Global warming is not anthropogenic

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Global warming is not anthropogenic

Page 1 of 26

Global warming is not anthropogenic28-07-2020 19:25
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	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.
28-07-2020 23:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	Pete Rogers wrote: Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible. Okay. First problem. Proofs are only available in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. So a proof is not possible here. I will examine your arguments now. As you are making several, I will split them up and address them one by one. Pete Rogers wrote: Let me 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). Nope. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The 33 degC number is purely a made up value. It's a random number of type randU. The atmosphere does not add a single degree of temperature to the Earth. Pete Rogers wrote: The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it. There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC. Pete Rogers wrote: If the IPCC were right to say this They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid. Pete Rogers wrote: it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position. Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is. A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE. 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. This gets into the ideal gas law. While compressing a gas into a smaller volume does increase its temperature, this is describing the dynamic action of compressing said gas. A gas that is already compressed can be any temperature, and it's temperature is no longer changing because it's compressed. An example of this is a compressed gas cylinder (CO2, oxygen, hydrogen, take your pick). The cylinder containing the gas is not hot. It has no insulation. It is just a steel bottle. That cylinder and the gas inside it is the same as the room temperature. These bottles have gas compressed to 3000psi, or over 200 times atmospheric pressure at the surface of Earth. Pete Rogers wrote: Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE Nope. It's already compressed. There is no ATE. For folks in the U.S., this is equivalent to 14.7apsi, the standard pressure at standard temperature and altitude (sea level), used for various engineering purposes, including aircraft instrument design and calibration. A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature. Pete Rogers wrote: leaving nothing for the GE to account for There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: so CO2 is of no consequence, But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us. Pete Rogers wrote: including our 3% of it. The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Pete Rogers wrote: Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid. Pete Rogers wrote: it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation Oddly enough, the predicate is not needed for this conclusion. The conclusion itself, however, is based upon a different invalid predicate. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Sunlight striking the Earth's surface may or may not be absorbed. If not absorbed, it is simply reflected back into space again. Absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy. It may result in chemical energy or ionization, neither of which directly affects temperature. Only infrared light converts to thermal energy upon absorption. Most of the energy coming from the Sun that strikes the Earth is infrared light. Pete Rogers wrote: due to the interplay between alterations in solar output, the Milankovic Cycles Both of these factors does affect the intensity of sunlight striking a given area of the surface of the Earth. Pete Rogers wrote: and Albedo effects. Albedo is not an effect. It is the inverse of emissiivity, the form used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, relating the intensity of light radiated due to temperature. It is a measured constant. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. To measure it, one must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth, which is also unknown and cannot be measured. We simply do not have enough thermometers...nowhere near enough. Now. Having addressed each of arguments, which tended to be based on the invalid predicate of an ATE, and having described that the use of the ideal gas law in this way is also invalid, a few points that should be made here. First, you will see wild variations of temperature on, say, the Moon's surface. The Moon does have an atmosphere, but it's so thin it's safe to ignore it for this point. The average temperature of the Moon, like the average temperature of the Earth, is unknown. We simply do not have enough thermometers to measure either body. A single thermometer left on the surface of the Moon, however, routinely records temperatures as high as 250 deg F, and as low as -250 deg F, as it moves from day to night on the Moon. This is a temperature swing of 500 degF. Here on Earth, temperatures do not swing nearly as radically. Why? This is where the thicker atmosphere comes in. The atmosphere is mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat and cool it. Further, the Earth spins once every 24 hours. The moon takes about a month. Remember, the average temperature of either body is unknown and cannot be calculated to any useful margin of error. There is no reason the emissivity of the Moon and the emissivity of the Earth must be identical either. While an atmosphere can directly absorb energy from the Sun, most energy absorbed and converted to thermal energy is absorbed by the surface, including the oceans. It is primarily the surface that heats the atmosphere. Not the other way around. The atmosphere is a fluid, just as the oceans are. It has currents, convection, and even has a 'tide'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It can occur by conduction (a hot body contacting a cold body), convection (a hot parcel of air rising and cooling as it does so by losing pressure, or a cold parcel of air sinking and warming as it does so by gaining pressure.), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again). Heat always flows from hot to cold, or from a concentration of energy toward a relative void of energy. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also why the atmosphere contains less thermal energy as you rise into the sky away from the surface. Through the troposphere, the temperature drops also. In the stratosphere, the temperature is rising, even though total thermal energy is still less. Temperature is average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. This a point of confusion among the scientifically illiterate. Here the ideal gas law can come into play, with air moving over things like mountain ranges, convective movement (like storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc), and just simply benign air movement that supports hot air balloons and even gliders and soaring birds, allowing them to stay aloft for hours, gaining altitude from rising air. This air is cooling as it rises, possibly squeezing out visible droplets of water vapor as it does so, forming clouds (why clouds tend to have a flat base, and happen at the same altitudes in the vicinity. Like any fluid, hot and cold air do not mix well. This same kind of thing can be seen in ocean water as well, in the form of warm currents like the Gulf Stream. In air, this is how we get 'warm' fronts and 'cold' fronts. A warm front is warmer air contacting colder air and riding up over the top of it, rising as it does so (and cooling). Warm fronts tend to have stratus clouds associated with them (like the clouds common in Seattle). A cold front is colder air plowing into warmer air, throwing it aloft. Such fronts have violent storms associated with them, since the warm air is getting thrown higher very quickly, cooling as it does so. Cold fronts tend to move faster than warm fronts also. The greater the difference in temperature and the faster the front, the more violent the storm. Cold air coming from the Rockies and Canada collide with warmer air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico. They can meet anywhere from Texas, through Oklahoma, or possibly as far north as the Dakotas. You can get some pretty violent thunderstorms, hail, or tornadoes from these storms. Hurricanes are far bigger, and are caused by the difference between hot surface air and very cold air aloft. Violent as these storms can get, they are nothing more than convective heating of the upper atmosphere by the surface of the Earth. It is truly amazing what a bit of water vapor and a temperature difference can really do. The atmosphere is not static by any means. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-07-2020 01:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Pete Rogers wrote: Letme begin by saying that there is no empirical proof that the Greenhouse Effect (GE) has a thermal consequence ... Pete, why should any rational adult believe in the existence of a completely undefined "Greenhouse Effect" in the first place? Pete Rogers wrote: ... though both sides agree that the presence of the atmosphere raises the planetary temperature of Earth by at least 33C Pete, what is the required quantity of morons for agreement amongst them to make something true? Pete, why should any rational adult believe that any substance can violate thermodynamics by causing matter to just spontaneously increase in temperature without any additional energy? Pete Rogers wrote: ... which amount is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE). Pete, why should any rational adult believe in some absurd term that you just pulled out of your azz? Pete, the last time I reviewed physics, only thermal energy could thermally enhance anything. What is the official unambiguous definition of this "Atmospheric Thermal Enhacement"? Pete Rogers wrote: The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it. Pete, why should I care what some religious organization claims is its official church doctrine for the basis of its wonderous mysterious miracles? The Vatican claims that the universe was created by "God" and that everything that occurs does so per His "plan." The last I checked, nobody in industry engineers to that specification either. Pete Rogers wrote: If the IPCC were right ... If Christians are correct, I'm going to burn in the deepest pit, unless gfm7175 pulls a few strings on my behalf. If the IPCC is correct, the goddess Climate will just continue her central planning of the environment through miraculous violations of physics. From The MANUAL Climate: proper noun The heroine of the Global Warming mythology,Climate is the Democratic People's Goddess. Born out of the Scientific Consensus, She oversees the central planning and administration of all weather, ecosystems, and local climates across the globe, as well as all interactions thereof. Climate is responsible for the care and well-being of all life on earth. In other faiths She is called Gaia, Durga, Mother Nature, et. al. Note: Climate, by her nature, never changes but she is believed to be constantly changing, thus forming the grand mystery of the Global Warming faith. This is a core tenet of Settled Science. p.s. - real scientists speak in terms of "Emissivity." Loser warmizombies expose themselves by speaking in terms of "albedo." . Attached image: Edited on 29-07-2020 01:52
29-07-2020 13:27
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Thank you for the reply, though it is strange, because the science is incorrect. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the Earth would be at 255K without an atmosphere. 255K is conducted into the Atmosphere but enhanced because of the lost volume to Gravitational Compression, which increases the heat-energy per Cubic Metre. Think of it this way, that if the atmosphere were at lower pressure it would have the same mass but larger volume, so the same S-B255K heat energy would be spread more thinly and the temperature lower. We know the temperature cannot be below 255K, so the degree of the state of compression causes the extent of the ATE. It is not clear that you understand this from what you have said though I would have thought it straightforward and robust, Gravity is responsible for the ATE, not the GE. It means that CO2 has no thermal effect.
