Remember me
▼ Content

Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith



Page 1 of 7123>>>
Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith05-10-2016 23:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
The Church of Global Warming has certainly evolved over the years. It was thriving there in the first years of the new millennium, began to stall around 2007 and then we watched it fall into a tailspin around 2012. As Global Warming now lay tucked into its deathbed, where do warmizombies stand today?

The mainstay argument of 2000 was that certain atmospheric gases cause the earth to increase in temperature. Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that the claim of "greenhouse gases" increasing temperature violates the 1st LoT.

This minor problem was initially addressed by claiming that "greenhouse gases" somehow "trap" heat. This idea became popular and lingered well after word was spread that no substance has any control over its own radiation, which is regulated purely by its temperature.

Never to be deterred, warmizombies shifted their position to one of "no energy is created, earth's emissions are "slowed." After it was pointed out that earth's emissions always travel at the speed of light and cannot be "slowed" the word was changed to "reduced." Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that Stefan-Boltzmann renders that idea impossible because thermal radiation for any body is controlled by its temperature, i.e. temperature and emission go the same way so the only way for the earth's emissions to be reduced is for the earth's temperature to be reduced, which precludes the earth's temperature increasing.

I would be remiss if I were to forget to mention that, for a while at least, it was popular to violate the 2nd LoT to show "greenhouse effect." The idea is that no energy is created and the earth's average global temperature stays the same, but the cooler upper atmosphere warms the warmer lower atmosphere such that the earth's surface keeps getting warmer while the upper atmosphere simply keeps getting cooler. Again, this is a direct violation of the 2nd LoT but many warmizombies didn't care, rather being drawn to the theory's elegance of bypassing all the other physics violations of the other "greenhouse effect" theories.

So where we stand today wrt "greenhouse effect" is a thoughtful approach that
renders "not applicable" key aspects of science, as needed, to provide an overall contradiction that can be exploited to make temperature increase (i.e. an energy increase) without any increase in energy that would violate the 1st LoT.

Thoughts?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2016 23:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Unmitigated bollocks, as usual. Read a science book.
05-10-2016 23:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
Surface Detail wrote:Unmitigated bollocks, as usual..

I was afraid that it might hit too close to home.

If it counts for anything, I feel for you.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2016 23:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Enough of IBdaMann's delusional ramblings.

For an introduction to the history of the science behind global warming, a good place to start is this page on the American Institute of Physics website:

The Discovery of Global Warming
05-10-2016 23:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
The Church of Global Warming has certainly evolved over the years. It was thriving there in the first years of the new millennium, began to stall around 2007 and then we watched it fall into a tailspin around 2012. As Global Warming now lay tucked into its deathbed, where do warmizombies stand today?


Lies, damn lies, but no actual statistics.

The mainstay argument of 2000 was that certain atmospheric gases cause the earth to increase in temperature. Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that the claim of "greenhouse gases" increasing temperature violates the 1st LoT.


That's because it doesn't. If emission decreases and incoming energy stays the same, the 1st law demands that the temperature increase (assuming no other way of storing energy).

This minor problem was initially addressed by claiming that "greenhouse gases" somehow "trap" heat. This idea became popular and lingered well after word was spread that no substance has any control over its own radiation, which is regulated purely by its temperature.


Completely untrue. Radiation is dependent on emissivity and identity of the radiating substance.

Never to be deterred, warmizombies shifted their position to one of "no energy is created, earth's emissions are "slowed." After it was pointed out that earth's emissions always travel at the speed of light and cannot be "slowed" the word was changed to "reduced." Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that Stefan-Boltzmann renders that idea impossible because thermal radiation for any body is controlled by its temperature, i.e. temperature and emission go the same way so the only way for the earth's emissions to be reduced is for the earth's temperature to be reduced, which precludes the earth's temperature increasing.


Slowed in the sense of "emissions are decreased". Only idiots would claim that the light literally slows down. There is a fundamental difference between "slowing light" and "reducing the energy in the light". If you can't get that, go back to school.

Emission can be altered in other ways. Emissivity can change.

I would be remiss if I were to forget to mention that, for a while at least, it was popular to violate the 2nd LoT to show "greenhouse effect." The idea is that no energy is created and the earth's average global temperature stays the same, but the cooler upper atmosphere warms the warmer lower atmosphere such that the earth's surface keeps getting warmer while the upper atmosphere simply keeps getting cooler. Again, this is a direct violation of the 2nd LoT but many warmizombies didn't care, rather being drawn to the theory's elegance of bypassing all the other physics violations of the other "greenhouse effect" theories.


It doesn't violate the 2nd LoT. You're using the imaginary 2nd LoT, which is different in that it is imaginary.

cold things can't heat warmer things


Yeah, that's false. How about this?

no net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body


Or this, which has the plus of not containing the word "net", which apparently sends you into a blind rage. Net. Net. Netnetnet. This is so much fun.

less energy must travel from a colder body to a warmer body than vice versa


Use your brain and read that. Now explain how in the four hells AGW would violate that.

So where we stand today wrt "greenhouse effect" is a thoughtful approach that renders "not applicable" key aspects of science, as needed, to provide an overall contradiction that can be exploited to make temperature increase (i.e. an energy increase) without any increase in energy that would violate the 1st LoT.

