Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gas and Warming



Page 3 of 3<123
09-02-2020 02:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Do you still believe in Greenhouse Effect?
.
yes

Why? .... same reasons Christians continue believing that God is real?
OK that was not an argument but an appeal to motive and your starting with a conclusion and not a question. Why pair "greenhouse effect" with a definition and then quibble about semantics? Why not simply drill down on a theory. Call it "Theory of the day" if you like.
Edited on 09-02-2020 03:01
09-02-2020 03:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7571)
tmiddles wrote: OK that was not an argument but an appeal to motive

Yes. Exactly. I will tailor an argument just for you. I want to understand your motive for believing in Greenhouse Effect.

Otherwise, you are the one with the affirmative belief in Greenhosue Effect, not I. Any burden of support rests entirely on you and surely by now, you know that you can't even get out of the starting gate much less meet your burden.

So I'm offering to provide you with another way to look at it which I will base around your reason for choosing to believe.

I noticed that you were lightning fast to respond with righteous indignation ... as a means of EVADING my entirely valid question. I think we can both agree that the main issue here is your reason for believing in something for which you have absolutely no rational basis.

So, when did you convert and why?


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-02-2020 04:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
IBdaMann wrote:...when did you convert and why?...


Not indignant just observant.

We are two human communicating with words. Unless we both agree on their meaning we are talking past each other.

You have mentioned "greenhouse effect" again several times though by your own admission you recognize no coherent definition for it.

So I ask you again:
Why pair "greenhouse effect" with a definition and then quibble about semantics? Why not simply drill down on a theory. Call it "Theory of the day" if you like.
09-02-2020 05:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7571)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...when did you convert and why?...


Not indignant just observant.

We are two human communicating with words. Unless we both agree on their meaning we are talking past each other.

You have mentioned "greenhouse effect" again several times though by your own admission you recognize no coherent definition for it.

So I ask you again:
Why pair "greenhouse effect" with a definition and then quibble about semantics? Why not simply drill down on a theory. Call it "Theory of the day" if you like.


Boy, that was an excellently irrelevant tangent. I'll be elated to discuss that with you ... after we inch forward past this apparently difficult point:

When did you convert to your belief and why?


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-02-2020 07:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
IBdaMann wrote:
When did you convert to your belief and why?
.
Belief in what exactly IBD? What do you think I believe in? What are you asking me about?

"Greenhouse Effect" means nothing to you by your own description so you aren't coveying a coherent thought.

What do you mean?
09-02-2020 07:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
I explained that when I only hear "greenhouse effect" without further clarification, it's unclear which of it's different meanings is being used, in My first topic here:
tangier-island-should-it-be-used-as-an-example
tmiddles wrote:
Putting my terminology and understanding in context:

So the simple case for the original "Green House effect. "

1827 Fourier indicated the similarity between what happens under the glass of a greenhouse and how heat is absorbed in the atmosphere. This led to the term "greenhouse effect."
...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. (source)

There are currently no scientists or researchers that question this happens on any planet with an atmosphere. A planet with an atmosphere is kept warmer by it. No atmosphere = colder planet. Everyone knows first hand air can be hot.

The most dramatic example of the (original) greenhouse effect is Venus. Venus is much hotter than it would be without an atmosphere. Earth probes have directly measured the surface temperature and gas composition of Venus multiple times at multiple locations. The temperature and gas composition is not speculation but a fact. We can make accurate comparisons with Earth.

So what now? Does this mean global warming as currently taught is gospel? Of course not. It only means hot air is real. That's quite literally the only thing that the above establishes without a doubt.

HOT AIR IS REAL

If you question that someone should fart on you.

