Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse effect of CO2


Greenhouse effect of CO208-08-2019 21:30
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Twiddles pointed out that CO2 is transparent to low wave length (high frequency) radiation from the sun and absorbs long wavelength (low frequency) radiation from the earth. Did some googling on this.

Roughly, the earth is a black body.
Black body radiation curves I found only go down to 3000K, at which point they are considerably flattened. Extrapolating to 300K looks like it would be virtually flat.
CO2 has three narrow absorption bands. This means the absorption of radiation from the earth would be only a minuscule percentage and with only .03%ppmv the resultant greenhouse effect would be virtually non-existent.

In general, I found the arguments for the greenhouse effect ("global warming") to be qualitative, which sound good, but not quantitative, which require lots of assumptions, approximations, and hand waving, and hard to find (of course).
08-08-2019 22:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
olyz wrote:Roughly, the earth is a black body.

The earth is exactly a black body, not an ideal black body but a black body nonetheless.

olyz wrote: Black body radiation curves I found only go down to 3000K, at which point they are considerably flattened. Extrapolating to 300K looks like it would be virtually flat.

olyz, any discussion into which you enter that involves wavelengths will be a complete waste of time and will only convolute matters until you are left with a terrible misunderstanding.

Hint: keep your eyes on the laws of thermodynamics. The moment you take your eyes off them, you will violate them and you will be egregiously in error.

olyz wrote: CO2 has three narrow absorption bands.

You are now officially wasting your time.

olyz wrote: This means the absorption of radiation from the earth would be only a minuscule percentage and with only .03%ppmv the resultant greenhouse effect would be virtually non-existent.

No. The amount of Greenhouse Effect is exactly zero. You took your eyes off the laws of thermodynamics, didn't you?

olyz wrote: In general, I found the arguments for the greenhouse effect ("global warming") to be qualitative, which sound good, but not quantitative, which require lots of assumptions, approximations, and hand waving, and hard to find (of course).

Did you find anything in the arguments for Global Warming that explain how a global average temperature T could increase because of the addition of an invisible gas to the atmosphere? It seems to me that they wouldn't "sound good" if you didn't.


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
08-08-2019 22:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
olyz wrote:
Twiddles pointed out that CO2 is transparent to low wave length (high frequency) radiation from the sun and absorbs long wavelength (low frequency) radiation from the earth.


It almost sounds like you're describing a one way valve. While I'm sure it's not what you meant it's worth pointing out that there is no way I know of in which a particle can behave differently based on the direction in which radiation strikes it.

However higher frequency radiation can be converted to thermal energy by the surface of the Earth and when it's reemitted the frequency would be lower. So I guess you could say the energy get's "two tries" at energizing a particle in our atmosphere.

Your post is on point though. There are three options as I see it.

1. CO2 cannot have any impact on the temperature as it matters to humans and our ecosystem. That it's impossible.
2. CO2 does have an impact but so does spitting while it's raining. It's just not significant.
3. CO2 can and/or does have a significant effect on the temperature as it matters to us.
Edited on 08-08-2019 22:27
09-08-2019 16:11
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann

I assume by preferring the thermodynamic approach you mean the one that puts a boundary around the earth and applies the first law of thermodynamics:
Q=U+W, or in rate form:
Q'=U'+W' and U' and W' are 0.
Then heat in is the suns radiation and heat out is blackbody radiation at temperature T which works out to be -19C.

The problem is, that by letting U'=0 you are assuming what you are trying to prove; that the mean temperature of the earth is constant, ie, there is no global warming.
09-08-2019 16:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
olyz wrote:IBdaMann

I assume by preferring the thermodynamic approach you mean the one that puts a boundary around the earth and applies the first law of thermodynamics:
Q=U+W, or in rate form:
Q'=U'+W' and U' and W' are 0.

1) you need to spell out your variables. There are various equations pertaining to thermodynamics. On face value, you have just written a bunch of gibberish. The earth is not performing work. The earth is radiating. You need to establish a context, you need to explain your terms and then you need to explain your conclusion.

You can read up on the 1st Law of Thermodynamics here.
You can read up on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

olyz wrote: Then heat in is the suns radiation and heat out is blackbody radiation at temperature T which works out to be -19C.

Could you explain how you calculated a -19C average global temperature.

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," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

olyz wrote: The problem is, that by letting U'=0 you are assuming what you are trying to prove; that the mean temperature of the earth is constant, ie, there is no global warming.

In English, what are you claiming that I am assuming that is not science?


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
09-08-2019 17:36
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann
I was guessing at how you thought thermodynamics refuted global warming, in this case mean temperature of the earth: in this case the surface of the earth, which is a meaningful concept if you average the temperature at every point of the earths surface.

In all discussions of the earth's temperature the earth is assumed to be a hollow shell (crust) insulated from the core. Otherwise the mean temperature of the earth would be the temperature of molten iron.

The first law contains a work term W which in this calculation is zero.
U is the internal energy of the earth, roughly proportional to the mean temperature which in this case is assumed constant. Then you are left with Q'=0, or rate of heat input (suns radiation energy at the surface) equals rate of heat output (blackbody radiation of earth equal to kT^4, from which you can solve for T.
09-08-2019 20:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
olyz wrote:
IBdaMann
I was guessing at how you thought thermodynamics refuted global warming, in this case mean temperature of the earth


*IF* someone claims that some gas like CO2 somehow increases earth's average temperature then he is violating the law of conservation of energy (1st law of thermodynamics).