Thoughts?


Wait, you have thoughts? I thought you just pulled it from your behind.

Here's the GHE:

Longwave radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively "no change". The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.


Read that. Let the concepts contained within process. Use your head. Then respond.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
06-10-2016 03:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The Church of Global Warming has certainly evolved over the years. It was thriving there in the first years of the new millennium, began to stall around 2007 and then we watched it fall into a tailspin around 2012. As Global Warming now lay tucked into its deathbed, where do warmizombies stand today?


Lies, damn lies, but no actual statistics.

The mainstay argument of 2000 was that certain atmospheric gases cause the earth to increase in temperature. Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that the claim of "greenhouse gases" increasing temperature violates the 1st LoT.


That's because it doesn't. If emission decreases and incoming energy stays the same, the 1st law demands that the temperature increase (assuming no other way of storing energy).
If something absorbs a color of light, it also emits that same color of light. The only exception to this is by something reacting with the electron to remove its energy before it drops down to a lower energy level and emits light.

Since emissions is color dependent, this means emission cannot increase or decrease without affecting the absorption as well.


jwoodward48 wrote:
This minor problem was initially addressed by claiming that "greenhouse gases" somehow "trap" heat. This idea became popular and lingered well after word was spread that no substance has any control over its own radiation, which is regulated purely by its temperature.


Completely untrue. Radiation is dependent on emissivity and identity of the radiating substance.

Neither of which change.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Never to be deterred, warmizombies shifted their position to one of "no energy is created, earth's emissions are "slowed." After it was pointed out that earth's emissions always travel at the speed of light and cannot be "slowed" the word was changed to "reduced." Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that Stefan-Boltzmann renders that idea impossible because thermal radiation for any body is controlled by its temperature, i.e. temperature and emission go the same way so the only way for the earth's emissions to be reduced is for the earth's temperature to be reduced, which precludes the earth's temperature increasing.


Slowed in the sense of "emissions are decreased". Only idiots would claim that the light literally slows down. There is a fundamental difference between "slowing light" and "reducing the energy in the light". If you can't get that, go back to school.

Emission can be altered in other ways. Emissivity can change.
No. It's called a constant for a reason.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I would be remiss if I were to forget to mention that, for a while at least, it was popular to violate the 2nd LoT to show "greenhouse effect." The idea is that no energy is created and the earth's average global temperature stays the same, but the cooler upper atmosphere warms the warmer lower atmosphere such that the earth's surface keeps getting warmer while the upper atmosphere simply keeps getting cooler. Again, this is a direct violation of the 2nd LoT but many warmizombies didn't care, rather being drawn to the theory's elegance of bypassing all the other physics violations of the other "greenhouse effect" theories.


It doesn't violate the 2nd LoT. You're using the imaginary 2nd LoT, which is different in that it is imaginary.

cold things can't heat warmer things


Yeah, that's false. How about this?

Not false. Cold things can't heat warmer things.
jwoodward48 wrote:
no net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body


Or this, which has the plus of not containing the word "net", which apparently sends you into a blind rage. Net. Net. Netnetnet. This is so much fun.

Net flow has nothing to do with it. Once an atom is excited, you cannot excite it again with that same color light. Only when the electron drops to a lower energy level can it accept a photon of that color again. This means that a substance must lose energy for it to absorb energy again.
jwoodward48 wrote:
less energy must travel from a colder body to a warmer body than vice versa


Use your brain and read that. Now explain how in the four hells AGW would violate that.

By claiming you can warm a warmer surface with a colder substance.
jwoodward48 wrote:
So where we stand today wrt "greenhouse effect" is a thoughtful approach that renders "not applicable" key aspects of science, as needed, to provide an overall contradiction that can be exploited to make temperature increase (i.e. an energy increase) without any increase in energy that would violate the 1st LoT.

Thoughts?


Wait, you have thoughts? I thought you just pulled it from your behind.

Here's the GHE:

Longwave radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively "no change". The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.


Read that. Let the concepts contained within process. Use your head. Then respond.

Yes, both IBDaMann and I are familiar with that scriptural passage from the Church of Global Warming. It's wrong.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2016 04:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The Church of Global Warming has certainly evolved over the years. It was thriving there in the first years of the new millennium, began to stall around 2007 and then we watched it fall into a tailspin around 2012. As Global Warming now lay tucked into its deathbed, where do warmizombies stand today?


Lies, damn lies, but no actual statistics.

The mainstay argument of 2000 was that certain atmospheric gases cause the earth to increase in temperature. Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that the claim of "greenhouse gases" increasing temperature violates the 1st LoT.


That's because it doesn't. If emission decreases and incoming energy stays the same, the 1st law demands that the temperature increase (assuming no other way of storing energy).
If something absorbs a color of light, it also emits that same color of light. The only exception to this is by something reacting with the electron to remove its energy before it drops down to a lower energy level and emits light.

Since emissions is color dependent, this means emission cannot increase or decrease without affecting the absorption as well.