Now "Greenhouse Effect" is used loosely and today usually also means to say not just what Forier indicated but also that CO2 specifically is heated by sunlight directly.
09-02-2020 07:22
James___
★★★★★
(3450)
tmiddles wrote:
I explained that when I only hear "greenhouse effect" without further clarification, it's unclear which of it's different meanings is being used, in My first topic here:
tangier-island-should-it-be-used-as-an-example
tmiddles wrote:
Putting my terminology and understanding in context:

So the simple case for the original "Green House effect. "

1827 Fourier indicated the similarity between what happens under the glass of a greenhouse and how heat is absorbed in the atmosphere. This led to the term "greenhouse effect."
...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. (source)

There are currently no scientists or researchers that question this happens on any planet with an atmosphere. A planet with an atmosphere is kept warmer by it. No atmosphere = colder planet. Everyone knows first hand air can be hot.

The most dramatic example of the (original) greenhouse effect is Venus. Venus is much hotter than it would be without an atmosphere. Earth probes have directly measured the surface temperature and gas composition of Venus multiple times at multiple locations. The temperature and gas composition is not speculation but a fact. We can make accurate comparisons with Earth.

So what now? Does this mean global warming as currently taught is gospel? Of course not. It only means hot air is real. That's quite literally the only thing that the above establishes without a doubt.

HOT AIR IS REAL

If you question that someone should fart on you.

Now "Greenhouse Effect" is used loosely and today usually also means to say not just what Forier indicated but also that CO2 specifically is heated by sunlight directly.



A greenhouse is defined by a barrier. In an actual greenhouse, temperature increases while CO2 levels drop. Typical of any greenhouse.
09-02-2020 08:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7571)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
When did you convert to your belief and why?
[ EVASION deleted ]


Let's stay focused. The issue has not changed, i.e. why do you believe what you believe. I have nothing to do with that.

tmiddles wrote:
"Greenhouse Effect" means nothing to you by your own description so you aren't coveying a coherent thought.What do you mean?


You are squirming, and making a show of it. We are not trying to get to the bottom of what *I* claim it is. All that matters is that *YOU* know what you mean by it. You answered "Yes."

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Do you still believe in Greenhouse Effect?
yes


When did you adopt your belief in Greenhouse Effect and why?


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-02-2020 10:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
IBdaMann wrote:...why do you believe what you believe....
When did you adopt your belief in Greenhouse Effect and why?

I thought you were choosing the topic but no problem.

You're letting me pic so I'll start and the start and go with Fourier's original coining of the phrase.

His theory was that a planet's gas atmosphere results in a higher ground level temperature.

I have confidence primarily due to the empirical evidence.
The output of the sun and the distance to both planets allows for the temperature a black body (again, not Earth or Venus but a black body version at the same distance, but without an atmosphere) to be calculated.
The temperature of a Black Body Venus would be 327.5 K, or 54.5 °C
The temperature of a Black Body Earth would be 250 K or -23°C
Now this would lead one to believe, that if an atmosphere has no influence on ground level temperature, you would find something less/colder than that as neither planet is a black body (both planets are visibly reflective of course so even a child understanding what a "black body" is could make that call). Now I would certainly agree that we cannot determine the ground level temperature of either planet to 0.01 degrees but I feel comfortable with 5 degrees as a healthy margin. But, I'll use *YOUR* numbers. You threw out the following: (link
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: What margin of error would you say we have the Earth's temperature figured out to presently IBD?

I would estimate +/-47F (36C) ... but I haven't done the math.
(link)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: What margin of error would you put on the temp of Venus?

Let's go with +/- 200C

So if we apply that to what is the current measurement for each planet we have:
Earth measured: 14.6C The low end with IBD's margin: 14.6-36=-21.4C
Venus measured: 462C The low end with IBD's margin: 462-200=262C

What a black body Earth (no atmosphere) would be: -23°C
What a black body Venus (no atmosphere) would be: 54.5 °C

Unexplained extra temperature for each?:
Earth: -21.4 vs -23, just past the limit of a very broad margin! and that's for a BLACK BODY, velvet Elvis Earth, not the flashy ball we've got.
Venus: 54.5 vs 262, Woah! That's way way hotter using the low end of a hilariously broad 200 degree margin!

But you only need one good test to prove a theory wrong. The null hypothesis that an atmosphere has no effect on a planets temperature is debunked for me with that. So I am indeed confident that Fourier and just about everyone in scientific history since is and was right.

