITN so I can use it correctly in future

Heat is the flow of thermal energy (in other words, the movement of thermal energy from one place to another).
10-08-2020 13:14
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
duncan61 wrote:

I am with you on this one. Putting hot beer on ice is transference of heat energy.


I come from a family with 4 generations associated with the brewing industry. Good beer does not need to be put on ice. Manufactures do that to dull the taste buds because what they make has little or poor flavor. let your beer get to room temperature and then ask yourself is this drinkable?

In our pub, we used to serve locally brewed ales which tasted wonderful, in fact in winter we had a roaring fire in the main bar with pokers sitting in the flames so people could heat their drinks if they wanted to. Many did.

Which is, of course, another example of energy transference
10-08-2020 13:57
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Into the Night wrote:
The Earth is a closed system. The Sun-Earth-space system is another closed system. The entire observable Universe is another closed system.



The scientific definition of a closed system (as used in thermodynamics): "a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it."

Does the Earth have inflowing or outflowing energy or mass? (answer aid: think about sunlight, starlight, neutrinos, solar wind, cosmic rays, meteors, atmospheric loss, ....)

Then it is not a closed system. Nor is the Sun-Earth system.

The Universe, by definition, is.
10-08-2020 17:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7585)
DRKTS wrote: The scientific definition of a closed system (as used in thermodynamics): "a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it."

The definition of a "closed system" is determined by the speaker. There is no person, organization or institution that owns science. I fully realize that you believe Wikipedia owns science ... and that's why you spew error-filled crap.

When I speak/write, I use my defintion and you are welcome to translate my terms into your terms.

The earth is a closed system if the speaker frames the context as such. You probably sucked at math word problems.

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-08-2020 18:29
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1331)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: The scientific definition of a closed system (as used in thermodynamics): "a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it."

The definition of a "closed system" is determined by the speaker. There is no person, organization or institution that owns science. I fully realize that you believe Wikipedia owns science ... and that's why you spew error-filled crap.

When I speak/write, I use my defintion and you are welcome to translate my terms into your terms.

The earth is a closed system if the speaker frames the context as such. You probably sucked at math word problems.

.

I have fond memories of word problems in math class... That was the homework/schoolwork that I actually enjoyed because it also involved developing the skill of siphoning out relevant information from the surrounding irrelevant information. My classmates HATED that type of coursework...
10-08-2020 19:01
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: The scientific definition of a closed system (as used in thermodynamics): "a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it."

The definition of a "closed system" is determined by the speaker. There is no person, organization or institution that owns science. I fully realize that you believe Wikipedia owns science ... and that's why you spew error-filled crap.

When I speak/write, I use my defintion and you are welcome to translate my terms into your terms.

The earth is a closed system if the speaker frames the context as such. You probably sucked at math word problems.

.


Just as you cannot have your own facts, you do not control the meaning of words, that is defined by the dictionary and in scientific issues definitions are precise and universal.

You have nothing constructive to say about anything.
10-08-2020 21:58
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2730)
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:

I am with you on this one. Putting hot beer on ice is transference of heat energy.


I come from a family with 4 generations associated with the brewing industry. Good beer does not need to be put on ice. Manufactures do that to dull the taste buds because what they make has little or poor flavor. let your beer get to room temperature and then ask yourself is this drinkable?

In our pub, we used to serve locally brewed ales which tasted wonderful, in fact in winter we had a roaring fire in the main bar with pokers sitting in the flames so people could heat their drinks if they wanted to. Many did.

Which is, of course, another example of energy transference


Warm beer... About the only 'warm' beverage I drink, is coffee. It's good at any temperature, within reason. Beer should be ice cold. It's usually consumed on hot days. Course, I'm not a drunkard either, usually one, maybe two, after mowing the yard.
11-08-2020 01:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
duncan61 wrote:
Can I have your definition of heat ITN so I can use it correctly in future


Not my definition.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t), where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. In other words, entropy must increase or stay the same in any given system.

What is 'entropy'? It is the randomness of the system.

Imagine two cages, one filled with white bunnies, the other filled with black bunnies. A connecting tunnel between the cages exist, but it is close off for the moment. At this point, the cages of bunnies have minimum entropy. They are organized into all white bunnies in one cage, and all black in the other.

Now open the connecting tunnel, allowing bunnies to travel freely from cage to cage.

Soon you will reach a point where there are a fairly equal number of black and white bunnies in one cage, and the same is true of the other cage. The cages have reached maximum entropy, or randomness.

The same is true of energy. Concentrating any energy in one place, leaving a void in the other, is the same as the bunnies before you open the tunnel. Energy will naturally flow to fill the void, leaving that same energy now spread over both regions equally. Entropy has again increased.

That energy can be thermal energy (not temperature, ENERGY). Temperature is average thermal energy, not total thermal energy. If you take the temperature of the concentrated area of thermal energy, it will be hotter than the void of thermal energy. Again, thermal energy will flow from hot to cold, cooling the hot area and warming the cold one, until both regions have reached some middle temperature. Then the flow stops.