29-07-2020 14:17
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Dear IBdaMann, There is definitely a greenhouse effect in the sense that some gas molecules, such as water vapour and CO2 are not transparent to Infrared waves. This was discovered in the 19th Century by the Irish/English Physicist John Tyndall and his experimental proof is why rational people are correct to accept it as far as that goes. The question is whether it has a thermal consequence as that was not experimentally established. You should see that the argument I have put shows definitively that it does not. Albedo also seems to be misunderstood here if you will forgive me for observing to that effect- it is just the % of the reflection of incoming solar rays straight back out with no heating effect on the planet. The main causes of Albedo are Clouds and Ice caps. Thermodynamics is precisely the basis of this proof that the ATE (not my coinage, but a scientific one) is caused by compression not the GE. The definition of the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement; since you ask so kindly: is "The number of degrees by which the presence of the Atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet above 255K." Your comparison of IPCC with religious organisations is amusing since both are evangelistic it seems to me. For instance the IPCC does not permit funding of research that is not pre-determined to support the idea that man is guilty of climate change so that embarrassing questions do not arise. Religions try to pull off the same trick of avoiding embarrassing questions so I commonly ask them how it can be reasonable - or even sane - to tell us that a being which does worse than murder to almost every human past present and future by their eternal torment in hell can possibly be love entire, the results are spectacular - collapse of stout parties. Here on Climate Change I am simply showing that IPCC are wrong. Gravity is responsible for the ATE because of the ideal gas law and what is happening is natural as always.

29-07-2020 16:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Pete Rogers wrote: According to the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the Earth would be at 255K without an atmosphere. Pete, stop listening to morons. There is so much wrong with this statement of yours it would take a day to unpack and adequately address. The bottom line is that some scientifically illiterate morons baffled you with gibber-babble and instead of calling "bulslhit" you simply came here and regurgitated it. I will help you out. Please take notes. 1. There is no "the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation." First, the Stefan-Boltzmann law calculates Radiance given a Temperature. Radiance is the dependent variable and Temperature is the independent variable. That equation requires the constant Emissivity ... and in the case of the earth, it is not known to any usable extent. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying to you. 2. Nobody has ever computed the earth's actual average temperature to within any usable margin of error. Nobody has ever been able to calculate the earth's theoretical average temperature using Stefan-Boltzmann because the earth's emissivity is simply not known. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying to you. 3. Anytime you are talking about the earth's temperature, the earth's atmosphere, or the earth having an atmosphere is irrelevant. The earth's atmosphere is part of the earth. Only if you are specifically focused the atmosphere (and thus NOT on the earth) does it make sense to talk about the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere (aka, the planet's solid or liquid surface). The temperature at any point at the bottom of the atmosphere is NOT the earth's average temperature. Of course there must be an atmosphere in order to discuss the bottom of the atmosphere. Obviously it makes no sense to discuss the bottom of the atmosphere where there is no atmosphere. Pete Rogers wrote: ... enhanced because of the lost volume to Gravitational Compression, which increases the heat-energy per Cubic Metre. This is an absurd statement. It increases the temperature wherever it increases the temperature and it decreases the temperature wherever it decreases the temperature. Those who discuss the atmosphere in terms of exclusively increasing temperature frankly are idiots ... like tmiddles. I hope you are not another denier of the earth's much, much colder than daytime temperatures at the bottom of its atmosphere than the daytime temperatures at the moon's solid surface. The atmosphere merely drives temperatures towards the planet's average temperature, which means increasing some and decreasing some. Check the difference between daytime and nightime temperatures on earth vs. the moon. Pete Rogers wrote:Think of it this way, that if the atmosphere were at lower pressure it would have the same mass but larger volume, ... and the planet's average temperature would remain unchanged and the atmosphere would remain part of the planet. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
29-07-2020 17:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Pete Rogers wrote: There is definitely a greenhouse effect in the sense that some gas molecules, such as water vapour and CO2 are not transparent to Infrared waves. Get back to me when you have an unambiguous definition for Greenhouse Effect, and specify if it involves an increase in temperature. Until then, the undefined does not exist. Pete Rogers wrote: This was discovered in the 19th Century by the Irish/English Physicist John Tyndall Nope. Tyndall did not discover anything. He postulated something ... and he was wrong. There is no science supporting Greenhosue Effect. There is no unambiguous definition for Greenhouse Effect, i.e. it is an empty buzzword that holds different personal meaning for different people. There can be no science of the undefined. Pete Rogers wrote: The question is whether it has a thermal consequence "thermal consequence"? Let me laugh for a moment. I think you mean to say that you have a question about whether or not the temperature can change without additional energy. The simple answer is "No." The 1st law of thermodynamics is pretty clear on that. Pete Rogers wrote: Albedo also seems to be misunderstood here if you will forgive me for observing to that effect- it is just the % of the reflection of incoming solar rays straight back out with no heating effect on the planet. Albedo is not needed. Emissivity is all you need; albedo is computed from Emissivity, i.e. 1.0 - Emissivity. Morons use "albedo" because they want to talk about energy that isn't having any effect on the system as though it is of importance ... as opposed to ignoring it. Only energy that is absorbed is of consequence. Only "Emissivity" matters. Morons and frauds expose themselves by using "albedo." Actual scientists speak only in terms of "Emissivity." Pete Rogers wrote: The main causes of Albedo are Clouds and Ice caps. There is no reason to discuss "albedo." Pete Rogers wrote: Thermodynamics is precisely the basis of this proof that the ATE (not my coinage, but a scientific one) is caused by compression not the GE. I don't believe you understand thermodynamics. I could teach you what you need to know, but for the moment, the 1st law of thermodynamics is all you need to call bulslhit on this "ATE" crap. Pete Rogers wrote:The definition of the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement; since you ask so kindly: is "The number of degrees by which the presence of the Atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet above 255K." Exactly. It's not possible. This "ATE" crap is summarily dismissed. Pete Rogers wrote: Your comparison of IPCC with religious organisations is amusing since both are evangelistic it seems to me. I wish it were humorous but they are both religious "headquarters." Are you able to recognize a religion when it is right in front of you? Pete Rogers wrote: For instance the IPCC does not permit funding of research that is not pre-determined to support the idea that man is guilty of climate change so that embarrassing questions do not arise. The Vatican will not fund anything that does not both presuppose and conclude that there is a God. Pete Rogers wrote: Here on Climate Change I am simply showing that IPCC are wrong. You should be focusing on simply why you don't believe that religion. You cannot show the IPCC to be wrong any more than you can prove that Christians are wrong. Pete Rogers wrote:Gravity is responsible for the ATE because of the ideal gas law and what is happening is natural as always. Gravity is responsible for the atmospheric pressure which drives all temperatures closer to the planet's average ... and that's all. It acts like a press, cooling some temperatures and increasing others. The planet's average temperature, however, only changes when the amount of incoming energy changes. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
29-07-2020 19:04
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: If the IPCC were right ... If Christians are correct, I'm going to burn in the deepest pit, unless gfm7175 pulls a few strings on my behalf. . I'll put in good word for ya, but the rest is up to the Big Man...