Also I note that the amount of atmosphere correlates with the amount of extra temperature that is found at ground level, which is consistent with the theory that the atmosphere is the cause.

I'll say it again as I pray to the alter of common sense. HOT AIR IS REAL!
Edited on 09-02-2020 10:07
09-02-2020 21:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7571)
tmiddles wrote:[Fourier's] theory was that a planet's gas atmosphere results in a higher ground level temperature.

So you accepted this as religious dogma, into which you have placed your faith, despite the empirical evidence, i.e. the moon's daytime surface, showing beyond any reasonable doubt that your dogma is wrong.

You can see from this that you cannot be convinced by any empirical evidence in nature. I have taken every opportunity to reiterate the moon's daytime surface to you and you tune it out completely every time because it goes against the dogma you have adopted.

tmiddles wrote: I have confidence primarily due to the empirical evidence.

We can effectively rule that out.

tmiddles wrote: The temperature of a Black Body Venus would be 327.5 K, or 54.5 °C
The temperature of a Black Body Earth would be 250 K or -23°C

Obviously, to maintain your faith in the face of contradictory empirical evidence, you must confuse yourself in order to infuse artificial credibility to your beliefs. This argument of yours aims to conflate in your mind a black body's singular temperature with the spectrum of tempratures at the bottom of a planet's atmosphere.

Obviously they are NOT the same thing by any stretch, yet you know why you must conflate them. It's not I that you need to fool but rather yourself.

tmiddles wrote: Now this would lead one to believe, that if an atmosphere has no influence on ground level temperature,

Let's look at why you repeat this mantra. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is making the argument that an atmosphere has no influence on the temperature at its bottom. You are assigning this bogus position to unnamed others as a rallying cry to yourself to rise up and defend your faith against an attack that you can actually defend ... because it is entirely bogus ... because you made it that way. Of course your bogus argument requires the aforementioned conflation of a body's singular temperature with the spectrum of temperatures found at the bottom of a planet's atmosphere.

tmiddles wrote: But you only need one good test to prove a theory wrong. The null hypothesis that an atmosphere has no effect on a planets temperature is debunked for me with that.

Therefore, given the profoundly religious nature of your beliefs, the only argument that I can craft for you is ... I hope your beliefs bring you the happiness and the sense of order you seek.

tmiddles wrote: So I am indeed confident that Fourier and just about everyone in scientific history since is and was right.

You have attached to your religious view the delusion that all the smart people throughout history are somehow on your side. Unfortunately, it runs against the definition of a smart person to deny nature as you have and to conflate obviously different things as you need to do in order to justify your faith.

tmiddles wrote: Also I note that the amount of atmosphere correlates with the amount of extra temperature that is found at ground level,

Nope. The moon again. Sorry.


May Climate be with you.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-02-2020 02:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is making the argument that an atmosphere has no influence on the temperature at its bottom. You are assigning this bogus position to unnamed others as a rallying cry .....

Just to get this out of the way since what you and ITN believe is not really a factor in why I have concluded Fourier's Greenhose Effect is real. I will respond to that in a bit.

link
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...This belief that ...- Atmospheres don't make a planet warmer at ground level, [that] in fact it's impossible
They don't....

link
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature
It doesn't. ...There is no data, ....
tmiddles wrote:
Here he makes a declarative statement that we KNOW that atmospheres don't result in a higher ground level temp.
That's right, dumbass.

link
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You can't create energy out of nothing."
WRONG! ITN/IBD have no explanation for why planets have higher ground level temps then they would without gases.
They don't.* You can't create energy out of nothing.

link
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Only the Sun provides Earth's energy. Using CO2 to raise the temperature violates the 1st law of thermodynamics (and the conservation of energy law).
Here ITN is claiming it's not possible for an atmosphere to result in an increase average ground level temperature.
... and Into the Night is correct, ...

Now "hot spots", highs and lows, and "mean" average temperature are not concepts that need going over. The moon's highest temp in no way distorts the fact that it's mean surface temp is an average. It is simply dodging the issue to not address that average.