Assumption: Additional CO2 -> Temperature Increase
1) Basic Axiom: Temperature cannot increase without additional energy
2) From 1) we get: Temperature Increase -> Additional Energy
3) Additional CO2 ^ No Additional Energy -> ~Additional Energy
4) From Assumption: Additional CO2 ^ No Additional Energy -> Temperature Increase
5) From 2) & 3) we get: ~Additional Energy -> ~Temperature Increase
6) From 4) we get: Temperature Increase
7) From 5) & 6) we get: ~Temperature Increase ^ Temperature Increase = FALSE

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-08-2019 04:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:

1) Basic Axiom: Temperature cannot increase without additional energy

.


There is a constant supply of "new" energy from the sun. Your description doesn't include that there is a flow in and out.

The Earth isn't the source of the energy either so CO2 not itself being energy isn't relevant.

CO2 could increase the emissivity and according to your rules above that would be impossible.
10-08-2019 06:56
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
The CO2 molecule has three modes of vibration each with it's own specific frequency. If a pulse of EM radiation passes through it or near by the electrons will experience a force and if the frequency
Is the same as the frequency of vibration the vibration will sharply increase and then as it vibrates drop back to its stable state and emit an EM wave of the same frequency in all directions.

And now we come to the first problem. What happens to the wave packet that passes nearby or through it. It can't be unaffected because now it has transferred some or all of it's energy to the new radiation . If it is in perfect sync with the vibrating electron, as the electron is accelerated it creates a field which cancels the incoming one so that the net result is that the electron ends up in an excited state and the original wave packet disappears. Then the electron drops down to its stable state while vibrating and sends a wave in all directions whose frequency and total energy is the same as the wave that "hit" it. If the intensity of the radiation were large enough it could tear away an electron, creating an ion.

If a wave packet of close frequency passed nearby, it would pass through with same frequency but lower amplitude. And the molecule would radiate a spherical wave packet of the same frequency of amplitude such that it's energy and that of the wavelet that passed through are the same as the original wavelet.

So that's the picture. A wave packet of the same or close frequency goes through or near the molecule and then continues on with reduced amplitude or disappears and a spherical wave packet emerges, part of which heads back to the earth.

Let's say there is only one CO2 molecule. Eventually an EM pulse of the right frequency will hit it and get scattered in all directions. Half or some smaller fraction will head toward the earth and the other half, along with what's left of the incoming radiation will head out to space.

But there is a problem with this picture. If all the energy of the incoming wave packet is accounted for, how is any heat added to the atmosphere? If there are many molecules and the wave packets are just bouncing around among them, where is the heat increase? The only thing I can think of is that the the net effect of the excitation also increases the kinetic energy of the molecule.

Finally, to saturation. If there is one layer of atoms they will absorb some or all of the incoming radiation and scatter some back to earth and pass the rest through directly or as spherical packets. The same thing happens in the next layer. Look at a distant layer. A weak spherical or part of an original wave packet reaches it. Whatever get's scattered may or may not make it back to earth. If it does it contributes almost nothing to new radiation and that component might not even make it past the first layer.

So now we have all this radiation of a specific wavelength banging around CO2 molecules. Where does the heat come from? It can only be that some of the interaction of the incoming wave packet with the molecule gives kinetic energy to the molecule. But the same thing happens with a wave packet of ANY frequency that comes near the molecule. The electrons will experience an impulse and the molecule will move faster.
Once the molecules are moving faster they bang into other air molecules. So wavelengths of all frequencies will interact with all air molecules and heat the air.

This has bothered me in the past and I could never see it. All you get from the internet is general blah blah and fancy pictures with wide arrows showing where radiation goes.

And how do you quantify all this. Couldn't find anything. I believe that's where all the tricky stuff goes on.

But the thing you can't get away from is that there are CO2 molecules floating around and the earth is emitting black body radiation which has wavelengths close to the natural frequency of the molecule.

Major unanswered questions
1) Why don't all EM waves of all frequencies interact with all electrons of all components, giving them a nudge (energy).
2) How do you quantify all this. All you get in the fancy diagrams on the internet is a wiggly line entering the model and two wiggly lines leaving.

All explanations welcome.
10-08-2019 07:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
olyz wrote:
IBdaMann
I was guessing at how you thought thermodynamics refuted global warming, in this case mean temperature of the earth: in this case the surface of the earth, which is a meaningful concept if you average the temperature at every point of the earths surface.

The mean temperature of the Earth is not global warming. Define 'global warming'.
olyz wrote:
In all discussions of the earth's temperature the earth is assumed to be a hollow shell (crust) insulated from the core. Otherwise the mean temperature of the earth would be the temperature of molten iron.
Still not 'global warming'.
olyz wrote:
The first law contains a work term W which in this calculation is zero.
U is the internal energy of the earth, roughly proportional to the mean temperature which in this case is assumed constant. Then you are left with Q'=0, or rate of heat input (suns radiation energy at the surface) equals rate of heat output (blackbody radiation of earth equal to kT^4, from which you can solve for T.

Not all of the Sun's energy is absorbed. Some is reflected, some scattered, some is refracted, some is absorbed and converted into chemical energy, some is absorbed and converted into thermal energy.

Blackbody radiance ONLY comes from thermal energy. You don't know how much of the light coming from Earth is blackbody radiance, harmonic radiance, reflections, refractions, or even light passing clean through the Earth.

So you can't solve for T. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
You can read about the Stefan-Boltzmann law here.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 07:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

1) Basic Axiom: Temperature cannot increase without additional energy

.


There is a constant supply of "new" energy from the sun. Your description doesn't include that there is a flow in and out.

The Earth isn't the source of the energy either so CO2 not itself being energy isn't relevant.