29-07-2020 20:47
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Dear IBdaMann, The GE shows simply - and unambiguously - that whilst all gases are transparent to UV some are opaque to IR. This is empirically proven, but the claim that it warms the planet (thermal consequence) is not, but assumed circumstantially instead as the cause of the ATE. That gas compression increases temperature is indisputable; except by said moron: even from the modest discovery that you went "ouch" after a bit when pumping your bike tyre up, to the fact that large gas bodies reach temperatures of such enormity from precisely their own gravitational compression that at billions (perhaps) of degrees stars are formed from their material. Every body of gas has its temperature increased by its state of compression because the heat energy per cubic metre goes up to the extent of the reduction in volume occupied. It would only be said moron who would find that difficult to follow would it not and it definitely means we have our ATE (however large or small) and that it is due to gravity not CO2? Ice and clouds reflect a % of the Sun's UV so that % does not get to heat the Earth's surface - that's all I mean by the measure of albedo - so the more cloud and ice the more the albedo and the less the net insolation accordingly. Emissivity needs no incorporation to clarify any of this - it is already clear. The First Law of Thermodynamics is the basis for the ATE as according to it the negative work performed by gravity must increase the temperature due to conservation of that energy within the reduced volume. If you are an expert you would know this - please advise if otherwise.
29-07-2020 22:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Pete Rogers wrote: Dear IBdaMann, The GE shows simply Stop. I am ignoring everything you write about Greenhouse Effect until you give me an unambiguous definition, specifying whether or not there is an increase in temperature involved and if so, accounting for the additional energy required to so increase that temperature. There is no science of the undefined and there is no point in pretending that there is any point to gibber-babble. Pete Rogers wrote: Every body of gas has its temperature increased by its state of compression ... Initially, but cools to equilibrium at its original temperature ... except in cases like the sun in which nuclear fusion kicks in and affects the temperature in that way. Pete Rogers wrote: Ice and clouds reflect a % of the Sun's UV so that % does not get to heat the Earth's surface - that's all I mean by the measure of albedo So why are you wasting time with "albedo" and energy that is irrelevant instead of focusing on "emissivity" and the energy in question? I'll give you a clue: if you want those who are NOT scientifically illiterate to take you seriously, ditch "albedo" and use "emissivity" exclusively. If, on the other hand, you want those who are NOT scientifically illiterate to be aware that you are wasting their time, keep using "albedo" exclusively. That one is on the house. Pete Rogers wrote: - so the more cloud and ice the more the albedo and the less the net insolation accordingly. Emissivity needs no incorporation to clarify any of this - it is already clear. Great. Go waste someone else's time. We're done. Pete Rogers wrote: The First Law of Thermodynamics is the basis for the ATE You don't understand thermodynamics. That much is clear. You're just wasting time. Your clear, unambiguous definition of ATE is clearly impossible. Anyone who understands thermodynamics wouldn't need even two seconds to realize something that obvious. I see you have a great deal of emotional equity invested in that particular religious dogma. You have fallen into the standard warmizombie trap. Good luck getting out. Pete Rogers wrote: as according to it the negative work performed by gravity Awesome. I have never heard of "negative work." Are you referring simply to subtraction of work? Which work? Why are you subtracting it? From what are you subtracting it? Pete Rogers wrote: .. must increase the temperature due to conservation of that energy That is one of the most absurd things I've heard this week. It's up there with "Trump killed 250,000 people with coronavirus." How about you work on getting an unambiguous definition of Greenhosue Effect that does not violate physics and in the meantime I can teach you about thermodynamics? Will that work for you? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
29-07-2020 23:30
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	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
30-07-2020 01:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	James___ wrote: @IBDM, Einstein showed that light bends when moving past a dense astral body like a brown dwarf. Yes, Einstein showed that gravity curves space-time. James___ wrote: 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. The scientists that caimed photons curved away from the sun were wrong ... and were probably warmizombies. Heck, one might have been tmiddles, who knows? Photons have mass (without being matter) per E = mc^2 Ergo, the accelerate towards the brown dwarf. Regarding dark matter, I saw some once at the bottom of a swimming pool. I opted not to swim in it. The water didn't fly out of the pool, though. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
30-07-2020 03:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	Pete Rogers wrote: Thank you for the reply, though it is strange, because the science is incorrect. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation the Earth would be at 255K without an atmosphere. Argument from randU fallacy. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. You are plugging a random number into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. That is not science. That is denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Pete Rogers wrote: 255K is conducted into the Atmosphere but enhanced because of the lost volume to Gravitational Compression, Temperature is not a volume. There is no such thing as 'gravitational compression' in the atmosphere. Pete Rogers wrote: which increases the heat-energy per Cubic Metre. There is no such thing as 'heat-energy'. Heat is not energy. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Think of it this way, that if the atmosphere were at lower pressure it would have the same mass but larger volume, so the same S-B255K heat energy would be spread more thinly and the temperature lower. Temperature is not related to volume nor is it a measure of volume. Pete Rogers wrote: We know the temperature cannot be below 255K, Random number. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Pete Rogers wrote: so the degree of the state of compression causes the extent of the ATE. Static pressure on a gas does not increase its temperature. I've already been over this. Pete Rogers wrote: It is not clear that you understand this from what you have said though I would have thought it straightforward and robust, It is not straightforward or robust. It is denying science. You have so far denied the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Pete Rogers wrote: Gravity is responsible for the ATE, There is no such thing as 'ATE'. Pete Rogers wrote: not the GE. There is no such thing as 'GE'. Pete Rogers wrote: It means that CO2 has no thermal effect. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-07-2020 03:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	Pete Rogers wrote: Dear IBdaMann, There is definitely a greenhouse effect in the sense that some gas molecules, such as water vapour and CO2 are not transparent to Infrared waves. Irrelevant. Absorption of CO2 emitted by the surface does not cause warming. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. Mantra 20a1. Pete Rogers wrote: This was discovered in the 19th Century by the Irish/English Physicist John Tyndall So? Mantra 4f. Pete Rogers wrote: and his experimental proof is why rational people are correct to accept it as far as that goes. Experiments are not a proof. Tyndall's measurements are still just that...a measurement. Mantras 10i... Pete Rogers wrote: The question is whether it has a thermal consequence There is no such thing as 'thermal consequence'. Mantra 20n. Pete Rogers wrote: as that was not experimentally established. Experiments do not establish or prove anything True. Mantra 10i. Pete Rogers wrote: You should see that the argument I have put shows definitively that it does not. The argument you have put forth is based on an invalid predicate. The argument itself, therefore, is invalid. Mantra 39d. Pete Rogers wrote: Albedo also seems to be misunderstood here Nope. It's just the inverse of emissivity, which is what is used in science. Only rubes use albedo. Mantra 20b2. Pete Rogers wrote: if you will forgive me for observing to that effect- it is just the % of the reflection of incoming solar rays straight back out with no heating effect on the planet. Now you are denying quantum mechanics, and the effect of the absorption of light. Not all light is absorbed. Not all light that is absorbed is converted into thermal energy. Mantras 20q1...20q3...20g... Pete Rogers wrote: The main causes of Albedo Neither albedo nor emissivity have a cause. Emissivity is simply a measured value. Mantras 20b2...20e2. Pete Rogers wrote: are Clouds Clouds do not cause emissivity nor prevent it. Clouds are not a proper noun. They are not capitalized. Mantra 20b2 Pete Rogers wrote: and Ice caps. Ice caps do not cause emissivity nor prevent it. 