1. Electrons are not the only quantum states. I believe that SD explained this somewhere else.
2. That "something reacting" would be nothing other than the surrounding molecules. The interesting thing about your statement is that it violates Planck's Law. According to Planck, the temperature of the body, not the wavelength of the radiation it absorbs, dictated the spectrum of light it emits.

jwoodward48 wrote:
This minor problem was initially addressed by claiming that "greenhouse gases" somehow "trap" heat. This idea became popular and lingered well after word was spread that no substance has any control over its own radiation, which is regulated purely by its temperature.


Completely untrue. Radiation is dependent on emissivity and identity of the radiating substance.

Neither of which change.


Yes, they do - if you alter the substance of the body. Which is what we are doing when we release CO2!

jwoodward48 wrote:
Never to be deterred, warmizombies shifted their position to one of "no energy is created, earth's emissions are "slowed." After it was pointed out that earth's emissions always travel at the speed of light and cannot be "slowed" the word was changed to "reduced." Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that Stefan-Boltzmann renders that idea impossible because thermal radiation for any body is controlled by its temperature, i.e. temperature and emission go the same way so the only way for the earth's emissions to be reduced is for the earth's temperature to be reduced, which precludes the earth's temperature increasing.


Slowed in the sense of "emissions are decreased". Only idiots would claim that the light literally slows down. There is a fundamental difference between "slowing light" and "reducing the energy in the light". If you can't get that, go back to school.

Emission can be altered in other ways. Emissivity can change.
No. It's called a constant for a reason.


So if I paint something, its emissivity won't change? We're altering the substance of the atmosphere. This has the potential to change its emissivity.

Also, emissivity can be different for different wavelengths - and shortwave and longwave radiation have different wavelengths.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I would be remiss if I were to forget to mention that, for a while at least, it was popular to violate the 2nd LoT to show "greenhouse effect." The idea is that no energy is created and the earth's average global temperature stays the same, but the cooler upper atmosphere warms the warmer lower atmosphere such that the earth's surface keeps getting warmer while the upper atmosphere simply keeps getting cooler. Again, this is a direct violation of the 2nd LoT but many warmizombies didn't care, rather being drawn to the theory's elegance of bypassing all the other physics violations of the other "greenhouse effect" theories.


It doesn't violate the 2nd LoT. You're using the imaginary 2nd LoT, which is different in that it is imaginary.

cold things can't heat warmer things


Yeah, that's false. How about this?

Not false. Cold things can't heat warmer things.
jwoodward48 wrote:
no net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body


Or this, which has the plus of not containing the word "net", which apparently sends you into a blind rage. Net. Net. Netnetnet. This is so much fun.

Net flow has nothing to do with it. Once an atom is excited, you cannot excite it again with that same color light. Only when the electron drops to a lower energy level can it accept a photon of that color again. This means that a substance must lose energy for it to absorb energy again.


Again, you are ignoring the effect of surrounding material. And lots of energy is in the form of thermal or vibrational energy AKA heat or temperature. This doesn't have the limit you describe, even if other forms do. (I'm not that knowledgeable about quantum states. I'd ask SB if I wanted to know about this. In fact, I think I will.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
less energy must travel from a colder body to a warmer body than vice versa


Use your brain and read that. Now explain how in the four hells AGW would violate that.

By claiming you can warm a warmer surface with a colder substance.


Well, yes. I can. This doesn't violate any laws. Would you rather stand in a vacuum or in a cool room?

jwoodward48 wrote:
So where we stand today wrt "greenhouse effect" is a thoughtful approach that renders "not applicable" key aspects of science, as needed, to provide an overall contradiction that can be exploited to make temperature increase (i.e. an energy increase) without any increase in energy that would violate the 1st LoT.

Thoughts?


Wait, you have thoughts? I thought you just pulled it from your behind.

Here's the GHE:

Longwave radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively "no change". The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.


Read that. Let the concepts contained within process. Use your head. Then respond.

Yes, both IBDaMann and I are familiar with that scriptural passage from the Church of Global Warming. It's wrong.


But HOW is it wrong? Be specific here.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
06-10-2016 05:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
Surface Detail wrote:
Enough of IBdaMann's delusional ramblings.

For an introduction to the history of the science behind global warming, a good place to start is this page on the American Institute of Physics website:

The Discovery of Global Warming

You want to know how this crap is wrong, notice that it is based on a religious pretext.

The earth has millions of climates. The Church of Global Warming has created a deity, i.e. earth's "Climate" ... as in one single divine and mysterious "Climate" of the earth that high priests are still trying to understand, just like the one and only God of Christianity who moves in mysterious ways . The manufactured goddess has nothing to do with science.

The article compounds the dishonesty by inappropriately inserting the words "science," "scientific" and "scientists" just to confuse the gullible into lending unwarranted authority to the article.


It's still not science. It's still religious crap.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 05:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
jwoodward48 wrote:Lies, damn lies, but no actual statistics.

Good one!

jwoodward48 wrote:That's because it doesn't.

Don't get ahead of yourself. At that time the argument hadn't been refined any. It was simply spreading like wildfire amongst the gullible, scientifically illiterate Marxists who had no idea what it even means to "violate the 1st LoT." They just felt a surge from knowing they were totally violating the establishment! Rock on, dude!

It wasn't until years later that your church settled on the (still erroneous) outflow vs. inflow argument that you wield ... that violates Stefan-Boltzmann. It's all in the OP.