CO2 could increase the emissivity and according to your rules above that would be impossible.


Increasing the emissivity also means more blackbody radiance is emitted for the same temperature.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 07:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
olyz wrote:
The CO2 molecule has three modes of vibration each with it's own specific frequency. If a pulse of EM radiation passes through it or near by the electrons will experience a force and if the frequency
Is the same as the frequency of vibration the vibration will sharply increase and then as it vibrates drop back to its stable state and emit an EM wave of the same frequency in all directions.

And now we come to the first problem. What happens to the wave packet that passes nearby or through it. It can't be unaffected because now it has transferred some or all of it's energy to the new radiation . If it is in perfect sync with the vibrating electron, as the electron is accelerated it creates a field which cancels the incoming one so that the net result is that the electron ends up in an excited state and the original wave packet disappears. Then the electron drops down to its stable state while vibrating and sends a wave in all directions whose frequency and total energy is the same as the wave that "hit" it. If the intensity of the radiation were large enough it could tear away an electron, creating an ion.

If a wave packet of close frequency passed nearby, it would pass through with same frequency but lower amplitude. And the molecule would radiate a spherical wave packet of the same frequency of amplitude such that it's energy and that of the wavelet that passed through are the same as the original wavelet.

So that's the picture. A wave packet of the same or close frequency goes through or near the molecule and then continues on with reduced amplitude or disappears and a spherical wave packet emerges, part of which heads back to the earth.

Let's say there is only one CO2 molecule. Eventually an EM pulse of the right frequency will hit it and get scattered in all directions. Half or some smaller fraction will head toward the earth and the other half, along with what's left of the incoming radiation will head out to space.

But there is a problem with this picture. If all the energy of the incoming wave packet is accounted for, how is any heat added to the atmosphere? If there are many molecules and the wave packets are just bouncing around among them, where is the heat increase? The only thing I can think of is that the the net effect of the excitation also increases the kinetic energy of the molecule.

Finally, to saturation. If there is one layer of atoms they will absorb some or all of the incoming radiation and scatter some back to earth and pass the rest through directly or as spherical packets. The same thing happens in the next layer. Look at a distant layer. A weak spherical or part of an original wave packet reaches it. Whatever get's scattered may or may not make it back to earth. If it does it contributes almost nothing to new radiation and that component might not even make it past the first layer.

So now we have all this radiation of a specific wavelength banging around CO2 molecules. Where does the heat come from? It can only be that some of the interaction of the incoming wave packet with the molecule gives kinetic energy to the molecule. But the same thing happens with a wave packet of ANY frequency that comes near the molecule. The electrons will experience an impulse and the molecule will move faster.
Once the molecules are moving faster they bang into other air molecules. So wavelengths of all frequencies will interact with all air molecules and heat the air.

This has bothered me in the past and I could never see it. All you get from the internet is general blah blah and fancy pictures with wide arrows showing where radiation goes.

And how do you quantify all this. Couldn't find anything. I believe that's where all the tricky stuff goes on.

But the thing you can't get away from is that there are CO2 molecules floating around and the earth is emitting black body radiation which has wavelengths close to the natural frequency of the molecule.

Major unanswered questions
1) Why don't all EM waves of all frequencies interact with all electrons of all components, giving them a nudge (energy).
2) How do you quantify all this. All you get in the fancy diagrams on the internet is a wiggly line entering the model and two wiggly lines leaving.

All explanations welcome.


You are attempting what is known as the Magick Bouncing Photon argument.

* You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. You cannot make heat flow backwards. (2nd law)
* You cannot trap heat. (2nd law)
* You cannot trap light. (Planck's law)
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. (1st and 2nd laws)
* You cannot create energy out of nothing. (1st law)
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. (Stefan-Boltzmann law)


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 08:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
Increasing the emissivity also means more blackbody radiance is emitted for the same temperature.


Is it not accurate that as the emessivity increases the temperature increases? Isn't the surface temperature due to the emessivity?
10-08-2019 08:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
olyz wrote:...there is a problem with this picture. If all the energy of the incoming wave packet is accounted for, how is any heat added to the atmosphere?


Well isn't it true that the total energy is always accounted for? What we call temperature is the thermal energy present at one place at one time.

Your description, which was great by the way!, implied that a CO2 molecule would be struck by radiation and immediately re-radiate it all out, like a reflection. But it's it converted to kinetic/thermal energy first with no requirement that it be entirely re-emitted instantaneously?

I keep seeing "temperature", and "heat" as being the result of energy lingering in the form of thermal energy, within a mass, as it passes through the circuit.

So you can have 100 joules go into the maze of matter and come back out having only lingered there for 1 second, or it could be there for 1 minute. That same 100 joules would contribute 60 times the thermal energy to what we call temperature if it took a minute to leave instead of a second.

IBdamann had a nice analogy of the thermal energy moving through matter like water being poured into a strainer, and filling it partially but leaking out continuously.
10-08-2019 18:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Increasing the emissivity also means more blackbody radiance is emitted for the same temperature.


Is it not accurate that as the emessivity increases the temperature increases? Isn't the surface temperature due to the emessivity?

Yes. Emissivity is thermal efficiency and an ideal black body is a body of 100% efficiency. A higher emissivity means a higher thermal efficiency ... which means more energy is absorbed ... which means a higher equilibrium temperature ... which means radiance is increased.

.


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
11-08-2019 07:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Increasing the emissivity also means more blackbody radiance is emitted for the same temperature.


Is it not accurate that as the emessivity increases the temperature increases? Isn't the surface temperature due to the emessivity?


It is,but emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2019 10:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Increasing the emissivity also means more blackbody radiance is emitted for the same temperature.