Venus is so hot at ground level it is hotter at night than Mercury, closer to the Sun, is during the day. Mercury High 427C, Venus low 460C.
10-02-2020 02:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:[Fourier's] theory was that a planet's gas atmosphere results in a higher ground level temperature.

So you accepted this as religious dogma, into which you have placed your faith,
I provided a complete rundown of how I checked it.

Your confusion would seem to be in distinguishing "mean" temp from "highs" and "lows".

I am clear on that. If you actually need that explained say so.

IBdaMann wrote:
Obviously, to maintain your faith in the face of contradictory empirical evidence, you must confuse yourself in order to infuse artificial credibility to your beliefs. This argument of yours aims to conflate in your mind a black body's singular temperature with the spectrum of tempratures at the bottom of a planet's atmosphere.
Obviously they are NOT the same thing by any stretch, yet you know why you must conflate them. It's not I that you need to fool but rather yourself.
So that entire section had no content other than to claim I was mixing up "black body" with the complex reality of the actual ground level.
I was very clear in not doing that and providing the black body temp as a theoretical maximum:
tmiddles wrote:
... the temperature a black body (again, not Earth or Venus but a black body version at the same distance, but without an atmosphere) to be calculated...


I sure looked, twice, and you have no rebuttle or argument in your post other than saying "the moon" and calling me religeous.
10-02-2020 03:20
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(737)
James the CO2 in green houses is kept around 1600/1000000 the farmers actually buy CO2 in cylinders and release it in the building to promote growth.Why bother using a greenhouse if it does not increase production
10-02-2020 04:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7571)
tmiddles wrote:I am clear on that. If you actually need that explained say so.

I do. You are rallying to defend your faith against the claim that no atmosphere affects the temperature at the bottom of that atmosphere. Who is supposedly making this claim?

tmiddles wrote: So that entire section had no content other than to claim I was mixing up "black body" with the complex reality of the actual ground level.

I don't care what else it had.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-02-2020 04:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So that entire section had no content other than to claim I was mixing up "black body" with the complex reality of the actual ground level.
I don't care what else it had.
Nor apparently to respond to my rebuttal. Your claim was shown to be false. I made a clear distinction in my original post.
tmiddles wrote:(again, not Earth or Venus but a black body version

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:If you actually need that [distinguishing "mean" temp from "highs" and "lows".] explained say so.
I do.
The mean temp is the average temperature. So if there are three equal portions to a subject measuring 50C, 51C and 49C, the mean temp is 50C ((50+49+51)/3). If that same subjects three parts measures instead 10C, 10C, 130C, the mean temp is still 50C ((10+10+130)/3). If you ever wonder what I mean by a word it's almost always here: dictionary.com I will clarify as needed.

IBdaMann wrote:
Who is supposedly making this claim?
I quoted you and ITN above. (link)

I have said repeatedly that the ground level (I do NOT say surface as that includes portions of the atmosphere, I often say ground/water level) has a higher mean temperature due to the presence of an atmosphere and that is consistently denied by ITN, sometimes by you though you usually prefer to dodge that one by playing at not knowing what mean temp is.
Edited on 10-02-2020 04:38
10-02-2020 05:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7571)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Who is supposedly making this claim?
I quoted you and ITN above.

It's not my position. Once again, you are assigning bogus positions to others so that you can virtue-signal to yourself that you are rushing g to the defense of your faith, which is based conflating surface temperatures with a black body temperature ... all to form sufficient convolution to hide the fact that you have no point.

Your faith is also built on your denial of the moon's daytime temperature. It destroys your dogma of an atmosphere making the surface warmer. Nowhere at the bottom of earth's atmosphere gets anywhere near the moon's daytime temp.

The bottom line is that you are strong in your faith. You are a fundamentalist warmivangelist preacher who believes fervently in climate miracles, even in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

tmiddles wrote:I have said repeatedly that the ground level (I do NOT say surface as that includes portions of the atmosphere,

Why don't you just say "bottom of the atmosphere"? Would that force you to be too clear?

tmiddles wrote: I often say ground/water level) has a higher mean temperature due to the presence of an atmosphere

... and that is false. Moon. Daytime. Much hotter than any point at the bottom of earth's atmosphere.



.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-02-2020 05:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:ground level

Why don't you just say "bottom of the atmosphere"? Would that force you to be too clear?
How is that any more clear? You would seem to be trying to have a point of debate here and there is none.

IBdaMann wrote:
It's not my position.
You're free to state a position, or not, up to you. I quote you directly.

IBdaMann wrote:... the moon's daytime temperature. It destroys your dogma...
How is that? How does the high temp on the moon address my confidence about the mean temp? Do we need to go back over mean temp and what that is?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I often say ground/water level) has a higher mean temperature due to the presence of an atmosphere

... and that is false. Moon. Daytime. Much hotter than any point at the bottom of earth's atmosphere.

Again you could stand a refresher on what mean temp is. I have always talked about the mean temperature (almost always annually when discussing Earth) as that is what my definition (and that shared by the majority of those who employ the term) are referring to when they say "greenhouse effect", "Global warming" or "Climate Change". The mean temperature, not the highs and lows.

But why don't you want to talk about Venus IBD? It's so much easier given it's crazy high temps to sort this all out. Mercury is like the moon, no atmosphere, really hot temp at it's "hot spots" which are experiencing "High noon" on Mercury, yet those "hot spots" are still colder than on Venus at a location in the dark of night. WOW! It's that fascinating IBD? Don't you want to consider that?
Edited on 10-02-2020 06:13
10-02-2020 17:19
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1325)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted 'Venus Mantra'...

Your 'Venus Mantra' has already been responded to. Ignoring an argument does not make it go away.
10-02-2020 19:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13844)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Do you still believe in Greenhouse Effect?
.
yes

Why? .... same reasons Christians continue believing that God is real?
OK that was not an argument but an appeal to motive and your starting with a conclusion and not a question. Why pair "greenhouse effect" with a definition and then quibble about semantics? Why not simply drill down on a theory. Call it "Theory of the day" if you like.


How about explaining the 'greenhouse effect' without violating any rule of physics?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-02-2020 19:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13844)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...when did you convert and why?...


Not indignant just observant.

We are two human communicating with words. Unless we both agree on their meaning we are talking past each other.

You have mentioned "greenhouse effect" again several times though by your own admission you recognize no coherent definition for it.

So I ask you again:
Why pair "greenhouse effect" with a definition and then quibble about semantics? Why not simply drill down on a theory. Call it "Theory of the day" if you like.


Call it what you want. Explain it without violating any law of physics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-02-2020 19:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13844)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
When did you convert to your belief and why?
.
Belief in what exactly IBD? What do you think I believe in? What are you asking me about?

"Greenhouse Effect" means nothing to you by your own description so you aren't coveying a coherent thought.

What do you mean?


Inversion fallacy. Explain 'greenhouse effect' without violating any law of physics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-02-2020 19:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13844)
tmiddles wrote:
I explained that when I only hear "greenhouse effect" without further clarification, it's unclear which of it's different meanings is being used, in My first topic here:
...deleted Mantras 9...4...19...
So the simple case for the original "Green House effect. "
...deleted Mantras 9...4...13b2...13c...8...10 (atmosphere<->insulator)...23...25...19...28...27...26...10 (air<->temperature)...26...10...10...10...6...27...26...4...13b2...13c...


No definition provided. No argument presented. No new questions.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-02-2020 19:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13844)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...why do you believe what you believe....
When did you adopt your belief in Greenhouse Effect and why?

I thought you were choosing the topic but no problem.

...deleted Mantras 4...13b2...13c...28a...19...19...13c...19...19...25...5...19...9...19...19...9...19...27...25...28a...19...26...14...26...10 (air<->heat)...20...23...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-02-2020 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13844)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is making the argument that an atmosphere has no influence on the temperature at its bottom. You are assigning this bogus position to unnamed others as a rallying cry .....

Just to get this out of the way since what you and ITN believe is not really a factor in why I have concluded Fourier's Greenhose Effect is real. I will respond to that in a bit.
...deleted Mantras 9...9...9...19...19...19...9...9...


I didn't know Fourier had a green hose.
(Mantra 4...28a...13b1...13b2...13c)


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 10-02-2020 19:38
10-02-2020 19:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13844)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 13b1...13c...19...28....26...10 (air<->temperature)...5...23...24...25...


No argument presented. No new questions.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-02-2020 02:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
gfm7175 wrote:...has already been responded to. ...
No it has not. I think you might love pretending phantom arguments exist as much at ITN. Carry on and good luck with that.

Into the Night wrote:
How about explaining the 'greenhouse effect' without violating any rule of physics?
Do you find I've suggested something that violates a rule of physics? I don't see your argument from you here ITN.
11-02-2020 07:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7571)
tmiddles wrote:Do you find I've suggested something that violates a rule of physics?


Yes. We have been over it.

You deny the obvious, i.e. that the hottest planetary surface is of zero atmosphere during the daytime. You mistakenly insist that adding atmosphere increases the surface's temperature, but it does not. This error is a symptom of having adopted a religious dogma that runs counter to physics.

In your case, you believe that CO2 creates energy in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, even though you pretend to deny it. You point to Venus and believe that its CO2 atmosphere is generating all sorts of additional energy. To sufficiently delude yourself into maintaining your faith, you feign omniscience about Venus' temperatures being "higher than they should be" ... and then you stupidly ask people to "explain Venus."

Venus doesn't need to be explained when one is not fabricating imaginary temperatures and is not imagining that its atmosphere is creating additional energy in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.


If you would like to walk through the reasoning and arrive at this conclusion on your own, just explain how Greenhouse Effect increases temperature without violating physics. Right here. I don't need to read about any dead people or what anyone has posted on any board and I don't need any links ... just write what you believe ... about how Greenhouse Effect increases temperature.


You can't do it? Right, that's your answer.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-02-2020 07:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3496)
IBdaMann wrote:Venus doesn't need to be explained
Come again? You have no explanation for how a planet is hotter at it's coldest ground level spots than it's neighbor, closer to the sun, at it's hottest spots, and that's OK with you?

Unfortunately it's mere existence makes your hypothesis that an atmosphere cannot cause the ground level temperature to be higher, to be implausible at best. (you would have to have a theory that something else was causing the high temps, do you?)

IBdaMann wrote:...explain how Greenhouse Effect increases temperature without violating [IBD's personal] physics. Right here.
Now I can't promise YOU won't think Physics are violated but that's because you have manufactured rules that are not found anywhere else.

Now I also know you love to respect the rules of the board so let's keep things on topic. If you'd like to discuss the greenhouse theory I presented you'll need to do so here:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right

No I will not repost the whole thing here just to suit you. You ignored it before so if you're interested now there's the link.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 11-02-2020 07:45
11-02-2020 17:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13844)
tmiddles wrote:
...lie...5...20a1...20a2...20b...29...

No argument presented. No new questions.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-02-2020 17:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13844)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25...25...20c...33...false dichotomy...20a1...20a2...20b...5...4...29...29...lie...4...29...

No argument presented. No new questions.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-02-2020 17:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7571)
tmiddles wrote:Come again? You have no explanation for how a planet is hotter at it's coldest ground level spots than it's neighbor, closer to the sun, at it's hottest spots, and that's OK with you?

It is perfectly OK with me that you imagine Venus to be of certain temperatures to validate your faith ... at least to yourself. I bet your self-licking ice cream cone is very sweet.


tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...explain how Greenhouse Effect increases temperature without violating physics. Right here.
If you'd like to discuss the greenhouse theory I presented you'll need to do so here:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right

Your model avoids violating physics by not increasing temperature. After describing a model in which temperature does not increase, you merely claim that temperature increases. Sorry, not according to the model you presented. Either you believe that Greenhouse Effect does not increase temperature (as your model indicates) or you have not explained how it does so without violating physics.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate Greenhouse Gas and Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist12812-03-2020 02:10
Will Warm Winters Balance Out The Effects Of Greenhouse Gases?1410-02-2020 18:23
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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