Heat is flow of thermal energy. It is just like the flow of a river (the current). It is not the energy itself, just like the current in a river is not the water itself. You can reduce this flow. In a river, a dam will do just that, at least until the dam overflows and breaks!

Heat can flow one of three ways: conductive, which is transferring thermal energy by collisions of neighboring atoms; convection, which is moving concentrated thermal energy aloft and dissipating it over a wider area; or by radiance (converting it to electromagnetic energy and back to thermal energy again) such as the way the Sun heats the Earth, and the Earth heats the space around it and any nearby objects (like the Moon). Space in the vicinity of Earth is far from empty. It is filled with matter spread out very thinly.

For thermal energy, you can reduce the flow by using blankets, coats, house insulation, greenhouses, or keeping the windows rolled up in your car on a sunny day.

Blankets, coats, and house insulation work by trapping the flow of air reducing convective and conductive flow. Greenhouses and cars with the windows rolled up reduce convective heating. They still radiant heating, however.

Thermal energy on Earth is converted into electromagnetic energy (light) and is radiated away into space. Nothing traps light. Nothing traps heat. Nothing traps thermal energy. There is always heat. The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes this conversion:
r = C * e * t^4, where 'r' is radiance (light) in watts per square area (usually square meters), 'C' is a natural constant (a constant to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is the emissivity of the radiating surface, a measured constant; and 'r' is temperature, in deg K (absolute temperature).

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not the only way to generate light. It can also be generated harmonically, through the use of chemical reactions or by direct stimulus of electrons (such as lasers, LEDs, bioluminiscant critters, and other sources of 'cold' light.

The difference between the two is like the difference between playing the violin, or burning it. One generates light by oscillating electrons, the other other is radiance by thermal energy.

To generate light, all you really have to do is shake a charged particle, whether that be an electron or a proton makes no difference. You can 'twang the string' of a single electron, or you can shake the whole molecule (thermal energy).

To summarize, heat is the flow of thermal energy. Not the thermal energy itself. Temperature is the measurement of average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. The only way for energy to arrive or leave Earth is through conversion to and from light. EVERYTHING that is above absolute zero radiates 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
11-08-2020 01:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
DRKTS wrote:
duncan61 wrote:

I am with you on this one. Putting hot beer on ice is transference of heat energy.


I come from a family with 4 generations associated with the brewing industry.

You come from a family with four generations of alcoholism, eh? I think we found your problem.
DRKTS wrote:
Good beer does not need to be put on ice.

Most of the world drinks German style beer. It's fermentation process takes place at the bottom of the vats at slightly above freezing temperatures, which is why it also drinks colder.

English beer is fermented at the top of the vats using a different process. It also drinks warmer.

In Germany, it used to be a law that you couldn't brew beer in summer because it would go bad. Ever since a railway engineer designed a system to keep the beer cold right through the summer while brewing, Germany now has plenty of beer to satisfy their never ending thirst for it! If you brew beer in Germany, they'll drink it!

it is that style of beer that came to the United States. Many a refrigerator is stocked with nice cold beer. Indeed, that refrigerator itself is a small extension from that project in Munich, Germany, that allowed them to brew beer right through the summer.
DRKTS wrote:
Manufactures do that to dull the taste buds because what they make has little or poor flavor. let your beer get to room temperature and then ask yourself is this drinkable?

Depends on the beer.
DRKTS wrote:
In our pub, we used to serve locally brewed ales which tasted wonderful, in fact in winter we had a roaring fire in the main bar with pokers sitting in the flames so people could heat their drinks if they wanted to. Many did.

So you like English beer to get drunk on. Fine. Most the rest of the world likes German style beer.
DRKTS wrote:
Which is, of course, another example of energy transference

Why do you think anyone here is denying conductive heating?


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
11-08-2020 01:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13880)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Earth is a closed system. The Sun-Earth-space system is another closed system. The entire observable Universe is another closed system.



The scientific definition of a closed system (as used in thermodynamics): "a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it."

Not quite. It is a region where such transfers of matter or energy cannot be considered. To consider them becomes a different system.
DRKTS wrote:
Does the Earth have inflowing or outflowing energy or mass? (answer aid: think about sunlight, starlight, neutrinos, solar wind, cosmic rays, meteors, atmospheric loss, ....)

Yes. You cannot consider them when using the Earth as the system.
DRKTS wrote:
Then it is not a closed system.

Yes it is.
DRKTS wrote:
Nor is the Sun-Earth system.

Yes it is.
DRKTS wrote:
The Universe, by definition, is.

The OBSERVABLE Universe is. We do not know what is happening in the Universe that we cannot observe.

You still are trying to declare an open system for a closed system. Mantras 20i...20h.


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
Page 3 of 9<12345>>>





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals103-02-2017 20:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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