Is it not accurate that as the emessivity increases the temperature increases? Isn't the surface temperature due to the emessivity?


It is,but emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable.


It may be treated as a constant in a mathematical formula. You imply that emissivity cannot change for a body.

A planet covered in steel plating has an oxygen rich atmosphere. We then allow it to rust. The emissivity would change dramatically as the steel went from shiny to rusty. No matter being added or subtracted, just a chemical process changing the surface layer only. This globe of steel would experience what I call "Global Warming" ;p )
because it's a globe you see, and the temperature would go up
11-08-2019 18:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Increasing the emissivity also means more blackbody radiance is emitted for the same temperature.


Is it not accurate that as the emessivity increases the temperature increases? Isn't the surface temperature due to the emessivity?


It is,but emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable.


It may be treated as a constant in a mathematical formula. You imply that emissivity cannot change for a body.

It can't. It would be different body. Emissivity is a measured constant.
tmiddles wrote:
A planet covered in steel plating has an oxygen rich atmosphere. We then allow it to rust. The emissivity would change dramatically as the steel went from shiny to rusty. No matter being added or subtracted, just a chemical process changing the surface layer only. This globe of steel would experience what I call "Global Warming" ;p )

False equivalence. You are equating the surface of a mythical planet with the atmosphere.
tmiddles wrote:
because it's a globe you see, and the temperature would go up

No gas or vapor changes emissivity.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2019 04:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
False equivalence. You are equating the surface of a mythical planet with the atmosphere.


OK it's not a planet then. I have an iron ball, a real one, and a heat lamp. I let it rust. It's emissivity changes right?

Also: You're saying gases don't change emissivity but they don't all have the same emissivity do they? So if you change the mix of gas, more of this or that for example, than the emissivity would change.

And the Earth's emissivity changes constantly as cloud cover changes in our atmosphere. The variance may be insignificant but it's then something we are "treating as" a constant (because it's not literally).
Edited on 12-08-2019 04:21
12-08-2019 04:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote: OK it's not a planet then. I have an iron ball, a real one, and a heat lamp. I let it rust. It's emissivity changes right?

A doctor gives you a medical checkup. Then you walk out of the doctor's office and the next patient enters. Your blood type has changed, right?

tmiddles wrote: Also: You're saying gases don't change emissivity but they don't all have the same emissivity do they?

I took the time to explain this to you. Substances don't have emissivities. Only bodies have emissivities, one each, like a blood type.

Substances have absorptivities at wavelengths. If you want to talk about CO2 (a substance) then pick a wavelength and we can talk about its absorptivity at that wavelength.

tmiddles wrote: And the Earth's emissivity changes constantly as cloud cover changes in our atmosphere.

Are you asserting this as something that we know?

.


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
12-08-2019 07:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: OK it's not a planet then. I have an iron ball, a real one, and a heat lamp. I let it rust. It's emissivity changes right?

A doctor gives you a medical checkup. Then you walk out of the doctor's office and the next patient enters. Your blood type has changed, right?


OK this does not add up. A rusty iron ball and a polished iron ball have very different emissivities. VERY different. If you polish an iron ball and put a heat lamp on it and then wait long enough, you'll have a rusty iron ball with a heat lamp on it. Emissivity having changed.

Please explain what you think I'm getting wrong here.


IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And the Earth's emissivity changes constantly as cloud cover changes in our atmosphere.

Are you asserting this as something that we know?

.


Absolutely we do, beyond a reasonable doubt. Just looking at two photographs of Earth from space can show you that at two different points in time the cloud cover is very different. Since we have a rough idea of the emissivity of clouds and of water/land and that they are VERY different there is no reasonable hypothesis that the emissivity would be constant for both instants in time.
12-08-2019 10:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: OK it's not a planet then. I have an iron ball, a real one, and a heat lamp. I let it rust. It's emissivity changes right?

A doctor gives you a medical checkup. Then you walk out of the doctor's office and the next patient enters. Your blood type has changed, right?


OK this does not add up. A rusty iron ball and a polished iron ball have very different emissivities. VERY different. If you polish an iron ball and put a heat lamp on it and then wait long enough, you'll have a rusty iron ball with a heat lamp on it. Emissivity having changed.

Please explain what you think I'm getting wrong here.

Your blood type never changes.

If the doctor is looking at a different blood type then he is looking at a different person.

It is incorrect to speak of people "as their blood types change" because blood type is not a variable. It is a constant. You are limited to speaking of different blood types and of their characteristics.

I realize it is customary to speak in terms of changes to an object rather than to speak in terms of one object transitioning to a different object, however if you are looking at a doctor's chair and one moment it holds a person of blood type O+ and then later it holds a person of blood type AB- we don't speak of the person's blood type changing in the chair, we speak of there being a different person in the chair.

If you have a polished iron ball one moment and then rusty ball the next, you may be tempted to speak in terms of the emissivity changing, but you in fact have different objects of different emissivities. You no longer have the one, you have the other.

tmiddles wrote: Absolutely we do, beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you are equating your strong belief with what I know.

If it turns out that I don't know this then am I a "denier." Do you have a valid dataset to support your claim that clouds change earth's emissivity?

tmiddles wrote: Just looking at two photographs of Earth from space can show you that at two different points in time the cloud cover is very different.

Which only matters if clouds affect earth's emissivity which some (like you) might assume but no one knows; there are no valid datasets supporting such an assumption.

tmiddles wrote:Since we have a rough idea of the emissivity of clouds

Substances don't have emissivities.

tmiddles wrote:... and of water/land and that they are VERY different there is no reasonable hypothesis that the emissivity would be constant for both instants in time.