The WACKY attempts to establish select physics as "not applicable" are a relatively recent phenomenon.


jwoodward48 wrote: Completely untrue. Radiation is dependent on emissivity and identity of the radiating substance.

You are gibbering here, but I'll give you leeway because ... well, actually I don't know why but I will just do so nonetheless.

You are mentioning constants. Temperature is the only independent variable.

jwoodward48 wrote: Only idiots would claim that the light literally slows down.

Be thankful you don't debate warmizombies.




jwoodward48 wrote:It doesn't violate the 2nd LoT.

Yes it most certainly does. A cooler upper atmosphere cannot warm a warmer lower atmosphere. That is known as an egregious violation of the 2nd LoT. You'd have to be very gullible to even entertain the idea in the first place.



jwoodward48 wrote:Here's the GHE:

Longwave radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively "no change". The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.


Read that. Let the concepts contained within process. Use your head. Then respond.

Stefan-Boltzmann has already answered this for you many times, There's a term for your kind of science denial. It's "science denial."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 06:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If I paint my car white, its emissivity will change. It's not a constant. It's usually a constant, but it can be changed.
06-10-2016 07:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The Church of Global Warming has certainly evolved over the years. It was thriving there in the first years of the new millennium, began to stall around 2007 and then we watched it fall into a tailspin around 2012. As Global Warming now lay tucked into its deathbed, where do warmizombies stand today?


Lies, damn lies, but no actual statistics.

The mainstay argument of 2000 was that certain atmospheric gases cause the earth to increase in temperature. Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that the claim of "greenhouse gases" increasing temperature violates the 1st LoT.


That's because it doesn't. If emission decreases and incoming energy stays the same, the 1st law demands that the temperature increase (assuming no other way of storing energy).
If something absorbs a color of light, it also emits that same color of light. The only exception to this is by something reacting with the electron to remove its energy before it drops down to a lower energy level and emits light.

Since emissions is color dependent, this means emission cannot increase or decrease without affecting the absorption as well.


1. Electrons are not the only quantum states. I believe that SD explained this somewhere else.
2. That "something reacting" would be nothing other than the surrounding molecules. The interesting thing about your statement is that it violates Planck's Law. According to Planck, the temperature of the body, not the wavelength of the radiation it absorbs, dictated the spectrum of light it emits.

None of it violates Planck's law. You seem to not yet have learned about domains, even though it was explained to you.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
This minor problem was initially addressed by claiming that "greenhouse gases" somehow "trap" heat. This idea became popular and lingered well after word was spread that no substance has any control over its own radiation, which is regulated purely by its temperature.


Completely untrue. Radiation is dependent on emissivity and identity of the radiating substance.

Neither of which change.


Yes, they do - if you alter the substance of the body. Which is what we are doing when we release CO2!

That does not alter the emissivity of anything. But you bring up an interesting problem.

Since CO2 is a gas, that means it must have a surface area to emit from. What is the surface area of a gas?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Never to be deterred, warmizombies shifted their position to one of "no energy is created, earth's emissions are "slowed." After it was pointed out that earth's emissions always travel at the speed of light and cannot be "slowed" the word was changed to "reduced." Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that Stefan-Boltzmann renders that idea impossible because thermal radiation for any body is controlled by its temperature, i.e. temperature and emission go the same way so the only way for the earth's emissions to be reduced is for the earth's temperature to be reduced, which precludes the earth's temperature increasing.


Slowed in the sense of "emissions are decreased". Only idiots would claim that the light literally slows down. There is a fundamental difference between "slowing light" and "reducing the energy in the light". If you can't get that, go back to school.

Emission can be altered in other ways. Emissivity can change.
No. It's called a constant for a reason.


So if I paint something, its emissivity won't change? We're altering the substance of the atmosphere. This has the potential to change its emissivity.

Yes. If you paint something, you alter the emissivity and you use the new constant.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, emissivity can be different for different wavelengths - and shortwave and longwave radiation have different wavelengths.

True, but absorption and emission happen at the same wavelength (unless you reduce the energy of the atom before it emits).
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I would be remiss if I were to forget to mention that, for a while at least, it was popular to violate the 2nd LoT to show "greenhouse effect." The idea is that no energy is created and the earth's average global temperature stays the same, but the cooler upper atmosphere warms the warmer lower atmosphere such that the earth's surface keeps getting warmer while the upper atmosphere simply keeps getting cooler. Again, this is a direct violation of the 2nd LoT but many warmizombies didn't care, rather being drawn to the theory's elegance of bypassing all the other physics violations of the other "greenhouse effect" theories.


It doesn't violate the 2nd LoT. You're using the imaginary 2nd LoT, which is different in that it is imaginary.

cold things can't heat warmer things


Yeah, that's false. How about this?

Not false. Cold things can't heat warmer things.
jwoodward48 wrote:
no net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body


Or this, which has the plus of not containing the word "net", which apparently sends you into a blind rage. Net. Net. Netnetnet. This is so much fun.

Net flow has nothing to do with it. Once an atom is excited, you cannot excite it again with that same color light. Only when the electron drops to a lower energy level can it accept a photon of that color again. This means that a substance must lose energy for it to absorb energy again.