'Ice caps' is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized. Mantra 20b2. Pete Rogers wrote: Thermodynamics is precisely the basis of this You are denying thermodynamics. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b2. Pete Rogers wrote: proof There are no proofs in science. Science is an open functional system. It is devoid of proofs. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. Mantra 20c...10i... Pete Rogers wrote: that the ATE (not my coinage, but a scientific one) There is no such thing as ATE. Science is not the coinage of words. Mantra 20e2. Pete Rogers wrote: is caused by compression Static pressure does not increase the temperature. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Mantra 20a1...20n... Pete Rogers wrote: not the GE. There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect' in science. It is a religious buzzword with no meaning. Mantra 22g. Pete Rogers wrote: The definition of the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement; since you ask so kindly: is "The number of degrees by which the presence of the Atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet above 255K." There is no such thing as 'Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement'. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Mantras 22...25g...25g... Pete Rogers wrote: Your comparison of IPCC with religious organisations is amusing since both are evangelistic it seems to me. For instance the IPCC does not permit funding of research that is not pre-determined to support the idea that man is guilty of climate change so that embarrassing questions do not arise. Religions try to pull off the same trick of avoiding embarrassing questions so I commonly ask them how it can be reasonable - or even sane - to tell us that a being which does worse than murder to almost every human past present and future by their eternal torment in hell can possibly be love entire, the results are spectacular - collapse of stout parties. I also compare your arguments with that of the Church of Global Warming. You are making the same mistakes, using the same buzzwords, the same denial of science, and the same denial of mathematics. You are what IBdaMann commonly refers to as a 'warmazombie'. Warmazombies are simply one sect of the Church of Global Warming. Pete Rogers wrote: Here on Climate Change I am simply showing that IPCC are wrong. Both of you are wrong...both you and the IPCC. You both deny science and mathematics. Pete Rogers wrote: Gravity is responsible for the ATE There is no such thing as ATE. Mantra 22. Pete Rogers wrote: because of the ideal gas law The ideal gas law is about dynamic pressure, not static pressure. You are denying the ideal gas law. Mantra 20n. Pete Rogers wrote: and what is happening is natural as always. Denying science and mathematics seems to be as natural as always for you. I have already covered this stuff for you. You continue to spew the same arguments repetitively. You have presented no counterarguments. You are attempting to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Yes...even in your effort to disprove the IPCC, you are acting just like the IPCC. No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Argument by repetition fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-07-2020 04:21
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: @IBDM, Einstein showed that light bends when moving past a dense astral body like a brown dwarf. Yes, Einstein showed that gravity curves space-time. James___ wrote: 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. The scientists that caimed photons curved away from the sun were wrong ... and were probably warmizombies. Heck, one might have been tmiddles, who knows? Photons have mass (without being matter) per E = mc^2 Ergo, the accelerate towards the brown dwarf. Regarding dark matter, I saw some once at the bottom of a swimming pool. I opted not to swim in it. The water didn't fly out of the pool, though. . I read an article that detailed the reason. It's something that I don't think that scientists today understand it's implications. If you and your friends had your way, we'd be travelling by horse and buggy.

30-07-2020 04:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	Pete Rogers wrote: Dear IBdaMann, The GE shows simply and unambiguously - Define 'greenhouse effect'. To do that, you must define 'global warming' or 'climate change'. You are using meaningless buzzwords. That is about as ambiguous as you can get. Pete Rogers wrote: that whilst all gases are transparent to UV Incorrect. Oxygen, for example, absorbs certain frequencies of UV light. Pete Rogers wrote: some are opaque to IR. No gas is opaque to the entire IR spectrum. Most any material, however, does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light, if they are in a low enough energy state. Pete Rogers wrote: This is empirically proven, Buzzwords. There are no proofs in science. Mantra 10i. Experiments and even measurements are not a proof. All observations and the data they produce are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Science is not dependent on any observation or data. Science consists of a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less. Pete Rogers wrote: but the claim that it warms the planet (thermal consequence) is not, At this point you seem to be defining the buzzword 'thermal consequence' as 'global warming'. Define 'global warming'. This buzzword has never been defined except in religious terms. See The Manual. Pete Rogers wrote: but assumed circumstantially Define the circumstances. Be specific. Pete Rogers wrote: instead as the cause of the ATE. There is no such thing as ATE. Pete Rogers wrote: That gas compression increases temperature is indisputable; Static pressures does not increase temperature. Mantra 20n. Pete Rogers wrote: except by said moron: Insult fallacy. Mantra 1. Pete Rogers wrote: even from the modest discovery that you went "ouch" after a bit when pumping your bike tyre up, While pumping up a bike tire certainly increase the temperature in the tire, I've never burned myself on one. BTW, once pumped up, the tire and the gas inside it returns to the outside temperature. Pete Rogers wrote: to the fact that large gas bodies reach temperatures of such enormity from precisely their own gravitational compression that at billions (perhaps) of degrees stars are formed from their material. Nope. The ideal gas law is not what lights up the Sun or any other star. Mantra 10n...denial of nuclear reactions. Denial of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Pete Rogers wrote: Every body of gas has its temperature increased by its state of compression because the heat energy per cubic metre goes up to the extent of the reduction in volume occupied. Static pressure does not increase temperature. Mantra 20n. Pete Rogers wrote: It would only be said moron who would find that difficult to follow would it not and it definitely means we have our ATE (however large or small) and that it is due to gravity not CO2? Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as ATE. Mantra 20n. Pete Rogers wrote: Ice and clouds reflect a % of the Sun's UV so that % does not get to heat the Earth's surface UV light does not heat anything. Denial of quantum mechanics. Mantra 20q1. Pete Rogers wrote: - that's all I mean by the measure of albedo - The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is a measured constant. Pete Rogers wrote: so the more cloud and ice the more the albedo The amount of cloud cover on Earth is unknown. The total amount of ice and snow on Earth is unknown. Pete Rogers wrote: and the less the net insolation accordingly. There is no such thing as 'net' insolation. Mantra 10f. Pete Rogers wrote: Emissivity needs no incorporation to clarify any of this - it is already clear. Nah. You are just spouting gibber-babble as 'science'. Mantra 20e2. Pete Rogers wrote: The First Law of Thermodynamics is the basis for the ATE WRONG. You are DENYING the 1st law of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as ATE. Pete Rogers wrote: as according to it the negative work performed by gravity Gravity is not work. It is a force. Pete Rogers wrote: must increase the temperature Nope. Can't create energy out of nothing. Mantra 20a1. Pete Rogers wrote: due to conservation of that energy within the reduced volume. The volume is not being reduced. Pete Rogers wrote: If you are an expert you would know this - please advise if otherwise. Define 'expert'. Mantra 4f. Science is not credentials. Science is not a degree or a license. Anyone can create a theory of science. Anyone can destroy a theory of science via falsification. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-07-2020 08:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	James___ wrote: If you and your friends had your way, we'd be travelling by horse and buggy. You say that like it's a bad thing. Actually I'm only in favor of buggies pulled by horses with BFE-95 facemasks to keep the horses from spreading COVID. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
30-07-2020 10:34
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Coronaviruses are mainly animal viruses, the most common respiratory infection on farms.