Aaaahh, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is one of my favorites, i.e. any person who does not accept your assumption based on your say-so is defined as "not reasonable."

Interesting.


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
12-08-2019 11:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote: I realize it is customary to speak in terms of changes to an object rather than to speak in terms of one object transitioning to a different object, ...emissivities. You no longer have the one, you have the other.


Oh ok. That seems like a difference without a distinction to me. I took it that if you go to calculate you are using the "emissivity of the moment" . You and ITN seem intent on holding onto the idea that Earth cannot have a different emissivity (be a different Earth in the case of your analogy) at any two points in time.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Absolutely we do, beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you are equating your strong belief with what I know.


You have been careful not to actually define "know" or to imply that nothing can be known. I'll go with nothing can be known. Which makes beyond a reasonable doubt the gold standard!

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you have a valid dataset to support your claim that clouds change earth's emissivity?...if clouds affect earth's emissivity which some (like you) might assume but no one knows; there are no valid datasets supporting such an assumption.


If EM radiation is reaching a surface and being absorbed it would be true that that surface is part of the emissivity in question would it not?

What are you actually doubting? Please be specific.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...there is no reasonable hypothesis

Aaaahh, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy


No I think it's some other fallacy if it is. I looked up "no true scotsman"
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

It's changing the initial claim as counterexamples are provided. I supposed you think my "reasonable" does this? (note in the example "True" is added after the counterexample is provided). I didn't intend that meaning at all. I meant reason does not provide a hypothesis I'm aware of, please share if you've got one.

An objects emissivity is determined by it's surface with no regard for it's "insides". If I have a block of wood painted with grey paint and a block of steel painted with the same grey paint they would in theory have the same emissivity all else being equal.

We are able to take measurements of emissivity object by object correct? Patch of sand, patch of ocean, cloud, air, Forrest of leaves.

The measurements taken of clouds vary but in a much lower emissivity range than the rest of the surface of Earth. While the upper atmosphere and a whole "world", ha ha, of objects compose the Earth's surface and would all get added up to compose it's total emissivity, we do know two things:
The Earth is not uniform/constant in it's surface, it is not a even smooth grey ball, and it's spinning.
Cloud formation is not uniform/constant and there are sometime a lot more than at other times.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume the Earth's emissivity is not constant (or if you prefer that there are many Earths, though I don't understand the use of that language game)
12-08-2019 18:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: I realize it is customary to speak in terms of changes to an object rather than to speak in terms of one object transitioning to a different object, ...emissivities. You no longer have the one, you have the other.


Oh ok. That seems like a difference without a distinction to me. I took it that if you go to calculate you are using the "emissivity of the moment" . You and ITN seem intent on holding onto the idea that Earth cannot have a different emissivity (be a different Earth in the case of your analogy) at any two points in time.

Emissivity is a measured constant.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Absolutely we do, beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you are equating your strong belief with what I know.


You have been careful not to actually define "know" or to imply that nothing can be known. I'll go with nothing can be known. Which makes beyond a reasonable doubt the gold standard!

WRONG. There is such a thing as a proof. The only exist in closed functional systems like math or logic. They do not exist in open functional systems like science or philosophy.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Do you have a valid dataset to support your claim that clouds change earth's emissivity?...if clouds affect earth's emissivity which some (like you) might assume but no one knows; there are no valid datasets supporting such an assumption.


If EM radiation is reaching a surface and being absorbed it would be true that that surface is part of the emissivity in question would it not?

Of course.
tmiddles wrote:
What are you actually doubting? Please be specific.

Go read his post again.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...there is no reasonable hypothesis

Aaaahh, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy


No I think it's some other fallacy if it is. I looked up "no true scotsman"
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

IBdaMann's claim of the Scotsman's fallacy is correct. You are also making a redefinition fallacy (hypothesis <-> theory).
tmiddles wrote:
It's changing the initial claim as counterexamples are provided. I supposed you think my "reasonable" does this? (note in the example "True" is added after the counterexample is provided). I didn't intend that meaning at all.

What did you mean?
tmiddles wrote:
I meant reason does not provide a hypothesis I'm aware of,

Scotsman's fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
please share if you've got one.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
An objects emissivity is determined by it's surface with no regard for it's "insides". If I have a block of wood painted with grey paint and a block of steel painted with the same grey paint they would in theory have the same emissivity all else being equal.

We are able to take measurements of emissivity object by object correct?

Yes. First you must accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface. You must put that surface in an environment that has no other source of light. You can then measure the light coming from the surface and compare to the ideal.
tmiddles wrote:
Patch of sand, patch of ocean, cloud, air, Forrest of leaves.

Yes, if and only if all the requirements of measuring the emissivity are met.
tmiddles wrote:
The measurements taken of clouds vary but in a much lower emissivity range than the rest of the surface of Earth.

Argument from randU fallacy. The emissivity of clouds is unknown and is not uniform among clouds.
tmiddles wrote:
While the upper atmosphere and a whole "world", ha ha, of objects compose the Earth's surface and would all get added up to compose it's total emissivity, we do know two things:
The Earth is not uniform/constant in it's surface, it is not a even smooth grey ball, and it's spinning.
Cloud formation is not uniform/constant and there are sometime a lot more than at other times.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume the Earth's emissivity is not constant (or if you prefer that there are many Earths, though I don't understand the use of that language game)

It is a measured constant. It is not a variable.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2019 20:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote:Oh ok. That seems like a difference without a distinction to me.