Again, you are ignoring the effect of surrounding material. And lots of energy is in the form of thermal or vibrational energy AKA heat or temperature. This doesn't have the limit you describe, even if other forms do. (I'm not that knowledgeable about quantum states. I'd ask SB if I wanted to know about this. In fact, I think I will.)

I am not ignoring the surrounding material. You are by concentrating solely on radiation as a method of heating. If you're going to do that, the least you can do is learn quantum mechanics and Planck's law (which helped create it!).
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
less energy must travel from a colder body to a warmer body than vice versa


Use your brain and read that. Now explain how in the four hells AGW would violate that.

By claiming you can warm a warmer surface with a colder substance.


Well, yes. I can. This doesn't violate any laws. Would you rather stand in a vacuum or in a cool room?

Two problems with this. First, the human body regulates its own temperature. Second, neither would cause me to warm (or anything else to warm).
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
So where we stand today wrt "greenhouse effect" is a thoughtful approach that renders "not applicable" key aspects of science, as needed, to provide an overall contradiction that can be exploited to make temperature increase (i.e. an energy increase) without any increase in energy that would violate the 1st LoT.

Thoughts?


Wait, you have thoughts? I thought you just pulled it from your behind.

Here's the GHE:

Longwave radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively "no change". The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.


Read that. Let the concepts contained within process. Use your head. Then respond.

Yes, both IBDaMann and I are familiar with that scriptural passage from the Church of Global Warming. It's wrong.


But HOW is it wrong? Be specific here.

I already have been. You've denied all the science given you so you can join the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2016 07:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If I paint my car white, its emissivity will change. It's not a constant. It's usually a constant, but it can be changed.


Why do you insist on trying to change a constant into a variable?

You seem to wandering into the 'white car black car' argument.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2016 11:28
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If I paint my car white, its emissivity will change. It's not a constant. It's usually a constant, but it can be changed.


Why do you insist on trying to change a constant into a variable?

You seem to wandering into the 'white car black car' argument.


What is the the white car black car argument?
06-10-2016 12:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If I paint my car white, its emissivity will change. It's not a constant. It's usually a constant, but it can be changed.

Does "greenhouse gas" increase earth's radiative absorptivity?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 13:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If I paint my car white, its emissivity will change. It's not a constant. It's usually a constant, but it can be changed.

Does "greenhouse gas" increase earth's radiative absorptivity?

The combination of arrogant assertiveness and total ignorance that you display is quite hilarious. Have you considered becoming a comedian?

Greenhouse gases reduce the effective emissivity of the Earth by absorbing and emitting IR radiation. This has been explained to you here and is also explained in textbooks on the topic. Please develop a capacity to learn.
06-10-2016 13:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
Surface Detail wrote: The combination of arrogant assertiveness and total ignorance that you display is quite hilarious. Have you considered becoming a comedian?

Your combination of cognitive dissonance and religious obedience is what keeps me coming back. Have you considered becoming educated?

Surface Detail wrote: Greenhouse gases reduce the effective emissivity of the Earth by absorbing and emitting IR radiation.

Increasing absorption and emission increases emissivity, by definition.

You describe "greenhouse gas" as that which effectively reduces earth's temperature.

Were you educated even slightly, you would have seen this embarrassing contradiction before you would have made it. Alas, you argue that "greenhouse effect" increases earth's temperature by decreasing earth's temperature. Again, Stefan-Boltzmann addresses this topic completely. I don't know what science ever did to you such that you reject it outright but you live in a world of science denial,

...and you're a moron, but you are painfully aware of that. Tell me more about this wonderful British education system of yours.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 14:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
Ah I think I get the white car black car argument, you my not like it but lets have it anyway. Why is a white car and a black car in the sun different temperatures?
06-10-2016 14:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann, did you not notice the word "effective" in front of the word emissivity? Use your brains a little. The surface of the Earth has a high emissivity of IR radiation and therefore radiates IR easily. If, however, we surround it with gas that absorbs and emits IR radiation well, the net effect is that some of the IR radiation emitted from the surface is returned to the surface. This has the effect of reducing the Earth's emissivity when viewed from above the atmosphere (even though the actual emissivity of the surface remains unchanged).

By the way, I don't know why you're making a big deal of my nationality. It's your own American Institute of Physics whom you're disagreeing with.
06-10-2016 14:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
jwoodward48 wrote: If I paint my car white, its emissivity will change. It's not a constant. It's usually a constant, but it can be changed.

I see we need to revisit the topic of "variables" vs. "constants" because you apparently still haven't grasped those concepts.

Do you program computers? Here are a few questions to ponder before we begin the lesson:

1. Can a programmer have a constant in a program?
2. Can the programmer set the constant in the program?
3. Can the programmer decide to change the constant within the program?
If the answer to question 3. is "Yes" then
- 3YES. Is it therefore not a constant because it was changed?
If the answer to 3YES is "Yes" then we have a contradiction with question 1. because a programmer apparently cannot have a constant in a program ... it can be changed.