30-07-2020 14:36
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	The claim that the Greenhouse Effect (the finding that certain gases intercept IR) warms the planet is false as the evidence that the IPCC are claiming for it - that it is the only possible reason for the ATE - is incorrect because that is caused by compression. The Atmosphere is adiabatic, so the only way it can lose its heat is by conduction of the enhancement it causes back to the earth's surface leading to an increase in IR emission bringing the system temperature back into equilibrium at an increased level. In summary insolation causes the solid/liquid planet to warm and the heat is conducted into the atmosphere, which - due to its compressed state - causes temperature increase which goes back to the surface under the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. All gases - greenhouse or otherwise - are transparent to UV so you will need to show proof of your revolutionary claim that oxygen intercepts it to some significant extent. Apart from the compression effect - caused by gravity and therefore being pretty constant- the variation in modern temperature is due to alterations in net insolation. This is pretty simple stuff so the objections are rather strange in the way they arise as there doesn't seem to be evidence of understanding of what is being said shown before objection is put - they don't connect to the thesis. That is most unusual and not recommended in any process of scientific enquiry.
30-07-2020 15:55
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: If you and your friends had your way, we'd be travelling by horse and buggy. You say that like it's a bad thing. Actually I'm only in favor of buggies pulled by horses with BFE-95 facemasks to keep the horses from spreading COVID. . That's what I like about you IBDM. You care about animals. Edited on 30-07-2020 16:08
30-07-2020 16:07
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Pete Rogers wrote: The claim that the Greenhouse Effect (the finding that certain gases intercept IR) warms the planet is false as the evidence that the IPCC are claiming for it - that it is the only possible reason for the ATE - is incorrect because that is caused by compression. The Atmosphere is adiabatic, so the only way it can lose its heat is by conduction of the enhancement it causes back to the earth's surface leading to an increase in IR emission bringing the system temperature back into equilibrium at an increased level. In summary insolation causes the solid/liquid planet to warm and the heat is conducted into the atmosphere, which - due to its compressed state - causes temperature increase which goes back to the surface under the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. All gases - greenhouse or otherwise - are transparent to UV so you will need to show proof of your revolutionary claim that oxygen intercepts it to some significant extent. Apart from the compression effect - caused by gravity and therefore being pretty constant- the variation in modern temperature is due to alterations in net insolation. This is pretty simple stuff so the objections are rather strange in the way they arise as there doesn't seem to be evidence of understanding of what is being said shown before objection is put - they don't connect to the thesis. That is most unusual and not recommended in any process of scientific enquiry. This actually gets into some of the nitpicking that me and IBDM got into. I was wrong in an earlier statement about the Earth's orbit was becoming more circular. It's actually becoming more elliptical. All this means is that the Earth is rotating a little slower on it's axis https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/11/20/earths-rotation-is-mysteriously-slowing-down-experts-predict-uptick-in-2018-earthquakes/#5209f5b6f243. This in return can either decrease the amount of solar IR the Earth receiving from the Sun is absorbed or possibly even released conserved energy as heat. It is sad that the Earth as a result of it's own gravity releases heat it generates from it's own internal forces. Still, for long term sustainability, restoring the ozone layer should matter as well as understanding if less O2 in the atmosphere has an effect on the Chapman cycle. I haven't seen where anyone has calculated the amount of heat radiated or removed by O2/O3 in our atmosphere, ie., kept from entering or is removed. O2 is highly radiative.
30-07-2020 17:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Pete Rogers wrote: The claim that the Greenhouse Effect Hey Pete ... Pete! Can you hear me all the way out in the peanut gallery? What is this Greenhouse Effect? You still have not provided an unambiguous definition, probably because you don't know what one is, and you have not accounted for the additional energy required to increase temperature, probably because your poor understanding of thermodynamics leaves you unaware of what you need to show. Pete Rogers wrote: - that it is the only possible reason for the ATE - is incorrect because that is caused by compression. OK, so this particular religious dogma resonates with you and affords you the spiritual uplifing you seek ... and you are here to preach it. Once you find that your audience is not receptive to your "Good News of Compression" because physics tells us that the effect of gravity on the atmosphere is to drive all planetary temperatures closer to the average, not to increase the average planetary temperature, ... will you be disappointed? Pete Rogers wrote: The Atmosphere is adiabatic, ... and that is completely irrelevant when discussing the completely undefined. Pete Rogers wrote: ... so the only way it can lose its heat is by conduction of the enhancement it causes back to the earth's surface leading to an increase in IR emission bringing the system temperature back into equilibrium at an increased level. This is the exact type of absurd gibber-babble that is best left to Into the Night to address, if he is so inclined. I hope you realize that you are preaching an EGREGIOUS violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... so don't be too surprised when he mentions something to the effect of an EGREGIOUS violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Did I mention that it was EGREGIOUS? Pete Rogers wrote: In summary insolation causes the solid/liquid planet to warm ... and the atmosphere as well. Pete Rogers wrote:...and the heat is conducted into the atmosphere, Correction: the thermal energy is conducted, convected and radiated into the atmosphere, creating heat. Pete Rogers wrote: which - due to its compressed state - causes temperature increase ... ... or cools/causes a temperature decrease ... Pete Rogers wrote: ... which goes back to the surface under the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Nope. This is the EGREGIOUS violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that Into the Night will probably mention. Pete Rogers wrote: All gases - greenhouse or otherwise - are transparent to UV Incorrect, and the ozone is essentially opaque to UV-C Pete Rogers wrote: ... so you will need to show proof of your revolutionary claim that oxygen intercepts it to some significant extent. You are the one who needs to support his claim. Would you care to guess why sunblock products are for UV-A and UV-B ... but none for UV-C? [hint: read the above] Pete Rogers wrote: the variation in modern temperature is due to alterations in net insolation. Net insolation? How do you compute net insolation? Pete Rogers wrote:This is pretty simple stuff ... I have noticed that people who spew gibber-babble have a tendency to close with "this is simple stuff." Aaaah, the WACKY minds of the delusional. If it's so simple, why are you unable to provide unambiguous definitions that don't violate physics for "Greenhouse Effect" and for "Atmospheric Thermal Effect"? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
30-07-2020 17:55
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	The "Greenhouse Effect" as it is called allows for a livable, hospitable for the most part environment. An example is the greenhouse itself which can grow plants when it's cold outside. This is not to determine the cause of why a greenhouse is warm but to only illustrate that it is a stable environment which can encourage life as we know it. And since to allow for only 1 interpretation, the gasses in a confined area that is exposed to solar radiation is known as a "Greenhouse". A "Greenhose Effect" implies that gasses in a defined area that are both exposed to solar radiation and are not confined would define the effect. This does not imply the cause of warming, it only defines what a "greenhouse" and a "Greenhouse Effect" "IS". And notice, I did say "IS". This would require someone to prove the "are not". This is kind of where people need to learn basic physics. BTW, IMHO, I do believe that scientists might be more concerned with gasses associated with the combustion process and not actually CO2 itself. The hole in the ozone layer is an example. But as some people have shown, understanding a simple definition of confined gasses exposed to solar radiation defines a "Greenhouse", yet why is the "Greenhouse" warmer than the gasses not confined in one, ie., the gasses surrounding a "Greenhouse" are always cooler. Why "greenhouses" are cooled. Achieving a comfortable and reasonable greenhouse temperature is easier to do in the winter than the summer. A combination of shade, air movement and humidity will often result in a good growing environment. Even so, the greenhouse should be carefully monitored whenever it is in use: summer or winter. In the northernmost regions of the country, fans and circulators will keep a greenhouse moderately cool in the summer. In all other regions the only effective and efficient method of keeping temperatures down to a reasonable level is evaporative cooling. http://turnergreenhouses.com/turner-tips/cooling-my-greenhouse-in-summer/ Hopefully you guys will actually consider this. It's just that if you cannot understand how an actual "Greenhouse" works, just not sure what to say. And P.S., greenhouses are COOLED using outside air. Why are they so much warmer than the outside environment? Edited on 30-07-2020 18:26
30-07-2020 20:37
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Most commercial greenhouse augment the CO2, to about 1200 ppm. How come the plants aren't catching fire, like in the IPCC models of the far future, if we don't change are evil, wicked, fossil fuel burning ways? That's almost 3 times the current CO2 levels, which, are way too high, and causing all the catastrophic weather events around the planet, BLM riots, and Covid-19. Florida is looking at a disaster of biblical proportions, if the holy forecast models are correct. Saturday and Sunday, we are looking a monster of a storm, possibly an unprecedented Category One Hurricane. The entire state is apparently inflicted with horrible plague. Mobile (drive-up) Covid-19 testing sites are to close tonight, and packed away. How are people going to know if they can safely go to storm shelters, if the don't know who's infected with this extremely deadly cold virus? Well, guess it's a little late to get tested before the storm anyway, since it takes 7-10 days to get the results. Hardly worth getting getting a giant Q-Tip shoved up your nose, about 4" inches, for a brain tissue sample. Wonder if that is how they torture people into wearing those silly masks... Can't even self-sedate, at a local stripper bar, before going to get tested. No lap dances allowed, and you get a DUI, if you drove up to get tested.
30-07-2020 22:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	James___ wrote: The "Greenhouse Effect" as it is called allows for a livable, hospitable for the most part environment. An example is the greenhouse itself which can grow plants when it's cold outside. This is not to determine the cause of why a greenhouse is warm but to only illustrate that it is a stable environment which can encourage life as we know it. And since to allow for only 1 interpretation, the gasses in a confined area that is exposed to solar radiation is known as a "Greenhouse". A "Greenhose Effect" implies that gasses in a defined area that are both exposed to solar radiation and are not confined would define the effect. This does not imply the cause of warming, it only defines what a "greenhouse" and a "Greenhouse Effect" "IS". And notice, I did say "IS". This would require someone to prove the "are not". This is kind of where people need to learn basic physics. BTW, IMHO, I do believe that scientists might be more concerned with gasses associated with the combustion process and not actually CO2 itself. The hole in the ozone layer is an example. But as some people have shown, understanding a simple definition of confined gasses exposed to solar radiation defines a "Greenhouse", yet why is the "Greenhouse" warmer than the gasses not confined in one, ie., the gasses surrounding a "Greenhouse" are always cooler. Why "greenhouses" are cooled. Achieving a comfortable and reasonable greenhouse temperature is easier to do in the winter than the summer. A combination of shade, air movement and humidity will often result in a good growing environment. Even so, the greenhouse should be carefully monitored whenever it is in use: summer or winter. In the northernmost regions of the country, fans and circulators will keep a greenhouse moderately cool in the summer. In all other regions the only effective and efficient method of keeping temperatures down to a reasonable level is evaporative cooling. http://turnergreenhouses.com/turner-tips/cooling-my-greenhouse-in-summer/ Hopefully you guys will actually consider this. It's just that if you cannot understand how an actual "Greenhouse" works, just not sure what to say. And P.S., greenhouses are COOLED using outside air. Why are they so much warmer than the outside environment? This question has already been answered. Greenhouses work by reducing heat, specifically convective heat. Blankets work by reducing convective and conductive heat. So do coats. The ozone hole is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It has nothing to do with emissions of any kind by man. These 'holes' in the ozone layer appear over a pole in the winter of that pole, where there is no sunlight to produce ozone during that pole's winter. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-07-2020 22:59
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: The "Greenhouse Effect" as it is called allows for a livable, hospitable for the most part environment. An example is the greenhouse itself which can grow plants when it's cold outside. This is not to determine the cause of why a greenhouse is warm but to only illustrate that it is a stable environment which can encourage life as we know it. And since to allow for only 1 interpretation, the gasses in a confined area that is exposed to solar radiation is known as a "Greenhouse". A "Greenhose Effect" implies that gasses in a defined area that are both exposed to solar radiation and are not confined would define the effect. This does not imply the cause of warming, it only defines what a "greenhouse" and a "Greenhouse Effect" "IS". And notice, I did say "IS". This would require someone to prove the "are not". This is kind of where people need to learn basic physics. BTW, IMHO, I do believe that scientists might be more concerned with gasses associated with the combustion process and not actually CO2 itself. The hole in the ozone layer is an example. But as some people have shown, understanding a simple definition of confined gasses exposed to solar radiation defines a "Greenhouse", yet why is the "Greenhouse" warmer than the gasses not confined in one, ie., the gasses surrounding a "Greenhouse" are always cooler. Why "greenhouses" are cooled. Achieving a comfortable and reasonable greenhouse temperature is easier to do in the winter than the summer. A combination of shade, air movement and humidity will often result in a good growing environment. Even so, the greenhouse should be carefully monitored whenever it is in use: summer or winter. In the northernmost regions of the country, fans and circulators will keep a greenhouse moderately cool in the summer. In all other regions the only effective and efficient method of keeping temperatures down to a reasonable level is evaporative cooling. http://turnergreenhouses.com/turner-tips/cooling-my-greenhouse-in-summer/ Hopefully you guys will actually consider this. It's just that if you cannot understand how an actual "Greenhouse" works, just not sure what to say. And P.S., greenhouses are COOLED using outside air. Why are they so much warmer than the outside environment? This question has already been answered. Greenhouses work by reducing heat, specifically convective heat. Blankets work by reducing convective and conductive heat. So do coats. The ozone hole is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It has nothing to do with emissions of any kind by man. These 'holes' in the ozone layer appear over a pole in the winter of that pole, where there is no sunlight to produce ozone during that pole's winter. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.
31-07-2020 04:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote:As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to. James__, you should have a happy face, not a sad face. We will always have ozone! It's chemistry. It's GOOD news! C'mon ... give us a smile there, champ! . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
31-07-2020 05:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	James___ wrote: The "Greenhouse Effect" as it is called allows for a livable, hospitable for the most part environment. Unambiguously define "Greenhouse Effect" such that it does not violate physics. James___ wrote: An example is the greenhouse itself which can grow plants when it's cold outside. Nope. You have to START with the unambiguous definition (that does not violate physics) and THEN you can provide examples. That's how it works. As it stands, no greenhouse exhibits any Greenhouse Effect that you have defined. What I want to know is whether a Greenhouse Effect can be blown through an ozone hole by the Norwegian Jet Stream ... or whether any forcings or feedback loops are required. Without an unambiguous defintion I fear I will never know the answer. . Attached image:
31-07-2020 12:42
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote:As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to. James__, you should have a happy face, not a sad face. We will always have ozone! It's chemistry. It's GOOD news! C'mon ... give us a smile there, champ! . It's always sad when someone misses the opportunity to properly apply the Stefan-Boltzman constant.
31-07-2020 15:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	James___ wrote:It's always sad when someone misses the opportunity to properly apply the Stefan-Boltzman constant. How silly of me. I did forget to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Thank you for pointing that out. Attached image:

31-07-2020 19:00
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:It's always sad when someone misses the opportunity to properly apply the Stefan-Boltzman constant. How silly of me. I did forget to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Thank you for pointing that out. You're learning young one. A "Greenhouse" is warm because incoming solar IR is absorbed by something and then emitted at a different wavelength. This allows for solar radiation to be absorbed by the gasses in the "Greenhouse". And we're back to where I think scientists are actually concerned about other gasses. And that might be like a sermon I watched on television from IBC Lex where the pastor was being both dishonest and deceitful when he was asking some of his parishioners to do something that he wanted them to do. And as you know son, I happen to like both the ozone layer and Star Trek. And both require an interest in science. And luckily I happen to like science. That's what I call a Trifecta. Edited on 31-07-2020 19:04
31-07-2020 19:45
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	First IBdaMann was correct to say that UV is absorbed by the atmosphere - "All Hail" - and I was wrong to say otherwise so "Fie upon me". Talking about where we live in the atmosphere I should have used the correct term – Troposphere - so please accept my apologies. UV is not absorbed by tropospheric gases and being at above 10kPa in pressure the Troposphere maintains a temperature gradient: whereby the greater the pressure the greater the temperature, being greatest at the bottom for obvious reasons. The troposphere is heated from below by conduction through surface contact and IPCC say also by the Greenhouse Effect: being the alleged temperature enhancement arising from the interception of surface IR emissions by greenhouse gases (GG's). If you find that definition ambiguous please provide particulars to illustrate the claim. Heat within the atmosphere cannot be conducted beyond its edge because there is only vacuum; wherefore it is adiabatic. The Greenhouse Effect (GE) is a misnomer because as James__ avers an actual greenhouse works by trapping warm air so to prevent convection which is a very different matter to deflecting IR - there is no comparison between these processes so the term is deceptive. There is no empirical evidence to show that the GE results in any warming but IPCC say there can be no other explanation for the fact that the Earth would be cooler if it had no atmosphere. If they were right they would have a point, but there is another explanation. According to the Laws of Fluid Dynamics (Part of Thermodynamics) as applied to gas bodies at more than 10kPa, when heat energy enters a compressed medium from a non-compressed medium the temperature rises in accordance with the thermal gradient, this is because at low compression there would be less heat energy per Cubic Metre so gravity enhances the temperature of the troposphere – most notably at its base - which means the temperature is then above that of the surface so as compelled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics heat flows from the warmer atmosphere to the less warm Earth's surface. IBdaMann seemed to think this was an EGREGIOUS violation of Thermodynamics when it is a rigorous adherence to it, but perhaps hen can explain I would be very interested to hear it. In summary the atmosphere warms the earth due to the Laws of Fluid Dynamics whereby gravitational compression causes thermal enhancement which is conducted back to the cooler Earth in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics causing warming which leads to an increase in IR emissions bringing the system back into equilibrium at an increased temperature. Accordingly there is no warming from the GE - nor therefore from our CO2. It's all correct physics and should be easy to follow for anyone familiar with the scientific method – so as I said – pretty simple stuff.
31-07-2020 22:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Pete Rogers wrote: The troposphere is heated from below by conduction through surface contact and IPCC say also by the Greenhouse Effect: being the alleged temperature enhancement arising from the interception of surface IR emissions by greenhouse gases (GG's). I have two major problems that need to be addressed: 1) You specificy the troposphere which is part of the atmosphere which is part of the earth. So the Greenhouse Effect only applies to troposphere? What parts of the troposphere decrease in temperature due to the Greenhouse Effect? What happens to the temperatures of the other parts of the atmosphere in response to whatever happens to the troposphere? What happens to the rest of the planet, i.e. the hydrosphere and the solid sruface, in response to to whatever happens to the atmosphere in response to whatever happens to the troposphere? I have to know all that. 2) You have specified a sequence of energy form-changes but you have specified an increase in temperature without accounting for the additional energy required for the claimed temperature increase. As such, your definition is a straight out violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics until that additional energy is forthwith accounted. You can't create it our of nothing and you can't have anything spontaneously increasing in temperature without additional energy. Pete Rogers wrote: Heat within the atmosphere cannot be conducted beyond its edge because there is only vacuum; wherefore it is adiabatic. I'm going to help you out here. Please take notes. The scientifically illiterate broadcast who they are by their misuse of the word "heat" which is what lay people use generically when they don't really understand what they are talking about. Heat is a flow of thermal energy. Heat is not a thing to which you can point and say "that is heat" unless you are indicating the flow of thermal energy from some matter to different matter. Thermal energy is a form of energy and is the energy in question when discussing temperature. Only matter can have temperature and therefore only matter can have associated thermal energy ... which it loses as it converts to electromagnetic energy and radiates away per Stefan-Boltzmann. Such electromagnetic radiation is called thermal radiation. "Heat" is to thermal energy in matter as "Current" is to water in a river. Heat is not temperature. Heat is not energy. Heat is a flow. The 1st law of thermodynamics tells us that no energy is created out of nothing so as thermal energy flows, some matter will increase in temperature and some matter will lower in temperature. If anyone only talks about the earth increasing in temperature without either explaining what matter is cooling or without accounting for additional energy, then the technical phrase is the Latin: "Ikeall Boolsch't" Regarding misuse of the word "heat" ... from The MANUAL: Heat: noun In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient. Pete Rogers wrote: There is no empirical evidence to show that the GE results in any warming There is no empirical evidence that peanut butter causes cancer in gremlins. Greenhouse Effect is still not unambiguously defined. There is no science of the undefined. Pete Rogers wrote: ... but IPCC say there can be no other explanation for the fact that the Earth would be cooler if it had no atmosphere. The Vatican say there can be no explanation for the universe other than God's plan. Pete Rogers wrote: According to the Laws of Fluid Dynamics (Part of Thermodynamics) Thermodynamics governs energy. Fluid dynamics governs fluids as a subset of matter, and adheres to, but is not part of, thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: ... this is because at low compression there would be less heat energy per Cubic Metre so gravity enhances the temperature of the troposphere Only upon intial compression ... then it cools to its original temperature. You never fail to omit this key point. It's like you are hoping it will go away. Your argument is dismissed. Get with the program. Pete Rogers wrote: ... is then above that of the surface so as compelled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics heat flows from the warmer atmosphere to the less warm Earth's surface. The daytime solid surface is of a higher temperature than the atmosphere which cools the solid surface, in even a more pronounced manner with greater gravity and greater compression. Ergo, if the atmosphere were to warm the daytime solid surface instead of cool it, it would be an EGREGIOUS violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, akin to using ice to boil water. Pete Rogers wrote:IBdaMann seemed to think this was an EGREGIOUS violation of Thermodynamics explained immediately above. Pete Rogers wrote:In summary the atmosphere warms the earth due to the Laws of Fluid Dynamics No and No. Pete Rogers wrote: ... whereby gravitational compression causes thermal enhancement Nope. The gravitational compression happened a L - O - N - G time ago and the atmosphere has long since cooled back down to equilibrium. Pete Rogers wrote: ... which is conducted back to the cooler Earth The warmer solid surface heats the atmosphere through conduction, convection and radiation. Pete Rogers wrote: ... which leads to an increase in IR emissions Out of what nothing were these increased IR emissions created? Pete Rogers wrote: bringing the system back into equilibrium at an increased temperature. Solar output must change for the earth's equilibrium temperature to change. This is the other major point you keep ignoring in the hopes that it just goes away. The earth cannot spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy, no matter how compressed the atmosphere is (because it happened a long time ago). You are intentionally violating the 1st law of thermodynamics just to make your religious dogma sound plausible. Pete Rogers wrote:pretty simple stuff. Fitting. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
31-07-2020 23:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:It's always sad when someone misses the opportunity to properly apply the Stefan-Boltzman constant. How silly of me. I did forget to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Thank you for pointing that out. You're learning young one. A "Greenhouse" is warm because incoming solar IR is absorbed by something and then emitted at a different wavelength. Irrelevant. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have a frequency component. Greenhouses work by reducing heat. James___ wrote: This allows for solar radiation to be absorbed by the gasses in the "Greenhouse". Nope. Greenhouses work by reducing heat. It doesn't matter what gasses are in it. James___ wrote: And we're back to where I think scientists are actually concerned about other gasses. Irrelevant. Science isn't scientists. James___ wrote: And that might be like a sermon I watched on television from IBC Lex where the pastor was being both dishonest and deceitful when he was asking some of his parishioners to do something that he wanted them to do. Meh. James___ wrote: And as you know son, I happen to like both the ozone layer and Star Trek. And both require an interest in science. Neither requires an interest in science. The ozone layer has existed long before anyone knew it was there. Star Trek is science fiction, not science. James___ wrote: And luckily I happen to like science. Then why do you deny it? James___ wrote: That's what I call a Trifecta. That's what I call denial of science, specifically the Stefan-Boltzman law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 31-07-2020 23:52
01-08-2020 00:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	Pete Rogers wrote: First IBdaMann was correct to say that UV is absorbed by the atmosphere - "All Hail" - and I was wrong to say otherwise so "Fie upon me". You are not forgiven. You do it again in this post. Pete Rogers wrote: Talking about where we live in the atmosphere I should have used the correct term – Troposphere - so please accept my apologies. Makes no difference. Pete Rogers wrote: UV is not absorbed by tropospheric gases Yes it is. Pete Rogers wrote: and being at above 10kPa in pressure the Troposphere maintains a temperature gradient: whereby the greater the pressure the greater the temperature, being greatest at the bottom for obvious reasons. Static pressure does not increase temperature. Pete Rogers wrote: The troposphere is heated from below by conduction through surface contact This part is correct. Pete Rogers wrote: and IPCC say also by the Greenhouse Effect: being the alleged temperature enhancement arising from the interception of surface IR emissions by greenhouse gases (GG's). Absorption of IR light emitted by the surface does not warm the Earth. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: If you find that definition ambiguous please provide particulars to illustrate the claim. You have to define 'global warming' before you can define 'greenhouse effect' which supposedly causes it. Pete Rogers wrote: Heat within the atmosphere cannot be conducted beyond its edge because there is only vacuum; wherefore it is adiabatic. There is no 'edge' to the atmosphere. Adiabatic cooling has nothing to do with warming the Earth. Pete Rogers wrote: The Greenhouse Effect (GE) is a misnomer because as James__ avers an actual greenhouse works by trapping warm air so to prevent convection which is a very different matter to deflecting IR - there is no comparison between these processes so the term is deceptive. Greenhouses do not prevent or reduce conductive heat. Pete Rogers wrote: There is no empirical evidence to show that the GE results in any warming but IPCC say there can be no other explanation for the fact that the Earth would be cooler if it had no atmosphere. Define 'global warming'. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Pete Rogers wrote: If they were right they would have a point, but there is another explanation. According to the Laws of Fluid Dynamics (Part of Thermodynamics) Fluid dynamics is not part of thermodynamics. There is no explanation needed. Define 'global warming'. Pete Rogers wrote: as applied to gas bodies at more than 10kPa, when heat energy enters a compressed medium from a non-compressed medium the temperature rises in accordance with the thermal gradient, this is because at low compression there would be less heat energy per Cubic Metre so gravity enhances the temperature of the troposphere – most notably at its base - which means the temperature is then above that of the surface so as compelled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics heat flows from the warmer atmosphere to the less warm Earth's surface. The atmosphere is not warmer than the surface of Earth. The only exception is localized places where the atmosphere was warmed by some hotter region, and then flows over a colder region. Globally, the atmosphere is not hotter than the surface. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics now. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann seemed to think this was an EGREGIOUS violation of Thermodynamics when it is a rigorous adherence to it, IBdaMann is correct. You are making egregious violations of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: but perhaps he can explain I would be very interested to hear it. He already has. So have I. Repetitious Question Already Answered (RQAA). Pete Rogers wrote: In summary the atmosphere warms the earth due to the Laws of Fluid Dynamics Nope. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again, as well as fluid dynamics and the ideal gas law. Mantras 20a1...20n... Pete Rogers wrote: whereby gravitational compression causes thermal enhancement There is no such thing as 'gravitational compression' in the atmosphere. There is no such thing as 'thermal enhancement'. Buzzword fallacies. Pete Rogers wrote: which is conducted back to the cooler Earth in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics The surface is not cooler than the atmosphere. You are ignoring both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics as well as the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: causing warming which leads to an increase in IR emissions bringing the system back into equilibrium at an increased temperature. There is no sequence. All of these laws operate all the time. None of them are suspended for even a moment. Pete Rogers wrote: Accordingly there is no warming from the GE - nor therefore from our CO2. This part is correct. Pete Rogers wrote: It's all correct physics No, it isn't. You are still denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: and should be easy to follow for anyone familiar with the scientific method Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-08-2020 02:25
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Pete Rogers wrote: First IBdaMann was correct to say that UV is absorbed by the atmosphere - "All Hail" - and I was wrong to say otherwise so "Fie upon me". Talking about where we live in the atmosphere I should have used the correct term – Troposphere - so please accept my apologies. UV is not absorbed by tropospheric gases and being at above 10kPa in pressure the Troposphere maintains a temperature gradient: whereby the greater the pressure the greater the temperature, being greatest at the bottom for obvious reasons. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs 99% of UV-C, 90% of UV-B and 50% of UV-A UV radiation. At ground level, this decreases to about 1120-1000 watts/m2, and consists of 44% visible light, 3% ultraviolet (with the Sun at the zenith (directly overhead), but less at other angles), and the remainder infrared. Thus, sunlight's composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation. The balance between absorbed and emitted infrared radiation has a critical effect on the Earth's climate. I tend to go with the cumulative effect. The Earth's slightly slowed rotation, less O@ in the troposphere and less O3 in the stratosphere. The change in CO2 levels is less of a contributing factor than the other things listed. An example is an increase of 1.5 w/m^2 probably has more of a warming potential than CO2 does. 0.06% less O2 in the troposphere means that less heat is radiated. And CO2's change has gone from 0.0285% to 0.04% of tropospheric gasses. O2 loss is about 6 times the increase of CO2. Still, in the long run, we are heading for another ice age. The Earth's orbit is becoming more elliptical while it's warming. Hope Ya'all Have a Nice Day p.s., the loss of O2 and stratospheric ozone could account for an increase of 9.5 w/m^2. As a percentage of the atmosphere, they could easily account for any observed warming. An example is that nights are warmer because there is less O2 in the troposphere to radiate heat out into the tropopause towards space. Edited on 01-08-2020 02:56
01-08-2020 10:05
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	I can not understand one thing. Why was ideal gas law brought up in the Venus thread if it has no effect on the temperature of the planet. Or does it have some kind of "heat pump" effect causing some places to cool more and some places to warm more?
01-08-2020 10:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	Xadoman wrote: I can not understand one thing. Why was ideal gas law brought up in the Venus thread if it has no effect on the temperature of the planet. Or does it have some kind of "heat pump" effect causing some places to cool more and some places to warm more? It has no effect on the temperature of the planet. Static pressure does not increase temperature, neither on Earth nor on Venus. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-08-2020 11:19
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	So why did you brought it up in the Venus thread?
01-08-2020 11:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	Xadoman wrote: So why did you brought it up in the Venus thread? I didn't. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 1 of 26

Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals	1	03-02-2017 20:30