I knew you would take it that way. Let me know when your blood type changes.

tmiddles wrote: I took it that if you go to calculate you are using the "emissivity of the moment".

You are correct. All I am telling you is that there are many concepts you will never fully grasp until you learn to distinguish between variables and constants.

tmiddles wrote: You and ITN seem intent on holding onto the idea that Earth cannot have a different emissivity

You need to address the problem on your end first. You insist on assuming as "known" many things that are not known, and your vehicle for inserting those bogus assumptions is to treat emissivity as a variable that is driven by your assumptions.

That is compounded by your pretending to be offended whenever it is pointed out that one of your assumptions is really not known. At which point you either insist that it is somehow known because "we shouldn't give up" or "humans have made progress" or "it's in Wikipedia" or whatever but we've gone through the cycle a dozen times.

Some of the cases you have made would be fine if you were to stipulate your assumptions up front as being just your assumptions. One example would be to state that you are assuming that clouds specifically reduce the earth's emissivity, and that as such [insert argument here]. If you were to do that then all discussion would focus on the merits of your argument given your assumptions. Instead, you state that "we absolutely KNOW that clouds reduce earth's emissivity" and thus you force the discussion to focus squarely on how it is that you don't really know that ... and thus your conclusion must be dismissed.

I know what you're thinking right now. "Difference without a distinction," right? That's the standard reaction of someone who doesn't want his beliefs challenged. It's human psychology to want to know, and it rubs us completely the wrong way to learn that our beliefs, i.e. what we thought we "knew," are incorrect. Nobody likes it when that happens. People would rather insist that their beliefs are "true" and accuse those who do not accept those beliefs, i.e. those who pose a threat to the belief system, of being "irrational," "dishonest," "trolls," "deniers," "delusional," "pushing an agenda," "having devious motives," etc...

Ergo, if you would simply list your beliefs as your assumptions and allow others to question those assumptions, rather than try to impose your beliefs as "what we know," you won't have your conclusions summarily dismissed by those who simply don't share your beliefs.

tmiddles wrote:You have been careful not to actually define "know" or to imply that nothing can be known. I'll go with nothing can be known. Which makes beyond a reasonable doubt the gold standard!

This is a great case in point. This is a stupid assumption that you are apparently carrying forward just so you can assign a stupid position to me for which you will then, no doubt, attack me.

You could have asked at any point, seeing as how you weren't quick enough on the uptake to understand the numerously reiterated discussions on valid datasets.

Much can be known. That's what data is (are). If I'm the first person to point this out to you then you're welcome.

On top of data, humans like to "draw conclusions." If a human draws a conclusion, is it therefore TRUE or might said human be incorrect, crazy, religiously prophesyzing, misreading the data, etc ...? Of course. Unfortunately, if conclusions are drawn from anything other than a valid dataset then those conclusions are as valuable as if one had studied animal entrails, cast lots, read tarot cards, etc..

If you were to find an old-looking rock, we can certainly know its mass. If you were to tell me that it has a mass of 8.23 kg then I might ask you how you measured it, what device you used and what its tolerance is (check the DATA MINE (on Politiplex) rules, #3 in particular, for excellent guidance on what is acceptable in the real world) but you would know this if you actually took the measurement. The measurement and the instrumentation metadata are all part of the mandatory raw data.

If you were to subsequently conclude that this rock is a Jurrasic pterasaur fossil ... well now we need to discuss your beliefs and analyze your assumptions by looking at the (hopefully) valid dataset from which you drew your conclusions. If you have no such valid dataset, i.e. one that clearly supports that conclusion, then others will not recognize your conclusion as valid.

So, you declare that clouds alter earth's emissivity. Great. That certainly might be true. It might certainly be false. How can we know? Well, we get a valid dataset detailing earth's emissivity with differing cloud cover. What if we can't measure all that and get a valid dataset? Well, then we don't claim to know. We can still speculate; we just use the word "speculation." Should we just "give up"? Of course not. We pursue getting a valid dataset.

In the meantime, we review Into the Night's rules for data (DATA MINE (on Politiplex) as a guide for our own dataset pursuits because we don't want to "give up" but rather we want to do it correctly and be able to draw valid conclusions that others will accept.

tmiddles wrote: If EM radiation is reaching a surface and being absorbed it would be true that that surface is part of the emissivity in question would it not?

Again, I have to quibble with your attempt to break down a body's emissivity.

The earth as a whole has an emissivity which, yes, is the sum total thernal efficiency (or inefficiency) of the body. Yes, the earth's complex solid "surface" is ultimately a factor, as is the hydrophere's undifferentiable fluid "surface" as well as the undifferentiable volume that is the atmosphere. All of that combined determine the earth's emissivity. Of course we don't know what that is.

tmiddles wrote:What are you actually doubting? Please be specific.

I have been having serious doubts about the moon being made of cheese.

IBdaMann wrote:Aaaahh, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy


tmiddles wrote:No I think it's some other fallacy if it is. I looked up "no true scotsman"
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."


Correct. You wrote "there is no reasonable hypothesis" meaning there are certainly hypotheses that clouds do not affect earth's emissivity but you have declared them to be "not reasonable."

tmiddles wrote: I didn't intend that meaning at all. I meant reason does not provide a hypothesis I'm aware of, please share if you've got one.

So you still don't get it. No one needs to justify disbelief in any unsupported belief, e.g. clouds affect earth's emissivity. If you are the one making the assertion then you bear the full burden to support your claim. No one is required to prove that your unsupported claim is false. People are free to note that your claim is unsupported and to summarily dismiss it.

You may have impeccable reasoning as to how it should be, i.e. speaking in the subjunctive, but of course you could be wrong and you have no valid datsets to support your claim. That doesn't mean that you can't convince people of your beliefs, just that those who remain unconvinced necessarily bear any burden to support their disbelief.

tmiddles wrote: An objects emissivity is determined by it's surface with no regard for it's "insides".

I'll go with that. Sure. Can you accurately account for the entirety of the earth's surface, which includes a fluid hydrosphere and a fluid atmospheric volume? I'm all ears.


tmiddles wrote: We are able to take measurements of emissivity object by object correct? Patch of sand, patch of ocean, cloud, air, Forrest of leaves.

Substances don't have emissivities, they have absorptivities per wavelength.

We don't really have a good process for determining absorptivity integration so we really can't tell, given a set of substances, what a given body's emissivity will be that is comprised of those materials.

tmiddles wrote: Therefore it is reasonable to assume the Earth's emissivity is not constant (or if you prefer that there are many Earths, though I don't understand the use of that language game)

As long as you list it as your assumption, we can proceed forward.


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
13-08-2019 06:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
Emissivity is a measured constant.


Obviously when something that isn't constant in reality is called constant it's a bit confusing. You say my polished ball rusting over is actually too different balls. OK! But that's weird and I don't know why you wouldn't just say it's changing.

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. There is such a thing as a proof. The only exist in closed functional systems like math or logic. They do not exist in open functional systems like science or philosophy.


So what do we have in science or philosophy and/or the topic at hand? Nothing? Solutions? Guesses?

Into the Night wrote:
What did you mean?


I should have put a "?" at the end. "We don't have another theory do we?"

If a conclusion is consistent with the knowledge you have available and you don't have an alternative than you can accept it for the time being. Not a proof but the best guess. Occam's razor

Into the Night wrote:
Scotsman's fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.


No no no. You can't ask someone to elaborate and accuse them of the scotsman fallacy. If you think I'm a liar fine, though I don't know what my motive in this instance would be.

Into the Night wrote:
You can then measure the light coming from the surface and compare to the ideal.


So I'm guessing this is done in a lab usually for all types of surfaces to make references. Much harder to do in the field right? You can't use any time of sensor or camera because you actually need to physically contact the surface to get it's temp right?
13-08-2019 07:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Oh ok. That seems like a difference without a distinction to me.

I knew you would take it that way. Let me know when your blood type changes.


Seriously it's the same object composed of the same matter! The rusty ball IS the polished ball after oxidation.

I'm totally at a loss as to what you guys are driving at with this.


IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I took it that if you go to calculate you are using the "emissivity of the moment".

You are correct. All I am telling you is that there are many concepts you will never fully grasp until you learn to distinguish between variables and constants.


Yes but IN THE EQUATION. In real life your blood type example I cannot make sense of.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You and ITN seem intent on holding onto the idea that Earth cannot have a different emissivity


You need to address the problem on your end first. You insist on assuming as "known" many things that are not known, and your vehicle for inserting those bogus assumptions is to treat emissivity as a variable that is driven by your assumptions.


It's driven by a shiny steel ball going to rusty read and a higher emissivity.

Your assertion hat emissivity is constant in an object, regardless of changes to it's appearance is not the default truth. It's just as much an assumption to say things don't change.

Steady State Universe and the BIG BANG are BOTH theories. Steady State doesn't have some holy status (and if it did OOPS because it's now the less likely of the two).


IBdaMann wrote:
pretending to be offended


Never offended!

IBdaMann wrote:it is pointed out that one of your assumptions is really not known.


At which point there should be an examination of how "without a clue" we are. Sometimes we are genuinely without the slightest clue. Sometimes we have some clues (though they could be wrong, the Earth is not in fact flat but it sure seems so to walk on it).

That's why I've asked for some compare/contrast with work/study/policy that has be FRUITFUL! USEFUL! WORTHWHILE! Note that I didn't say science. I said worth doing.


IBdaMann wrote:
state that you are assuming that clouds specifically reduce the earth's emissivity, and that as such [insert argument here]. If you were to do that then all discussion would focus on the merits of your argument given your assumptions.


OK good that makes sense. Again we have our evil Dolphin moment with you guys! Those damn evil fish!!!

IBdaMann wrote:Instead, you state that "we absolutely KNOW that clouds reduce earth's emissivity" and thus you force the discussion to focus squarely on how it is that you don't really know that


Yes but you could help by clarifying what you call it when we have enough knowledge to do something with it.

IBdaMann wrote:
those who simply don't share your beliefs.


And yet you won't share how it is you thing anything useful can be done? That would help.

It often sounds as though your approach invalidates everything that has brought us to this point in human development.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I'll go with nothing can be known. Which makes beyond a reasonable doubt the gold standard!

This is a great case in point. This is a stupid assumption that you are apparently carrying forward just so you can assign a stupid position to me for which you will then, no doubt, attack me.


No I'm trying to illicit a response from you by showing how little I have to work with. I was clear that I didn't know because you've not spoken to the subject.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you were to subsequently conclude that this rock is a Jurrasic pterasaur fossil ... well now we need to discuss your beliefs and analyze your assumptions by looking at the (hopefully) valid dataset


Makes total sense. Worse still you can always have a piltdown man in the mix.

IBdaMann wrote:

Correct. You wrote "there is no reasonable hypothesis" meaning there are certainly hypotheses that clouds do not affect earth's emissivity but you have declared them to be "not reasonable."


Yes I misscommunicated. I meant I'm not away of any so I wasn't ruling any out at all. It was a presentation of my not having anything to look at yet.

IBdaMann wrote:
So you still don't get it. No one needs to justify disbelief in any unsupported belief,


My justification/evidence where photos of the Earth and the research study on emissivity of clouds. To my thinking it was a very well supported conclusion.


IBdaMann wrote:
Can you accurately account for the entirety of the earth's surface, which includes a fluid hydrosphere and a fluid atmospheric volume? I'm all ears.


Nope. I also don't know the mass of General Sherman the giant sequoia. But if someone told me the mass was constant but I just saw a tourist make off with some bark, and I knew that those leave up there grew and fell seasonally, I could conclude that their assumption was unsupported.

I didn't say I knew what the Earth emissivity was exactly, I don't, but there is no explanation or theory of any kind to support it's being constant.

IBdaMann wrote:
Substances don't have emissivities, they have absorptivities per wavelength.


Yes I keep mixing them up. The absorptivity of the Earth and of clouds is really the issue.

And it's certainly an assumption.
13-08-2019 17:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
tmiddles wrote: Seriously it's the same object composed of the same matter!

Seriously? Steel is the same matter as rust? Seriously?

tmiddles wrote: I'm totally at a loss as to what you guys are driving at with this.

I find myself without any more tools to explain. Do you have any suggestions.

tmiddles wrote: Yes but IN THE EQUATION.

Where else would you find a constant?

tmiddles wrote: In real life your blood type example I cannot make sense of.

Is blood type a constant or a variable? Let's start there.

tmiddles wrote: It's driven by a shiny steel ball going to rusty read and a higher emissivity.

At time t you have one particular body. At time t+1 you have a different body. It's not the same body, is it? ... or are you going to insist that steel and rust are the same substance?

tmiddles wrote: Your assertion hat emissivity is constant in an object, regardless of changes to it's appearance is not the default truth.

What I am saying is what the science says. Emissivity is treated as a constant.

I just go by what the science says. I can't bring Planck back to life to give you a better explanation of what was going through his mind but I think he had a firm grasp of that whole concept.


tmiddles wrote: It's just as much an assumption to say things don't change.

Like I asked previously, let me know when your blood type changes. That shouldn't be too tough, should it?


tmiddles wrote: That's why I've asked for some compare/contrast with work/study/policy that has be FRUITFUL! USEFUL! WORTHWHILE! Note that I didn't say science. I said worth doing.

... and I presume you are capable of making that determination, yes?

Off topic: Do you think it would be fruitful/useful/worthwhile to tax the crap out of everyone based on the claims that a life-essential atmospheric compound is actually pollution and is violating physics with impunity?


tmiddles wrote:Yes but you could help by clarifying what you call it when we have enough knowledge to do something with it.

That has been explained to you many times. Did you choose to simply not read any of it?

Data: what we know
Valid Conclusions: derived from statistical analysis on valid datasets

Let me know if you have any questions.

tmiddles wrote: And yet you won't share how it is you thing anything useful can be done? That would help.

Why are you assigning that position to me? Please show me where *I* said that, either implicitly or explicitly.

tmiddles wrote:It often sounds as though your approach invalidates everything that has brought us to this point in human development.

I don't have an "approach." You are apparently upset that people are pointing out the science that shows Global Warming to be an impossible violation of physics. That's not my fault.

tmiddles wrote: No I'm trying to illicit a response from you by showing how little I have to work with.

You are trying to rationalize a belief in violations of physics; of course you're going to have very little with which to work.

tmiddles wrote: Yes I misscommunicated. I meant I'm not away of any so I wasn't ruling any out at all. It was a presentation of my not having anything to look at yet.

... then I'll officially give you one. There's a theory that clouds don't affect earth's emissivity. This theory has just as many valid datsets supporting it.

IBdaMann wrote:My justification/evidence where photos of the Earth and the research study on emissivity of clouds.

The photographs are merely evidence of the existence of clouds, which no one disputes. The research on the emissivity of substances as opposed to absorptivity was obviously conducted by morons.

tmiddles wrote: To my thinking it was a very well supported conclusion.

Again, your conclusion was derived from your reasoning, not from a statistical analysis performed on a valid datset. Ergo, your "conclusion" is actually a theory that may or may not be accepted by others.

Oh, and since it is your theory, I should hope that you think it's a good one. For the record, I don't think your theory is a bad one at all ... but I won't be calling it "science" or "what we know" until you either provide a falsifiable model that predicts earth's emissivity given a particular cloud cover or you provide a statistical analysis on a valid dataset.

Until then, you and I and anyone else is free to use that theory as an assumption ... just as anyone is free to dismiss it.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Can you accurately account for the entirety of the earth's surface, which includes a fluid hydrosphere and a fluid atmospheric volume? I'm all ears.
Nope. I also don't know the mass of General Sherman the giant sequoia.

OK then, let's be consistent going forward. Of the two I suspect you'll be learning the mass of General Sherman first.

tmiddles wrote:I didn't say I knew what the Earth emissivity was exactly, I don't, but there is no explanation or theory of any kind to support it's being constant.

The science has emissivity as a constant. I didn't make the science.

tmiddles wrote: Yes I keep mixing them up. The absorptivity of the Earth and of clouds is really the issue.

When discussing absorptivity, wavelength is also a required part of the discussion, i.e. the absorptivity of material X at wavelength Y. We speak of absorptivity signature/profile over a particular frequency band.

Note: You will find the words "absorbance" and "absorption" used as well as "absorptivity." They mean the same thing in this context.



When discussing emissivity, there is no wavelength factor. Emissivity is total thermal efficiency over all wavelengths.

.


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




Join the debate Greenhouse effect of CO2:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)16417-10-2019 22:28
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
▲ 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