<words of wisdom> Always check the weasel wording; the weaseling is always located there. </words of wisdom>

<hint> You did not write "changes naturally because of specified factors" but rather you wrote "can be changed." </hint>


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 14:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
spot wrote: Ah I think I get the white car black car argument, you my not like it but lets have it anyway. Why is a white car and a black car in the sun different temperatures?


POST 2222

Are you talking about the temperature of the hood surface or the temperature inside the car (assuming the windows are rolled up)?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 14:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The Church of Global Warming has certainly evolved over the years. It was thriving there in the first years of the new millennium, began to stall around 2007 and then we watched it fall into a tailspin around 2012. As Global Warming now lay tucked into its deathbed, where do warmizombies stand today?


Lies, damn lies, but no actual statistics.

The mainstay argument of 2000 was that certain atmospheric gases cause the earth to increase in temperature. Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that the claim of "greenhouse gases" increasing temperature violates the 1st LoT.


That's because it doesn't. If emission decreases and incoming energy stays the same, the 1st law demands that the temperature increase (assuming no other way of storing energy).
If something absorbs a color of light, it also emits that same color of light. The only exception to this is by something reacting with the electron to remove its energy before it drops down to a lower energy level and emits light.

Since emissions is color dependent, this means emission cannot increase or decrease without affecting the absorption as well.


1. Electrons are not the only quantum states. I believe that SD explained this somewhere else.
2. That "something reacting" would be nothing other than the surrounding molecules. The interesting thing about your statement is that it violates Planck's Law. According to Planck, the temperature of the body, not the wavelength of the radiation it absorbs, dictated the spectrum of light it emits.

None of it violates Planck's law. You seem to not yet have learned about domains, even though it was explained to you.


Wait, what? You never explained a thing. I figured out some things from your cryptic clues.

How will DOMAINS save you this time?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
This minor problem was initially addressed by claiming that "greenhouse gases" somehow "trap" heat. This idea became popular and lingered well after word was spread that no substance has any control over its own radiation, which is regulated purely by its temperature.


Completely untrue. Radiation is dependent on emissivity and identity of the radiating substance.

Neither of which change.


Yes, they do - if you alter the substance of the body. Which is what we are doing when we release CO2!

That does not alter the emissivity of anything. But you bring up an interesting problem.

Since CO2 is a gas, that means it must have a surface area to emit from. What is the surface area of a gas?


Why wouldn't it change the emissivity? It's absorbing some of the outgoing light.

The effective radiating surface of the EARTH is at a point above the troposphere. I don't get the question. Gases don't have surface areas, anyway.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Never to be deterred, warmizombies shifted their position to one of "no energy is created, earth's emissions are "slowed." After it was pointed out that earth's emissions always travel at the speed of light and cannot be "slowed" the word was changed to "reduced." Since nothing about Global Warming has anything to do with science, it took a while for word to get to the lay folk that Stefan-Boltzmann renders that idea impossible because thermal radiation for any body is controlled by its temperature, i.e. temperature and emission go the same way so the only way for the earth's emissions to be reduced is for the earth's temperature to be reduced, which precludes the earth's temperature increasing.


Slowed in the sense of "emissions are decreased". Only idiots would claim that the light literally slows down. There is a fundamental difference between "slowing light" and "reducing the energy in the light". If you can't get that, go back to school.

Emission can be altered in other ways. Emissivity can change.
No. It's called a constant for a reason.


So if I paint something, its emissivity won't change? We're altering the substance of the atmosphere. This has the potential to change its emissivity.

Yes. If you paint something, you alter the emissivity and you use the new constant.


Yes! So, if we change the atmosphere, we alter the emissivity and we use the new constant.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, emissivity can be different for different wavelengths - and shortwave and longwave radiation have different wavelengths.

True, but absorption and emission happen at the same wavelength (unless you reduce the energy of the atom before it emits).


1. I'm talking about how CO2 is transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave.
2. True, but in practice, intermolecular collisions quickly redistribute the energy.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I would be remiss if I were to forget to mention that, for a while at least, it was popular to violate the 2nd LoT to show "greenhouse effect." The idea is that no energy is created and the earth's average global temperature stays the same, but the cooler upper atmosphere warms the warmer lower atmosphere such that the earth's surface keeps getting warmer while the upper atmosphere simply keeps getting cooler. Again, this is a direct violation of the 2nd LoT but many warmizombies didn't care, rather being drawn to the theory's elegance of bypassing all the other physics violations of the other "greenhouse effect" theories.


It doesn't violate the 2nd LoT. You're using the imaginary 2nd LoT, which is different in that it is imaginary.

cold things can't heat warmer things


Yeah, that's false. How about this?

Not false. Cold things can't heat warmer things.
jwoodward48 wrote:
no net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body


Or this, which has the plus of not containing the word "net", which apparently sends you into a blind rage. Net. Net. Netnetnet. This is so much fun.

Net flow has nothing to do with it. Once an atom is excited, you cannot excite it again with that same color light. Only when the electron drops to a lower energy level can it accept a photon of that color again. This means that a substance must lose energy for it to absorb energy again.


Again, you are ignoring the effect of surrounding material. And lots of energy is in the form of thermal or vibrational energy AKA heat or temperature. This doesn't have the limit you describe, even if other forms do. (I'm not that knowledgeable about quantum states. I'd ask SB if I wanted to know about this. In fact, I think I will.)

I am not ignoring the surrounding material. You are by concentrating solely on radiation as a method of heating. If you're going to do that, the least you can do is learn quantum mechanics and Planck's law (which helped create it!).


No, you should learn it. The phenomenon you describe is nonexistent. (Surface could probably explain better.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
less energy must travel from a colder body to a warmer body than vice versa


Use your brain and read that. Now explain how in the four hells AGW would violate that.

By claiming you can warm a warmer surface with a colder substance.


Well, yes. I can. This doesn't violate any laws. Would you rather stand in a vacuum or in a cool room?

Two problems with this. First, the human body regulates its own temperature. Second, neither would cause me to warm (or anything else to warm).


1. It's an analogy.
2. Moving from cold to cool will cause you to warm.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
So where we stand today wrt "greenhouse effect" is a thoughtful approach that renders "not applicable" key aspects of science, as needed, to provide an overall contradiction that can be exploited to make temperature increase (i.e. an energy increase) without any increase in energy that would violate the 1st LoT.

Thoughts?


Wait, you have thoughts? I thought you just pulled it from your behind.

Here's the GHE:

Longwave radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively "no change". The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.


Read that. Let the concepts contained within process. Use your head. Then respond.

Yes, both IBDaMann and I are familiar with that scriptural passage from the Church of Global Warming. It's wrong.


But HOW is it wrong? Be specific here.

I already have been. You've denied all the science given you so you can join the Church of Global Warming.


Evasion.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
06-10-2016 14:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
An unoxidized aluminum surface has an emissivity of 0.1 - 0.2 for a wavelength of 1 μm, whereas an oxidized aluminum surface has an emissivity of 0.4 for a wavelength of 1 μm.

So what happens to the emissivity of aluminum for a wavelength of 1 μm as it oxidizes?

Clue: The opposite thing happens to the effective emissivity of a planet at 15 μm as you increase the amount of greenhouse gas in its atmosphere.

Emissivity Values for Metals

Edit: In reply to IBdaMann's bizarre computer programming "analogy".
Edited on 06-10-2016 14:27
06-10-2016 14:44
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Ah I think I get the white car black car argument, you my not like it but lets have it anyway. Why is a white car and a black car in the sun different temperatures?


POST 2222

Are you talking about the temperature of the hood surface or the temperature inside the car (assuming the windows are rolled up)?


.


I can't see why its important but in a LA car-park with no shade, on a hot summers day, not a cloud in the sky 2 o'clock in the afternoon with the engine off nobody has touched the cars since the previous day parked up windows rolled up and we are concerned with the temperature of the passenger compartment, same model of car as well.

Any further clarification needed?
06-10-2016 14:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
spot wrote: I can't see why its important but in a LA car-park with no shade, on a hot summers day, not a cloud in the sky 2 o'clock in the afternoon with the engine off nobody has touched the cars since the previous day parked up windows rolled up and we are concerned with the temperature of the passenger compartment, same model of car as well.

Any further clarification needed?

Yes, which LA car-park? LAX? The specific one makes a huge difference.

Also, are we presuming the current mayor, Eric Garcetti, or can we just go with Antonio Villaraigosa for simplicity?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 15:08
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
I don't know LA that well so LAX sounds good.
06-10-2016 16:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
spot wrote: I don't know LA that well so LAX sounds good.

Well, there are two answers to your question:

1. Science Answer: If the interiors of equivalent cars are equivalent then their temperatures will be the same, regardless of the color of the exterior.

2. jwoodward48 Answer: The black car has a higher probability of having lighter color cars surrounding it, as opposed to the white car. Thus the black car is more likely to be "warmed" by the surrounding cooler cars' "net flow" while they are themselves cooled.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 16:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
What about the black car will be warmer, Just from personal experience I know this to be true so I was wondering about your thoughts on that.
06-10-2016 17:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
spot wrote: What about the black car will be warmer, Just from personal experience I know this to be true so I was wondering about your thoughts on that.

The interior of the externally black car will be the same temperature as the interior of the externally white identical car.

The black hood of the black car will be hotter than the white hood of the white car.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 17:11
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
What is a hood? Do you mean the bonnet. I am from England where we speak English. Why just that part of the car anyway? the whole car is painted roof, doors, wings, boot. I'm not negotiating with you I'm telling you. Black cars are noticeably hotter then white cars.
06-10-2016 17:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
They really are. Your Strawman is false by the way, IB.
06-10-2016 17:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
spot wrote: I am from England where we speak English.

Sometimes I have to wonder. If you mean that you have some tourists who happen to speak English then that would make more sense.

spot wrote: Why just that part of the car anyway?

Gotcha! You don't speak English over there. I never wrote that only the black hood would be hotter than the white hood. Good try though.

While we're on the subject, what really is your first language?

spot wrote: I'm not negotiating with you I'm telling you. Black cars are noticeably hotter then white cars.

Right, you still make stupid statements surrounding erroneous generalizations.

The black external paint will be hotter than the white external paint.

The equivalent interiors will remain at equivalent temperatures.

It's a hood, not a bonnet. It's a trunk, not a boot. Hey, I'm here for you if you ever need to ask someone about correct English.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 18:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: I am from England where we speak English.

Sometimes I have to wonder. If you mean that you have some tourists who happen to speak English then that would make more sense.

spot wrote: Why just that part of the car anyway?

Gotcha! You don't speak English over there. I never wrote that only the black hood would be hotter than the white hood. Good try though.

While we're on the subject, what really is your first language?

spot wrote: I'm not negotiating with you I'm telling you. Black cars are noticeably hotter then white cars.

Right, you still make stupid statements surrounding erroneous generalizations.

The black external paint will be hotter than the white external paint.

The equivalent interiors will remain at equivalent temperatures.

It's a hood, not a bonnet. It's a trunk, not a boot. Hey, I'm here for you if you ever need to ask someone about correct English.

.

Alright you have had your fun but have you had much experience with cars of different colours?
06-10-2016 18:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
spot wrote: Alright you have had your fun but have you had much experience with cars of different colours?

Well, of different colors, yes.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 18:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Excuse me, IB and spot, but argument from "your English isn't the True English" isn't a valid argument.

IB, you are warmer wearing a black shirt than a white, right?
06-10-2016 18:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
jwoodward48 wrote: Excuse me, IB and spot, but argument from "your English isn't the True English" isn't a valid argument.

Oh, but it is the best argument, especially when beer is involved. Bring it on, baby!

jwoodward48 wrote: IB, you are warmer wearing a black shirt than a white, right?

Well, the black shirt in sunlight will have a higher temperature than the white shirt in sunlight, yes.

Whether I perceive myself to be "warmer" in one shirt over another involves other factors.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 18:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Conduction.
06-10-2016 19:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5208)
jwoodward48 wrote: Conduction.


Feel the energy!








.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 19:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That is good. Five thumbs up. Funnius Maximus.

(...what do you mean, most people only have two?)
Edited on 06-10-2016 19:47
06-10-2016 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
None of it violates Planck's law. You seem to not yet have learned about domains, even though it was explained to you.


Wait, what? You never explained a thing. I figured out some things from your cryptic clues.

How will DOMAINS save you this time?

Domains don't 'save' anyone. Your misunderstanding of them is your problem. It still is, even after IBdaMann explained them to you (which was the same thing I was hinting at).

jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That does not alter the emissivity of anything. But you bring up an interesting problem.

Since CO2 is a gas, that means it must have a surface area to emit from. What is the surface area of a gas?


Why wouldn't it change the emissivity? It's absorbing some of the outgoing light.

The effective radiating surface of the EARTH is at a point above the troposphere. I don't get the question. Gases don't have surface areas, anyway.

Okay, then how does a gas radiate?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Yes. If you paint something, you alter the emissivity and you use the new constant.


Yes! So, if we change the atmosphere, we alter the emissivity and we use the new constant.

Go right ahead. Which way is emissivity changing, due to 100ppm difference of carbon dioxide, and what is the effect?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
True, but absorption and emission happen at the same wavelength (unless you reduce the energy of the atom before it emits).


1. I'm talking about how CO2 is transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave.
2. True, but in practice, intermolecular collisions quickly redistribute the energy.

It is transparent to longwave also. Are you referring to certain frequencies in the infrared spectrum?

Assuming visible light (is what I guess you mean by 'shortwave') is absorbed, then that is the emission of whatever absorbed it. Assuming infrared (for what I assume you are calling 'longwave'), is absorbed, that that is the emission of whatever absorbed it.

(The term 'longwave' refers to frequencies in the range of 30Khz to 300Khz. The term 'shortwave' refers to frequencies in the range of 3Mhz to 30Mhz.)


jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am not ignoring the surrounding material. You are by concentrating solely on radiation as a method of heating. If you're going to do that, the least you can do is learn quantum mechanics and Planck's law (which helped create it!).


No, you should learn it. The phenomenon you describe is nonexistent. (Surface could probably explain better.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
Two problems with this. First, the human body regulates its own temperature. Second, neither would cause me to warm (or anything else to warm).


1. It's an analogy.
2. Moving from cold to cool will cause you to warm.
jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

I already have been. You've denied all the science given you so you can join the Church of Global Warming.


Evasion.

Not wanting to repeat myself is not an evasion.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-10-2016 22:36
06-10-2016 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
Surface Detail wrote:
An unoxidized aluminum surface has an emissivity of 0.1 - 0.2 for a wavelength of 1 μm, whereas an oxidized aluminum surface has an emissivity of 0.4 for a wavelength of 1 μm.

So what happens to the emissivity of aluminum for a wavelength of 1 μm as it oxidizes?

Clue: The opposite thing happens to the effective emissivity of a planet at 15 μm as you increase the amount of greenhouse gas in its atmosphere.

Emissivity Values for Metals

Edit: In reply to IBdaMann's bizarre computer programming "analogy".


It simply means the higher emissivity will absorb more readily AND emit more readily.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 7123>>>





Join the debate Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data627-05-2019 21:00
Climate change: CO2 emissions fall in 18 countries with strong policies, study finds126-02-2019 18:15
Maxime Bernier believes in climate change, but defends argument that CO2 is just 'food for plants'124-02-2019 18:59
Global Warming Argument Simplified7813-12-2018 00:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact