Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Are Real



Page 2 of 4<1234>
03-09-2017 19:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:

2. All your calculations seem to be very precise. However, all of the data is estimates within 3-4C. Sure, it can give you trends and show the ups and downs. I would say it is like trying to split hairs with the flat end of an ax. How do you explain your precision that is derived from ballpark numbers? (mainly the ice core data)


The data that is within 3-4C is just the climate model's output.

Argument from randU. You don't know the temperature of the Earth, either then or now.
GreenMan wrote:
Worst error is actually about 3.4C.

An error in random numbers?
GreenMan wrote:
That could be from a lot of things, but the output is generally less than 0.5C of what the temperature actually was. So it is a very accurate model, as you can see from the chart that it produced.

You don't know what the temperature actually was. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth this accurately.
GreenMan wrote:
The data that the model used did have show what the accuracy of their data was.

Funny how how that NEVER HAPPENED.
GreenMan wrote:
I didn't use that in any way.

Of course not. Nothing to interfere with any of your fakery.
GreenMan wrote:
I just went with the data as presented.

You just went with all the assumptions the guys analyzing the ice core did. They are ASSUMTIONS. It isn't really data. It's manufactured.
GreenMan wrote:
I could look up what those numbers are, if it would make anyone feel better.

Don't bother. Published random numbers mean nothing.
GreenMan wrote:
The data that most Deniers point at as being erroneous is the gas data.

Okay...let's look at that.
GreenMan wrote:
And there is some question about how closely what they measured in the ice resembles what was really present in the air, and for good reason. The gases leak through the ice for a few thousand years, so some gas escapes completely.

Gases also leak IN.
GreenMan wrote:
[I found that to be about 10%].

Random number. Argument from randU.
GreenMan wrote:
But the big deal in using the gas for climate reconstruction is in the dating of it.

You can't date CO2. The molecule has no indication of when it was formed.
GreenMan wrote:
That's what gave the evil scientists such a hard time.

Creating convincing looking random numbers is hard work!
GreenMan wrote:
It's migrating up, from the time the snow falls, so the ice that was made 10,000 years ago actually contains the gas from 15,000 years ago.


And the gas concentration of 10,000 years ago is found in the ice that was made 5,000 years ago.[/quote]
WRONG. CO2 migrates BOTH ways through ice.
GreenMan wrote:
They figured it all out,

You mean they guessed.
GreenMan wrote:
but let's say there was plenty of room for error,

There certainly is!
GreenMan wrote:
when you consider that they were working on 800,000 years worth of ice.

The length of the sample changes nothing.
GreenMan wrote:
You can see some of that error, if you look at the model's output, where it lags the temperature by a few thousand years, but still makes the little dips and peaks as the actual temperature did.

Now comes the numerology part.
GreenMan wrote:
That's a time shift, so to speak. It's not a big deal, if you know what causes it.

So you just throw it away. How convenient. If you arrange the letters G O D in a certain way, add the number of letters of everything but the last letter to the last letter, then subtract the number of last letters from the first, then correct for the middle by multiplying the corrected first and last letters subtracting that from the middle letter and adding the number of letters to that, you come with with the mark of the devil; 666.
GreenMan wrote:
It's just something to take into consideration when analyzing the model's error. And there are a few places that the model shows either a higher or lower temperature predicted than actual. I'm thinking that was caused by high or low gas readings, for some reason. Those are rare, and occurred in the older ice samples.

It's just another way to do the same numerology I just demonstrated to you.
GreenMan wrote:
But there is one significant and repeatable error that shows up when the planet is taking a nose dive into a glacial period. The temperature drops quicker than the model predicts, about every time. Once the temperature bottoms out, the model catches up and tracks good after that. So I know for sure that something else is going on, and I think I have a feasible explanation for it.

We know that water vapor is the best of the greenhouse gases, and is also the most abundant.

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse' gas. Water vapor isn't one either.

Numerology ends here. Now begins your bad physics.
GreenMan wrote:
So why doesn't runaway greenhouse effect occur?

Because it doesn't exist.

In your 'greenhouse' model, ANY amount of retained energy would fry this planet with continually building energy until the whole Earth was destroyed, thus ending the experiment.

You are STILL trying to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics and trying to build a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

GreenMan wrote:
It should, because the warmer it gets, the more water vapor there is in the air.

Not what causes water vapor to occur. You have certainly failed to notice how DRY some deserts are? You know...the ones that get quite hot? Or the rain forests of Washington State? Or the almost continuous rain along the inland waters of southern Alaska?
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking that water vapor is in saturation currently. It is already absorbing all of the bandwidth that is being emitted by the earth, that affects it.

You go on and think that. It's part of your religion.
GreenMan wrote:
So adding more water vapor doesn't add more heat.

Actually, it does. Water vapor conducts heat better than dry air. For the same difference in temperature, water vapor increases heat.
GreenMan wrote:
It actually does the opposite, by blocking the sun.

It does not block out the Sun.
GreenMan wrote:
So it is working in our favor, for now.

Water vapor does indeed work in our favor. It causes rain...nature's distilled water.
GreenMan wrote:
But something else happens when the climate swings the other way, and the planet begins to lock a bunch of water vapor into ice.

Circular argument. You are saying the planet is cooling because water vapor is locked into ice...but it won't freeze until the planet cools!
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking the planet begins to dry out, with less water evaporating and more water freezing.

Do you know how much energy it would take to freeze the world's oceans?
GreenMan wrote:
That will dry out the air, and bring water vapor out of saturation. And that means that water vapor isn't warming as much

Wait...didnt you say water vapor COOLED the Earth because it blocked the Sun?

Welcome to your new paradox.
GreenMan wrote:
during a prolonged getting colder spell, as it usually does.

Circular argument.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2017 20:36
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
GreenMan wrote:
Wow, you finally presented your argument. Thank you.
Let's take a look at that, as see if we can tell what all the fuss is about.

Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Once again, not a math magick man or scientist. I'm just a very ordinary guy simply comparing what I've been told to what can I see.


You don't need to be a math magick man (it really isn't magick, but magic uses math!), or a scientist. There are really only two or three theories to understand. The equations in them are fairly simple.

The first is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This theory states that whenever there is a difference of temperature between two regions, and there is a way for heat to flow from to the other (they are coupled), heat will flow at a rate determined solely by the difference between the two regions, and the coupling. The better the coupling, the faster heat will flow. The greater the difference with the same coupling, the faster heat will flow. Heat always flows from hot to cold. Never backwards. If there is no difference in temperature, heating stops. If coupling is removed, heating stops. There is no way to get heat to flow from cold to hot.

I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface. What happens if you reduce the coupling's ability to conduct heat? Oh, you answered that, if a better coupling means the heat will flow faster, a worse coupling means the heat will move slower. Would that not cause a build up of heat at the surface, since it can't cool as quickly as it could with a better coupling? I'm thinking that yes, it would. It's kind of like putting a jacket on, on a cold day. You are changing the coupling between your body and the air from light clothes to insulated clothes. You can fee the warmth immediately after putting on a coat, even though the coat has no heater. It is just slowing the heat loss. And that is what Greenhouse Gases, including Water Vapor are doing. They are slowing heat loss, which does not break the rule.

Into the Night wrote:

Another way to put it is called 'entropy'. This odd word basically means the randomness of a system. A good way to visualize it is to have two containers, one with white bugs and one with red bugs. This is an example of low entropy. It is organized.

Allowing a pathway between the two containers is like the coupling I mentioned earlier. Soon you will have a mix of bugs in both containers. Entropy has increased.

The 2nd law states that entropy always increases. It never decreases. This is true always. The seeming way we can 'collect' heat in one place is only because we are taking the energy to do that from somewhere else (which must be included in a consistent way. Energy is like the bugs.
If it's concentrated somewhere, the 2nd law says it will dissipate.

For Earth, that means we get energy from the Sun, then radiate it back into space. The Earth is only 'in the way' so to speak of the energy coming from the Sun. It cannot heat itself.

On Earth, that means we start with a surface that is warm. This heats the atmosphere. Heat can flow by conduction (contact with the hotter region), convection (movement of material itself to colder region), or radiation (conversion to electromagnetic energy and back again).

The surface heats the atmosphere basically by conduction. CO2 can also be heated by radiance coming from the surface.

The atmosphere generally cools as you go higher. The CO2 is colder than the surface, so heat can flow to warm it. The reverse is not true. CO2 cannot heat the surface. It is colder than the surface (or at best the same temperature). It cannot do it by 'back radiation'. It cannot do it by contact. It cannot do it by convection. It cannot do it at all.

Space is colder than anything on Earth. Everything that has a temperature above the temperature of the very few molecules of space (about minus 455 deg F) tries to heat space. Space, however, is very large. It is so large it doesn't change temperature much. The Earth is just another particle in the way of the Sun trying to heat space around it.


The other theory is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law can be derived from Planck's laws of energy and light. His basic theory is that when you compare one photon with another, each has its own frequency. That frequency is the photon's 'color'. If the frequency is in a narrow range that our eyes are sensitive to (we have built in electromagnetic energy detectors!) then we see what we call a visible 'color'. White is all colors added up at once. Black is no light. Light has both an intensity (it's brightness) and a color.

All Planck was really saying is that a photon of one color has a different amount of energy than a photon of a different color. The number of photons per second is the brightness, or intensity of the light.

Light is simply electromagnetic energy. It is an electrostatic field (think rubbing a balloon on something to build up static electricity) and a magnetic field (we've all played with magnets) moving together. Visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, radio waves, microwaves, are all just light, but at different frequencies. It is possible to look at light either as a continuous wave, or as a packet of such waves (a photon). Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle explains why.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law took all the colors of light and combined them into one total energy. As a result the Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It combines all colors.

Now the law itself:

energy = SB constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4.

Where:
energy is the power emitted (in photons per second over a fixed area of the emitting surface)
SB constant is a constant of nature (used to convert the equation into our units of measurement).
emissivity is a constant that is measured. It is how well something emits the light. A shiny piece of metal doesn't emit light that well. It reflects it well, (why its shiny), but it has poor emissivity. A black hunk of coal has good emissivity. It is black because it doesn't reflect much light. Emissivity and absorptivity are equal. If a material absorbs light well, it also emits light well. It's units are a number expressed as a percentage between two ideal values.
temperature (in deg K)

Emissivity is probably the most misunderstood part of this equation. It is a measured value. It is constant. Emissivity doesn't change unless you change the surface at which point you will have to measure it again.

Emissivity is a percentage between a surface that is ideally black (the ideal black body absorbs all light and reflects or refracts no light) and ideally white (the ideal white body absorbs no light and reflects or refracts all light). These are ideals. These reference bodies do not exist in nature. Everything in nature is a 'gray' body...somewhere in between.

Emissivity is measured by first accurately measuring the temperature of the surface.

Then you measure the energy coming from the surface.

You compare that to the ideal bodies, assuming the same temperature.

The result is the emissivity value.

The basic equation describes that something appears brighter (more intense) the hotter it is. If something has a temperature above absolute zero, it is emitting light. The intensity of that light is determined by its temperature.

This is true for solids (which have an easily identifiable surface), liquids (somewhat less identifiable but a surface), and gasses (which have no visible surface, but they have a 'surface' area all the same).

If something makes Earth hotter, radiance (the intensity of energy) will increase. If something makes the Earth colder, radiance will decrease.

Similarly, if radiance is increasing, that means the temperature is increasing. If radiance is decreasing, that means temperature is decreasing. Everything else in the equation is a constant.

The Church of Global Warming depends on the use of Holy Gas that somehow absorbs light from the surface and either never lets the energy go, or uses that energy to in turn heat the surface. Either model means the photon never reached space. Radiance is reduced.

Ok, yeah, I think I see the problem, here. You are measuring radiance from space, and not from the surface. This law you keep using, let's call it the Stefen Bozo Law, for short, is not being broken at all. It's your reasoning that is broken. The Stephen Bozo law doesn't say that all the photons have to reach space. It just says that they have to be emitted by the body. You are trying to conclude that if they don't make it into space that they were not emitted, but they were. They were just re-purposed. Instead of getting to go flying off for lord knows where, they were absorbed by Greenhouse Gases, and turned into thermal energy, warming the air, just a tad bit.

That tad bit slows the planet's ability to cool, just a tad bit. So a tad bit less heat gets to leave the surface and gets stored in the ground, by raising the ground temperature just a tad bit. The problem is that those tad bits add up over time, and become big chunks in the long run.

Into the Night wrote:

But at the same temperature is increased.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law says that this is not possible. If radiance is reduced, temperature is reduced. This is always true. The usual dance around this problem for the Church of Global Warming is to claim that the photon does eventually reach space, the Earth is now warmer, and radiance is increased.

That doesn't work. This imposes a sequence that is not in the equation. It is basically saying that radiance is reduced for only a moment while the temperature is increased [i]during that same moment[I]. Then everything works as advertised in the equation.

There is no sequence. There is no such moment. The equation is always in force. It works for all bodies (in this case the Earth and its atmosphere)...all the time...never ceasing...never temporarily suspended.

Another dance sometimes attempted is that emissivity changes with color. In other words, emissivity is different for each color. This is basically trying to justify that a magick color (infrared light) has a different emissivity than another magick color (visible light).

This doesn't work. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It combines all colors. That includes the emissivity value. It includes all frequencies of light.

See? The only math needed is simple arithmetic. The only science needed are two theories.

I'm thinking you must be talking the only math needed is simple arithmetic and two theories for debunking Global Warming. So I'm thinking it is going to take a little more than that, since your two theories don't really contradict the Global Warming Theory. They explain it, instead.

Into the Night wrote:

I like to refer to the two arguments of the 'greenhouse gas theory' as the Magick Blanket argument (which ignores the effect of removing coupling in BOTH directions, and assume that you are able to remove coupling at all using a Holy Gas), and the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument (which attempts to heat a hotter region with a colder one and which attempts to either rewrite or ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

These two theories did require a lengthy response to explain them on hopefully a more comfortable level for you, but I hope this clears up why I keep referring back to these laws when confronting the Church of Global Warming Scripture. Despite these, they will do anything to either rewrite these laws or attempt to ignore them (by producing manufactured data to show how wrong I am).

I took the time to post it not only to clarify my position to some, but because I think you truly can grasp these theories and understand them in the context of the climate debate here.


Thank you for taking the time to post your explanation for rejecting science that is accepted around the world by virtually all major governments, except ours. It helps to know these things, so that we can all just discount them and the people who preach them.

Neither of the laws are broken. The coupling is being modified by the effect of Greenhouse Gases warming slightly. The warmer the air, the slower it conducts heat from the surface, according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That is all that is going on.

Radiation from the surface of the planet is not reduced at all by Greenhouse Gases. They can't be, because they haven't been encountered yet. So the Stefen Bozo [I'm not going to memorize that last name, because it's irrelevant] is not violated at all. You are just adding a few words to it, by declaring that the radiance has to be determined from space. It doesn't. Radiance generated by the earth can only be measured accurately from the surface, because after that it encounters Greenhouse Gases, which absorb so of it. Energy can't be destroyed, so it is converted into thermal energy, and very lightly warmed the planet.

You might as well switch sides, because you have been debunked. You are all washed up as a Parrot Killer Parrot for the Church of AGW Denial. If you can make up the Church of Global Warming, then I can make up the Church of AGW Denial. And I can also destroy the Church of AGW Denial, because its leadership is a bunch of fruit loops that don't care about the future of humanity.

But I'm starting to think that we can get by without you, so you need to hurry up and jump over, while it's still allowed.


Reposted, because you apparently missed it.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
03-09-2017 21:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface.

You are thinking wrong. The atmosphere does not couple surface heating to space. The Earth heats space purely by radiance. No other coupling is needed.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2017 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Ok, yeah, I think I see the problem, here. You are measuring radiance from space, and not from the surface. This law you keep using, let's call it the Stefen Bozo Law, for short, is not being broken at all. It's your reasoning that is broken. The Stephen Bozo law doesn't say that all the photons have to reach space. It just says that they have to be emitted by the body. You are trying to conclude that if they don't make it into space that they were not emitted, but they were. They were just re-purposed. Instead of getting to go flying off for lord knows where, they were absorbed by Greenhouse Gases, and turned into thermal energy, warming the air, just a tad bit.

The Stefan-Boltzmann IS measuring radiance as seen in space. The entire body of Earth, including its atmosphere, is counted for that radiance.
GreenMan wrote:
That tad bit slows the planet's ability to cool, just a tad bit.

Not even a tad bit.
GreenMan wrote:
So a tad bit less heat gets to leave the surface and gets stored in the ground, by raising the ground temperature just a tad bit.

You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder gas.
GreenMan wrote:
The problem is that those tad bits add up over time, and become big chunks in the long run.

You can't build a perpetual motion machine.

It takes energy to produce the light that happens to be absorbed by a CO2. That COOLS the surface, not warms it!

CO2 in turn is part of the radiance of Earth.

You cannot reduce the radiance and increase the temperature at the same time. Not even for a moment. Not even a bit a tad bit.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2017 06:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1519)
Well, I just got hammered with new work stuff the past few days, found just enough time to stay caught up on reading reading here, but haven't had any more time to get inside the head of Greenman.

ITN- thanks for the explanations. I already understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics- I think. It is all common sense. Still a bit shaky on the Stephen Bozo law and it's application to reality.
I'll try and find some more time to get a grasp on it.

Greenman-You are convinced it's warming. You are convinced it's going to eventually get so hot that earth is uninhabitable. You are sure it's from greenhouse gasses that we are adding to the air. But when you are explaining your reasoning, it's as if you are figuring it out on the fly, and you wind up all over the place. I have to agree with ITN every time he claims Paradox. I see it too.

So here's what I suggest. We both agree that no deadly heating will take place in Iowa or Michigan for years to come, so we got plenty of time to dissect this beast one topic at a time.
Let's start from the beginning.
First we need to know if it's actually warming before we can figure out why. Correct?
You say it's warming, around .2C per decade. You say you trust the NOAA measurements.

If you google global warming or anything related, you will see miles and miles of temperature graphs that show the global average with a nice even warming trend for the last 120 years. Not so much a hockey stick, but a steady climb. However, when you start poking around temp history for specific locations, an alarming number(vast majority) of these show no warming and even decreases since the 70s-90s. Here's a link to hundreds of reliable RAW data sites around the US with records back to 1880. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html
Pick a state
select a recording station
select get monthly data
select mean temp vs year
select mean temp RAW
select get plot

Play around on that site for a bit and then come back and tell me if you're still convinced we are even warming.
04-09-2017 09:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN- thanks for the explanations. I already understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics- I think. It is all common sense. Still a bit shaky on the Stephen Bozo law and it's application to reality.
I'll try and find some more time to get a grasp on it.


Glad it helped.

There is actually the usual dance around the Stefan Boltzmann law with Greenman taking place now.

The Earth is the body in question. If it gets warmer, it's radiance increases. In other words, the energy in photons per square area increases (both number of photons per second and higher energy photons).

If it becomes cooler, the energy in photons decreases (both the number photons per second and lower energy photons).

Not all photons are equal. That the essence of Planck's law.

The surface, being denser than air and generally warmer than the air, radiates the most. The air also radiates. Earth's total radiance is the combination of the two.

Some of the surface radiance does heat certain gases and vapors in the atmosphere, such as CO2. Those gases become slightly warmer. The total effect is that Earth still radiates the same. It is still the sum of the surface radiance and the atmospheric radiance.

Since it takes energy to radiate light (you are converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy), that energy is lost from whatever is emitting the light. In other words, you must cool the surface to heat CO2. CO2 is cooled again when it emits light again, or when it dissipates the thermal energy it gained into the surrounding atmosphere.

Like any hot spot in the atmosphere, convection helps to move energy upward, where reduced pressures can dissipate it.

All the while it is also radiating light.

Thus, everything the Sun provides is radiated back out into space. The only way to 'store' energy is to convert it into potential energy, such as the process of photosynthesis or charging a battery with a solar panel.

Hydroelectric power is also solar power.

There is another power source...the Earth itself. The core of the Earth is hot...powered by a fission reaction. That is also energy, moving outward through the mantle and eventually the Earth's crust. It is the power that produces oil, methane, and quite probably coal. It is the power of the volcano.

All the power of the Earth pales, though, next to the power received from the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2017 10:19
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface.

You are thinking wrong. The atmosphere does not couple surface heating to space. The Earth heats space purely by radiance. No other coupling is needed.


I'm thinking you know about thermal energy. That's the stuff that warms the air, and makes us all cozy and comfy. Are you saying that stuff takes off in radiation? Could you please explain the process by why thermal energy is transformed back into radiation before it escapes into space?

You see, I thought that you were talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which has to do with heat. You know, how heat always moves from hot to cold, and it mores at a speed determined by the difference in temperature and the coupling between the two objects. As in the earth is hotter than outer space, so the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics [that you claim those evil climate scientists are trying to break] says that heat from the earth must travel to outer space.

I'm thinking that heat moves to outer space through the atmosphere, which is the coupling between the earth and outer space. And I'm also thinking that you know that, which means that you are deliberately lying to people. And what you are lying to people about will get a lot of people killed. Do you really want that on your conscious?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
04-09-2017 10:43
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Ok, yeah, I think I see the problem, here. You are measuring radiance from space, and not from the surface. This law you keep using, let's call it the Stefen Bozo Law, for short, is not being broken at all. It's your reasoning that is broken. The Stephen Bozo law doesn't say that all the photons have to reach space. It just says that they have to be emitted by the body. You are trying to conclude that if they don't make it into space that they were not emitted, but they were. They were just re-purposed. Instead of getting to go flying off for lord knows where, they were absorbed by Greenhouse Gases, and turned into thermal energy, warming the air, just a tad bit.

The Stefan-Boltzmann IS measuring radiance as seen in space. The entire body of Earth, including its atmosphere, is counted for that radiance.
GreenMan wrote:
That tad bit slows the planet's ability to cool, just a tad bit.

Not even a tad bit.
GreenMan wrote:
So a tad bit less heat gets to leave the surface and gets stored in the ground, by raising the ground temperature just a tad bit.

You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder gas.
GreenMan wrote:
The problem is that those tad bits add up over time, and become big chunks in the long run.

You can't build a perpetual motion machine.

It takes energy to produce the light that happens to be absorbed by a CO2. That COOLS the surface, not warms it!

CO2 in turn is part of the radiance of Earth.

You cannot reduce the radiance and increase the temperature at the same time. Not even for a moment. Not even a bit a tad bit.


It's not a perpetual motion machine. Not even close. You aren't getting more out than you are putting in. You are merely storing more energy in the earth, in the form of heat, due to the imbalance of energy coming in versus energy going out. Greenhouse Gases slow energy going out, causing the earth to warm.

Here's the Stefan-Botlzmann Law:The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance or radiant exitance), is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature.

So, uh, I don't see anything in there about it having to be measured from space. And you know what else I don't see. I don't see the atmosphere being a black body, though some gases do exhibit black body properties when reacting to certain wavelength's of radiation.

So I'm thinking you are lying again, on purpose.

Greenhouse Gases DO NOT break the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, because Greenhouse Gases DO NOT reduce earth's radiation. The earth has to radiate energy based on its temperature. And the earth does radiate energy based on its temperature.

Claiming that earth's radiation is reduced just because some radiation is absorbed on its way to space is a total lie, that anyone can see. Just because you block the light from a bulb, doesn't mean the bulb went out. The bulb is still burning and emitting just as much light. You just can't see it, because you closed the door. Same thing.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
04-09-2017 10:51
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
Some of the surface radiance does heat certain gases and vapors in the atmosphere, such as CO2. Those gases become slightly warmer.


Dude, was that a copy/paste oversight, or have you come around?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
04-09-2017 11:50
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Well, I just got hammered with new work stuff the past few days, found just enough time to stay caught up on reading reading here, but haven't had any more time to get inside the head of Greenman.

ITN- thanks for the explanations. I already understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics- I think. It is all common sense. Still a bit shaky on the Stephen Bozo law and it's application to reality.
I'll try and find some more time to get a grasp on it.

Greenman-You are convinced it's warming. You are convinced it's going to eventually get so hot that earth is uninhabitable. You are sure it's from greenhouse gasses that we are adding to the air. But when you are explaining your reasoning, it's as if you are figuring it out on the fly, and you wind up all over the place. I have to agree with ITN every time he claims Paradox. I see it too.

So here's what I suggest. We both agree that no deadly heating will take place in Iowa or Michigan for years to come, so we got plenty of time to dissect this beast one topic at a time.
Let's start from the beginning.
First we need to know if it's actually warming before we can figure out why. Correct?
You say it's warming, around .2C per decade. You say you trust the NOAA measurements.

If you google global warming or anything related, you will see miles and miles of temperature graphs that show the global average with a nice even warming trend for the last 120 years. Not so much a hockey stick, but a steady climb. However, when you start poking around temp history for specific locations, an alarming number(vast majority) of these show no warming and even decreases since the 70s-90s. Here's a link to hundreds of reliable RAW data sites around the US with records back to 1880. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html
Pick a state
select a recording station
select get monthly data
select mean temp vs year
select mean temp RAW
select get plot

Play around on that site for a bit and then come back and tell me if you're still convinced we are even warming.

I took a look at the graphs, and see what you are saying. It has cooled a bit in Iowa. No wonder you are confused. I checked a few other places, Georgia for example. And I agree that over the long run, there has been little if any increase since 1880. But there was a slight increase there, since the 70s.

We are in a region of the world that is cooled by two oceans, so our temperature isn't really a good proxy for the world. I'm not sure that anywhere is, because if you looked over in the Middle East, you might find that it is warming a little more than the global average.

I went on a little search to see what the Middle East climate has been like, to compare to ours, thinking that it is going to be where most of the heating has been, and found out something different. I think it has gotten a lot hotter there, in comparison to here, but it looks like from what is called Net Radiation, that AFrica and South America and the Indonesian Islands are the spots that are seeing the most warming.

https://www.science.co.il/weather/middle-east-climate/

But anyway, I think that we are being cooled by the Arctic, also. That's like having a giant ice cube in a bucket of water. Take a look at India on that map. They don't have a giant ice cube in their ocean. And I know for sure that they have been having severe heat waves in that part of the world. It would be nice if it would just stay there, but it won't.

You are right about me figuring things out as I go. When I came in here, all I really knew was that Greenhouse Gases do contribute to our Climate Control System. I knew that because as I have said, I built a model. That's what I did when I wanted to know the truth about this whole mess. I wanted to know for sure if this was truly the scourge that threatened humanity, as predicted in the Bible. The model that I built is purely mathematical. It can't lie. It has no emotion. I'm not aware of any way that the predictions it makes could be coincidental, and they closely match what the earth's climate was like. So I am going to side with the scientists on this one. And if I have to learn everything about the planet's climate control system to explain it, then that is what I will do.

And I have figured out a lot since I've been in here. Some of you guys are very knowledgeable. I learn from people like that. Doesn't mean that I have to accept the things that they got wrong.

But I think I do have it figured out now. It's the planet itself that is heating up, as I have been talking about. It's the dirt, and the water. They store any thermal energy that is added due to an imbalance in the energy budget. If more energy comes in than goes out, the earth warms accordingly. And likewise, if more energy goes out than comes in, the earth cools accordingly. Thank God it's a gradual process. So yes, we have time to work out what to do.

But the solution really does suck big ones. We have to pay for it. And we have to remove ourselves from the grid, basically. And I know a few other things that we will have to do, as time progresses, that we won't want to do. But you know what, we are supposed to be big boys and girls now, and our wants aren't supposed to hurt us. But there are those that will go down crying about having to change. They won't want to. Who wants to change?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
04-09-2017 14:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1519)
Greenman wrote;
But anyway, I think that we are being cooled by the Arctic,

OK, let's take this small piece right here.

Yes, the US is generally cooled by the arctic. Generally speaking, heat builds in from the south until eventually low pressure will slide in and drag a cold front down from Canada. These lows are more frequent/stronger in the spring and fall with change of seasons. The jet stream is also shifting north in the spring and south in the fall. That is US weather in the simplest of terms, there's far more to it, but for the sake of this conversation....

So, we are told by the scientist that the Arctic is actually warming faster than any part of the world. In other words, the United States "cooling system" is getting warmer. So why should we not see warming in the US as well?

According to the website you were looking around on, you agreed it's tough to find and real warming trend, unless you use data from a major metro, then those typically show some warming. But if you look at NOAA data, like the one below, we are warming in lock step with the rest of the world.
With all the accusations coming out of NOAA, doesn't it bring them in to question just a little bit?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Attached image:

04-09-2017 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface.

You are thinking wrong. The atmosphere does not couple surface heating to space. The Earth heats space purely by radiance. No other coupling is needed.


I'm thinking you know about thermal energy. That's the stuff that warms the air, and makes us all cozy and comfy. Are you saying that stuff takes off in radiation? Could you please explain the process by why thermal energy is transformed back into radiation before it escapes into space?

I already did. You that Stefan-Boltzmann law I'm always going on about?
GreenMan wrote:
You see, I thought that you were talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which has to do with heat.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics actually has to do with any energy. ANY concentration of energy will dissipate. It never gathers without putting energy into it from somewhere else.
GreenMan wrote:
You know, how heat always moves from hot to cold, and it mores at a speed determined by the difference in temperature and the coupling between the two objects. As in the earth is hotter than outer space, so the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics [that you claim those evil climate scientists are trying to break] says that heat from the earth must travel to outer space.

Energy from Earth must travel to space. Earth does not gather energy from space.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking that heat moves to outer space through the atmosphere, which is the coupling between the earth and outer space.
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
And I'm also thinking that you know that, which means that you are deliberately lying to people. And what you are lying to people about will get a lot of people killed. Do you really want that on your conscious?

False dichotomy. There is no problem. No one is going to die from 'global warming' or 'climate change'. No one has died from 'global warming' or 'climate change'.

You can't even define what they are without using circular definitions.

You can stuff your religion of doom and gloom.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2017 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Ok, yeah, I think I see the problem, here. You are measuring radiance from space, and not from the surface. This law you keep using, let's call it the Stefen Bozo Law, for short, is not being broken at all. It's your reasoning that is broken. The Stephen Bozo law doesn't say that all the photons have to reach space. It just says that they have to be emitted by the body. You are trying to conclude that if they don't make it into space that they were not emitted, but they were. They were just re-purposed. Instead of getting to go flying off for lord knows where, they were absorbed by Greenhouse Gases, and turned into thermal energy, warming the air, just a tad bit.

The Stefan-Boltzmann IS measuring radiance as seen in space. The entire body of Earth, including its atmosphere, is counted for that radiance.
GreenMan wrote:
That tad bit slows the planet's ability to cool, just a tad bit.

Not even a tad bit.
GreenMan wrote:
So a tad bit less heat gets to leave the surface and gets stored in the ground, by raising the ground temperature just a tad bit.

You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder gas.
GreenMan wrote:
The problem is that those tad bits add up over time, and become big chunks in the long run.

You can't build a perpetual motion machine.

It takes energy to produce the light that happens to be absorbed by a CO2. That COOLS the surface, not warms it!

CO2 in turn is part of the radiance of Earth.

You cannot reduce the radiance and increase the temperature at the same time. Not even for a moment. Not even a bit a tad bit.


It's not a perpetual motion machine. Not even close. You aren't getting more out than you are putting in.

You are describing a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. You are describing a way to decrease entropy (and increase energy with it). Do not confuse that with a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order.
GreenMan wrote:
You are merely storing more energy in the earth, in the form of heat,

You cannot store heat.
GreenMan wrote:
due to the imbalance of energy coming in versus energy going out.

The energy out is the same as the energy in.
GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse Gases slow energy going out,

You can't slow energy.
GreenMan wrote:
causing the earth to warm.

You are adding energy here, creating your perpetual motion machine.
GreenMan wrote:
Here's the Stefan-Botlzmann Law:The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance or radiant exitance), is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature.

So, uh, I don't see anything in there about it having to be measured from space.

Earth is the body in question. The only way to view the radiance from it is to go out in space and look.
GreenMan wrote:
And you know what else I don't see. I don't see the atmosphere being a black body,

It is. All substances exhibit black body behavior. That includes the atmosphere.
GreenMan wrote:
though some gases do exhibit black body properties when reacting to certain wavelength's of radiation.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. You are trying desperately to rewrite the law.
GreenMan wrote:
So I'm thinking you are lying again, on purpose.

You think a lot of things that are wrong.
GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse Gases DO NOT break the Stefan-Boltzmann Law,

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. Your theory violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
GreenMan wrote:
because Greenhouse Gases DO NOT reduce earth's radiation.

According to you, they do.
GreenMan wrote:
The earth has to radiate energy based on its temperature. And the earth does radiate energy based on its temperature.

This part is correct.
GreenMan wrote:
Claiming that earth's radiation is reduced just because some radiation is absorbed on its way to space is a total lie, that anyone can see.

If radiance is absorbed before it reaches space, total radiance is reduced.
GreenMan wrote:
Just because you block the light from a bulb, doesn't mean the bulb went out.

Never said it did. If you want to ignore the radiance from a bulb, that's your business. It's still there.
GreenMan wrote:
The bulb is still burning and emitting just as much light. You just can't see it, because you closed the door. Same thing.

No, you are literally sticking your head in the ground and desperately hoping this conflict with physics will go away.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2017 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Some of the surface radiance does heat certain gases and vapors in the atmosphere, such as CO2. Those gases become slightly warmer.


Dude, was that a copy/paste oversight, or have you come around?


Contextomy. Read the rest of the post again without taking stuff out of context.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2017 20:57
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@Into the Night ,
Energy can be slowed. This is one reason why it's warmer over asphalt than snow. The length of the wave length is changed. This is why snow or white surfaces are highly reflective while brown and black surfaces aren't.
04-09-2017 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Well, I just got hammered with new work stuff the past few days, found just enough time to stay caught up on reading reading here, but haven't had any more time to get inside the head of Greenman.

ITN- thanks for the explanations. I already understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics- I think. It is all common sense. Still a bit shaky on the Stephen Bozo law and it's application to reality.
I'll try and find some more time to get a grasp on it.

Greenman-You are convinced it's warming. You are convinced it's going to eventually get so hot that earth is uninhabitable. You are sure it's from greenhouse gasses that we are adding to the air. But when you are explaining your reasoning, it's as if you are figuring it out on the fly, and you wind up all over the place. I have to agree with ITN every time he claims Paradox. I see it too.

So here's what I suggest. We both agree that no deadly heating will take place in Iowa or Michigan for years to come, so we got plenty of time to dissect this beast one topic at a time.
Let's start from the beginning.
First we need to know if it's actually warming before we can figure out why. Correct?
You say it's warming, around .2C per decade. You say you trust the NOAA measurements.

If you google global warming or anything related, you will see miles and miles of temperature graphs that show the global average with a nice even warming trend for the last 120 years. Not so much a hockey stick, but a steady climb. However, when you start poking around temp history for specific locations, an alarming number(vast majority) of these show no warming and even decreases since the 70s-90s. Here's a link to hundreds of reliable RAW data sites around the US with records back to 1880. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html
Pick a state
select a recording station
select get monthly data
select mean temp vs year
select mean temp RAW
select get plot

Play around on that site for a bit and then come back and tell me if you're still convinced we are even warming.

I took a look at the graphs, and see what you are saying. It has cooled a bit in Iowa. No wonder you are confused. I checked a few other places, Georgia for example. And I agree that over the long run, there has been little if any increase since 1880. But there was a slight increase there, since the 70s.

Why is the 70's important as a point to begin measuring? Why is any other point in time NOT important?

The Sun came today in Seattle at 6:33 am. At that time it was 66 deg F. It has been getting warmer since. It is now 77 deg F. OMG! We just saw an 11 deg F climb in FOUR hours! Seattle is going to be 110 deg F by this time tomorrow!

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

You can't define 'climate change' because you can't define any useful endpoints. You have no data. There is also no such thing as a 'global climate'. You are also trying to use a station in Georgia to represent the whole Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
We are in a region of the world that is cooled by two oceans, so our temperature isn't really a good proxy for the world.

Almost right. NO place is a good proxy for the world. The oceans have nothing to do with it.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not sure that anywhere is, because if you looked over in the Middle East, you might find that it is warming a little more than the global average.

You don't know the temperature of the Middle East. You don't know the emissivity there. The radiance seen by the satellite is a) averaged, and b) not an indication of absolute temperatures.
GreenMan wrote:
I went on a little search to see what the Middle East climate has been like, to compare to ours, thinking that it is going to be where most of the heating has been, and found out something different. I think it has gotten a lot hotter there, in comparison to here, but it looks like from what is called Net Radiation, that AFrica and South America and the Indonesian Islands are the spots that are seeing the most warming.
...deleted Holy Link...

You know none of this. You don't know the emissivity of any of these areas.
GreenMan wrote:
But anyway, I think that we are being cooled by the Arctic, also.

Space is a hell of a lot colder than the Arctic.
GreenMan wrote:
That's like having a giant ice cube in a bucket of water.

That ice cube is much hotter than space.
GreenMan wrote:
Take a look at India on that map. They don't have a giant ice cube in their ocean.

Naw. They just have a giant ice cube in their mountains. Remember the Himalayas?
GreenMan wrote:
And I know for sure that they have been having severe heat waves in that part of the world.

It's India. That is normal during the summer. That's why they anticipate and welcome the monsoon season so much.
GreenMan wrote:
It would be nice if it would just stay there, but it won't.

You have never been to India, have you?
GreenMan wrote:
You are right about me figuring things out as I go.

More like making things up as you go.
GreenMan wrote:
When I came in here, all I really knew was that Greenhouse Gases do contribute to our Climate Control System.

Earth does not have a climate control system. Earth doesn't even have a climate. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather. Your Holy Words are just buzzwords.
GreenMan wrote:
I knew that because as I have said, I built a model.

You made up a model out of random numbers. Meh.
GreenMan wrote:
That's what I did when I wanted to know the truth about this whole mess. I wanted to know for sure if this was truly the scourge that threatened humanity, as predicted in the Bible.

You don't believe in the Bible. You believe in reincarnation, remember?
GreenMan wrote:
The model that I built is purely mathematical.

Nope. It is pure shit created by you.
GreenMan wrote:
It can't lie. It has no emotion.

Except YOURS!
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not aware of any way that the predictions it makes could be coincidental, and they closely match what the earth's climate was like.

Earth doesn't HAVE a climate. There is no such thing as global weather.

You don't know what Earth's temperature was. You don't know what Earth's temperature is today.
GreenMan wrote:
So I am going to side with the scientists on this one.

Another vague 'the scientists'. Science isn't scientists. Science isn't mathematics either.
GreenMan wrote:
And if I have to learn everything about the planet's climate control system

Earth does not have a climate control system.
GreenMan wrote:
to explain it, then that is what I will do.

Yeah. You will find ANY religious excuse you can to deny science and mathematics.
GreenMan wrote:
And I have figured out a lot since I've been in here. Some of you guys are very knowledgeable. I learn from people like that. Doesn't mean that I have to accept the things that they got wrong.

You are free to be happily ignorant. You are NOT free to force your religion and ignorance on other people.
GreenMan wrote:
But I think I do have it figured out now. It's the planet itself that is heating up, as I have been talking about. It's the dirt, and the water. They store any thermal energy that is added due to an imbalance in the energy budget.

You can't store energy. It is always dissipating to somewhere else. All you can do is convert it to potential energy.
GreenMan wrote:
If more energy comes in than goes out, the earth warms accordingly.
And likewise, if more energy goes out than comes in, the earth cools accordingly.

Energy out is the same as energy in.
GreenMan wrote:
Thank God it's a gradual process. So yes, we have time to work out what to do.

There is nothing to work out.
GreenMan wrote:
But the solution really does suck big ones. We have to pay for it.

Now comes passing the hat. I will not pay for the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
And we have to remove ourselves from the grid, basically.

Now comes the Marxist part. How are you going to do that, genius? What about dissidents?
GreenMan wrote:
And I know a few other things that we will have to do, as time progresses, that we won't want to do. But you know what, we are supposed to be big boys and girls now, and our wants aren't supposed to hurt us. But there are those that will go down crying about having to change. They won't want to. Who wants to change?

Change can be good or bad. Life IS change. What you are proposing is a BAD change.

The Church of Global Warming is a false religion. I will have none of it. The Church of Karl Marx is a false religion. Both religions bring nothing but misery to people. I will have none of it.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2017 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
James_ wrote:
@Into the Night ,
Energy can be slowed.

No, it can't.
James_ wrote:
This is one reason why it's warmer over asphalt than snow.

It isn't. Asphalt is easily the same temperature as snow, or even quite a bit colder than snow.
James_ wrote:
The length of the wave length is changed.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It doesn't care about the wavelength.
James_ wrote:
This is why snow or white surfaces are highly reflective while brown and black surfaces aren't.

Emissivity is color-blind. Wavelength is not part of emissivity.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2017 22:57
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
@Into the Night ,
Energy can be slowed.

No, it can't.
James_ wrote:
This is one reason why it's warmer over asphalt than snow.

It isn't. Asphalt is easily the same temperature as snow, or even quite a bit colder than snow.
James_ wrote:
The length of the wave length is changed.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It doesn't care about the wavelength.
James_ wrote:
This is why snow or white surfaces are highly reflective while brown and black surfaces aren't.

Emissivity is color-blind. Wavelength is not part of emissivity.


Into the Night,
Wave length can change emissivity. I gave 2 examples. And when you reference the Stefan-Boltzman constant you are also referring to a piece of steel.
05-09-2017 02:45
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Some of the surface radiance does heat certain gases and vapors in the atmosphere, such as CO2. Those gases become slightly warmer.


Dude, was that a copy/paste oversight, or have you come around?


Contextomy. Read the rest of the post again without taking stuff out of context.


Nah, I didn't take it out of context, and you know it, liar. It seems as though you would rather lie when the truth would work better. Here's your entire post again, so people don't have to go up there and find it.

Into the Night wrote:
Glad it helped.

There is actually the usual dance around the Stefan Boltzmann law with Greenman taking place now.

The Earth is the body in question. If it gets warmer, it's radiance increases. In other words, the energy in photons per square area increases (both number of photons per second and higher energy photons).

If it becomes cooler, the energy in photons decreases (both the number photons per second and lower energy photons).

Not all photons are equal. That the essence of Planck's law.

The surface, being denser than air and generally warmer than the air, radiates the most. The air also radiates. Earth's total radiance is the combination of the two.

Some of the surface radiance does heat certain gases and vapors in the atmosphere, such as CO2. Those gases become slightly warmer. The total effect is that Earth still radiates the same. It is still the sum of the surface radiance and the atmospheric radiance.

Since it takes energy to radiate light (you are converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy), that energy is lost from whatever is emitting the light. In other words, you must cool the surface to heat CO2. CO2 is cooled again when it emits light again, or when it dissipates the thermal energy it gained into the surrounding atmosphere.

Like any hot spot in the atmosphere, convection helps to move energy upward, where reduced pressures can dissipate it.

All the while it is also radiating light.

Thus, everything the Sun provides is radiated back out into space. The only way to 'store' energy is to convert it into potential energy, such as the process of photosynthesis or charging a battery with a solar panel.

Hydroelectric power is also solar power.

There is another power source...the Earth itself. The core of the Earth is hot...powered by a fission reaction. That is also energy, moving outward through the mantle and eventually the Earth's crust. It is the power that produces oil, methane, and quite probably coal. It is the power of the volcano.

All the power of the Earth pales, though, next to the power received from the Sun.

The Parrot Killer


So please explain:
1) How you figure I took that out of context.
2) What you meant to say, instead of confirming how greenhouse gases warmed the planet.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
05-09-2017 09:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Some of the surface radiance does heat certain gases and vapors in the atmosphere, such as CO2. Those gases become slightly warmer.


Dude, was that a copy/paste oversight, or have you come around?


Contextomy. Read the rest of the post again without taking stuff out of context.


Nah, I didn't take it out of context, and you know it, liar. It seems as though you would rather lie when the truth would work better. Here's your entire post again, so people don't have to go up there and find it.

Yup. Contextomy. Repeating my post just shows your contextomy.
GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Glad it helped.

There is actually the usual dance around the Stefan Boltzmann law with Greenman taking place now.

The Earth is the body in question. If it gets warmer, it's radiance increases. In other words, the energy in photons per square area increases (both number of photons per second and higher energy photons).

If it becomes cooler, the energy in photons decreases (both the number photons per second and lower energy photons).

Not all photons are equal. That the essence of Planck's law.

The surface, being denser than air and generally warmer than the air, radiates the most. The air also radiates. Earth's total radiance is the combination of the two.

Some of the surface radiance does heat certain gases and vapors in the atmosphere, such as CO2. Those gases become slightly warmer. The total effect is that Earth still radiates the same. It is still the sum of the surface radiance and the atmospheric radiance.

Since it takes energy to radiate light (you are converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy), that energy is lost from whatever is emitting the light. In other words, you must cool the surface to heat CO2. CO2 is cooled again when it emits light again, or when it dissipates the thermal energy it gained into the surrounding atmosphere.

Like any hot spot in the atmosphere, convection helps to move energy upward, where reduced pressures can dissipate it.

All the while it is also radiating light.

Thus, everything the Sun provides is radiated back out into space. The only way to 'store' energy is to convert it into potential energy, such as the process of photosynthesis or charging a battery with a solar panel.

Hydroelectric power is also solar power.

There is another power source...the Earth itself. The core of the Earth is hot...powered by a fission reaction. That is also energy, moving outward through the mantle and eventually the Earth's crust. It is the power that produces oil, methane, and quite probably coal. It is the power of the volcano.

All the power of the Earth pales, though, next to the power received from the Sun.

The Parrot Killer


So please explain:
1) How you figure I took that out of context.
2) What you meant to say, instead of confirming how greenhouse gases warmed the planet.

I never said CO2 warms the planet. I said CO2 is warmed by the surface slightly. That is not warming the planet. It is warming CO2. That energy is quickly dissipated into the rest of the atmosphere and on into space.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 14:53
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Some of the surface radiance does heat certain gases and vapors in the atmosphere, such as CO2. Those gases become slightly warmer.


Dude, was that a copy/paste oversight, or have you come around?


Contextomy. Read the rest of the post again without taking stuff out of context.


Nah, I didn't take it out of context, and you know it, liar. It seems as though you would rather lie when the truth would work better. Here's your entire post again, so people don't have to go up there and find it.

Yup. Contextomy. Repeating my post just shows your contextomy.

Doesn't contextomy require two things? One is repeating just a part of something that was said. And the other is that it changes the meaning of what was said, or written. It didn't change the meaning one bit, and you know it. That means that you are lying, again. You must have a very low opinion of people to think that everyone is too stupid to notice that, lol.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Glad it helped.

There is actually the usual dance around the Stefan Boltzmann law with Greenman taking place now.

The Earth is the body in question. If it gets warmer, it's radiance increases. In other words, the energy in photons per square area increases (both number of photons per second and higher energy photons).

If it becomes cooler, the energy in photons decreases (both the number photons per second and lower energy photons).

Not all photons are equal. That the essence of Planck's law.

The surface, being denser than air and generally warmer than the air, radiates the most. The air also radiates. Earth's total radiance is the combination of the two.

Some of the surface radiance does heat certain gases and vapors in the atmosphere, such as CO2. Those gases become slightly warmer. The total effect is that Earth still radiates the same. It is still the sum of the surface radiance and the atmospheric radiance.

Since it takes energy to radiate light (you are converting thermal energy into electromagnetic energy), that energy is lost from whatever is emitting the light. In other words, you must cool the surface to heat CO2. CO2 is cooled again when it emits light again, or when it dissipates the thermal energy it gained into the surrounding atmosphere.

Like any hot spot in the atmosphere, convection helps to move energy upward, where reduced pressures can dissipate it.

All the while it is also radiating light.

Thus, everything the Sun provides is radiated back out into space. The only way to 'store' energy is to convert it into potential energy, such as the process of photosynthesis or charging a battery with a solar panel.

Hydroelectric power is also solar power.

There is another power source...the Earth itself. The core of the Earth is hot...powered by a fission reaction. That is also energy, moving outward through the mantle and eventually the Earth's crust. It is the power that produces oil, methane, and quite probably coal. It is the power of the volcano.

All the power of the Earth pales, though, next to the power received from the Sun.

The Parrot Killer


So please explain:
1) How you figure I took that out of context.
2) What you meant to say, instead of confirming how greenhouse gases warmed the planet.

I never said CO2 warms the planet. I said CO2 is warmed by the surface slightly. That is not warming the planet. It is warming CO2. That energy is quickly dissipated into the rest of the atmosphere and on into space.


You actually said was that CO2 is warmed by surface radiation, which will become important later, when you try to wiggle out of admitting that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas. You will try to claim that because it doesn't warm the planet that it's not a Greenhouse Gas. Sorry. We can talk about that one later. For now we are talking about whether or not CO2 is warmed by surface, or earth radiation. And you have admitted that it does. That makes it a Greenhouse Gas. Whether or not it warms the planet is a different Theory, called Global Warming.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
05-09-2017 15:21
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Ok, yeah, I think I see the problem, here. You are measuring radiance from space, and not from the surface. This law you keep using, let's call it the Stefen Bozo Law, for short, is not being broken at all. It's your reasoning that is broken. The Stephen Bozo law doesn't say that all the photons have to reach space. It just says that they have to be emitted by the body. You are trying to conclude that if they don't make it into space that they were not emitted, but they were. They were just re-purposed. Instead of getting to go flying off for lord knows where, they were absorbed by Greenhouse Gases, and turned into thermal energy, warming the air, just a tad bit.

The Stefan-Boltzmann IS measuring radiance as seen in space. The entire body of Earth, including its atmosphere, is counted for that radiance.
GreenMan wrote:
That tad bit slows the planet's ability to cool, just a tad bit.

Not even a tad bit.
GreenMan wrote:
So a tad bit less heat gets to leave the surface and gets stored in the ground, by raising the ground temperature just a tad bit.

You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder gas.
GreenMan wrote:
The problem is that those tad bits add up over time, and become big chunks in the long run.

You can't build a perpetual motion machine.

It takes energy to produce the light that happens to be absorbed by a CO2. That COOLS the surface, not warms it!

CO2 in turn is part of the radiance of Earth.

You cannot reduce the radiance and increase the temperature at the same time. Not even for a moment. Not even a bit a tad bit.


It's not a perpetual motion machine. Not even close. You aren't getting more out than you are putting in.

You are describing a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. You are describing a way to decrease entropy (and increase energy with it). Do not confuse that with a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order.
GreenMan wrote:
You are merely storing more energy in the earth, in the form of heat,

You cannot store heat.

Used the wrong word. Should have said thermal energy. Thermal energy can be stored in the ground.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
due to the imbalance of energy coming in versus energy going out.

The energy out is the same as the energy in.
GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse Gases slow energy going out,

You can't slow energy.

Yes you can, according to your own rendition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If the coupling changes to being a less conductive medium for thermal transfer [heat], then the energy transfer is slowed. The Energy transfer is thermal energy moving from the ground to the air and then up, as it exits the atmosphere.

All it takes to change the conduction properties of the air is to change the temperature of the air. The air cools the surface a lot faster when it is cold relative to the surface. It is then that the most thermal energy is being transferred, as compared to when the air is close to the same temperature as the ground. Hardly any thermal energy transfer is occurring then.

We know that raising the temperature of the air slows down it's ability to cool the surface.

If the air's cooling slows down a tad bit, then a tad bit more thermal energy gets to stay in the ground. That thermal energy raises the temperature of the ground, just that tad bit. And, as stated previously, those tad bits add up over time, and become a big chunk.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
causing the earth to warm.

You are adding energy here, creating your perpetual motion machine.


Not adding energy. Just slowing down the transfer of energy out, while keeping the same amount of energy coming in. The balance is stored in the ground as thermal energy [or what I usually call heat].


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
05-09-2017 15:55
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface.

You are thinking wrong. The atmosphere does not couple surface heating to space. The Earth heats space purely by radiance. No other coupling is needed.


I'm thinking you know about thermal energy. That's the stuff that warms the air, and makes us all cozy and comfy. Are you saying that stuff takes off in radiation? Could you please explain the process by why thermal energy is transformed back into radiation before it escapes into space?

I already did. You that Stefan-Boltzmann law I'm always going on about?

Yes, I think I do know that Stefan-Boltzmann law that you are always going on about, for no good reason, which we will get to in a minute. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about though, and I think you know it, but are trying to wiggle out of acknowledging it.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law pertains to earth radiation. It says that the earth must radiate an amount of energy that is proportional to the temperature of the earth. But there is another way for the planet to cool itself, and if not for that way, we would all freeze to death. Because we don't get our heat from earth radiation. We get our heat from earth's thermal energy. It's what warms the air. And as it warms the air, the surface cools.

The earth is warmer than outer space, so we have the two objects that are at a different temperature, that contact each other, so we have thermal energy transfer going on. That transfer is going on through the atmosphere. This is a picture of it, just so everyone knows what I'm talking about.


http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/atmosphere_energy_balance.jpg
Notice thermal energy being lost from the surface in Evaporation and Convection. That's what I'm talking about.

That picture is from here:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
I'm not trying to use their information, just making sure you know what I'm talking about. In fact, if you read that information on that link, you will notice that they say the air gets warmer than the ground, thus heating the ground. I don't know if that is true or not, even though I did think that was how it worked until not long ago. Now I'm sure that it doesn't matter if the air gets warmer than the ground. All that matters is that the air gets warmer due to gases, regardless of whether or not it gets warmer than the ground. That's because just getting warmer means that it slows down cooling of the surface.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You see, I thought that you were talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which has to do with heat.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics actually has to do with any energy. ANY concentration of energy will dissipate. It never gathers without putting energy into it from somewhere else.

Sun

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You know, how heat always moves from hot to cold, and it mores at a speed determined by the difference in temperature and the coupling between the two objects. As in the earth is hotter than outer space, so the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics [that you claim those evil climate scientists are trying to break] says that heat from the earth must travel to outer space.

Energy from Earth must travel to space. Earth does not gather energy from space.

It comes from the Sun, duh.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking that heat moves to outer space through the atmosphere, which is the coupling between the earth and outer space.
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
And I'm also thinking that you know that, which means that you are deliberately lying to people. And what you are lying to people about will get a lot of people killed. Do you really want that on your conscious?

False dichotomy. There is no problem. No one is going to die from 'global warming' or 'climate change'. No one has died from 'global warming' or 'climate change'.

You can't even define what they are without using circular definitions.

You can stuff your religion of doom and gloom.


Well, actually, my religion of doom and gloom is mostly for people like you. Those who listen to me end up getting to avoid that part of it.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 05-09-2017 15:56
05-09-2017 16:44
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

That's what I did when I wanted to know the truth about this whole mess. I wanted to know for sure if this was truly the scourge that threatened humanity, as predicted in the Bible.

You don't believe in the Bible. You believe in reincarnation, remember?


They aren't mutually exclusive, as you apparently think. It's a religion thing, not really a Bible thing. The Bible refers to reincarnation in many places. Christians usually assume it's talking about resurrection though. [They believe that a person can come back to life, thousands of years after they die, as long as they are in the same body as they died in. But they do not believe that spirits can inhabit body after body, in a succession of lives. Go figure]. Here is one example, which is good for this group, since it is talking about things that go on during the End of Days [which actually means End of the Warm Part of the Cycle].
Daniel 12:
1"At that time Michael shall stand up,
The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;
And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since there was a nation,
Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,

Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 Those who are wise shall shine
Like the brightness of the firmament,
And those who turn many to righteousness
Like the stars forever and ever.
.........
10 Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.

There are many more references to multiple lives, if you are interested. I'm thinking no, you aren't interested. And that's because you don't want to know the truth about anything. You are very secure in your version of reality. And besides that, it says that people like you can not understand it anyway.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 05-09-2017 16:45
05-09-2017 18:02
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]GreenMan wrote:....I took a look at the graphs, and see what you are saying. It has cooled a bit in Iowa.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" has that website often to support its cooling claims. However, limit the graphs to (Tmin), which normally covers night cooling temperatures with lesser affects of solar radiation, TSI(which has been languid for 40 years AND low for 10+ years). & you can see the GHG infra-red energy absorption warming nicely rising over the decades.
Of course, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" discounts Tmin.... BECAUSE IT DOES MORE READILY SHOW GHG WARMING EFFECTS. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" does prove itself to be an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
05-09-2017 18:10
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1519)
Litebeer wrote;
something something about the RAW data...

I do realize you hate that website because it is a compilation of mostly honest people documenting what actually happened, instead of a few dishonest people cherry picking and reporting "data" to fit their agenda.
Edited on 05-09-2017 18:12
05-09-2017 20:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Litebeer wrote;
something something about the RAW data...

I do realize you hate that website because it is a compilation of mostly honest people documenting what actually happened, instead of a few dishonest people cherry picking and reporting "data" to fit their agenda.


Insane people always act insane. litebrain is a losing cause because he will only see things as he wants them to be and not as they are.
05-09-2017 22:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Doesn't contextomy require two things? One is repeating just a part of something that was said. And the other is that it changes the meaning of what was said, or written.

You have satisfied this definition in your contextomy.
GreenMan wrote:
It didn't change the meaning one bit, and you know it

It does..
GreenMan wrote:
That means that you are lying, again. You must have a very low opinion of people to think that everyone is too stupid to notice that, lol.

You are too stupid to notice that you are attempting to defend a fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
You actually said was that CO2 is warmed by surface radiation,

It is.
GreenMan wrote:
which will become important later, when you try to wiggle out of admitting that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.
GreenMan wrote:
You will try to claim that because it doesn't warm the planet that it's not a Greenhouse Gas.

CO2 can't warm the planet. It is not an energy source. You need an energy source to warm the planet.
GreenMan wrote:
Sorry. We can talk about that one later. For now we are talking about whether or not CO2 is warmed by surface, or earth radiation. And you have admitted that it does.

'Admitted' that it does? I know it does. There is nothing mysterious about that. All gases absorb light on certain frequencies and warm, just as all substances do.
GreenMan wrote:
That makes it a Greenhouse Gas.

No, it doesn't. All substances absorb light and warm up.
GreenMan wrote:
Whether or not it warms the planet is a different Theory, called Global Warming.


Not a theory. A theory, even a non-scientific one, must be internally consistent. No theory may be built on a fallacy.

In the case of 'global warming', 'greenhouse effect', or 'climate change', these are not definable terms by anything other than circular definitions. That means the 'theory' of some Holy Gas that warms the Earth is based on a vacuous argument, a fallacy.

It also builds paradoxes.

It also is not externally consistent. It is not compatible with existing theories of science.

It is also not falsifiable. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

If you are going to get anywhere with 'greenhouse effect', or 'global warming', you must first define them in some other way than circular definitions. You must then construct a null hypothesis for it from the model, and test it. The test must be available, be a specific test that produces a specific result. You must resolve the external inconsistencies. It MUST be compatible with the remaining theories of science. Then you must formalize it into mathematics if you wish to give the theory the power of prediction. You cannot use any mathematics related to random number mathematics such as probability or statistics.

These are the demands of any theory of science. All theories of science are falsifiable, internally consistent, and externally consistent; else it simply is not science.

Science, being an open system, does not by itself have the power of prediction. A theory of science MUST be formalized into a closed system to gain that power. Usually that closed system is mathematics.

Science is not data. It is not a university. It is not a government agency. It is not a peer review. It is not a circular argument. It is not observation. It is not a simple assertion. It is not a religion. It is not a Universal Truth. It does not handle every case for knowledge, and therefore is not knowledge by itself. It has no power of proof. It does not use supporting evidence. A theory remains a theory in exactly the same way it was formed, until the theory is destroyed.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is nothing more.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 22:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Ok, yeah, I think I see the problem, here. You are measuring radiance from space, and not from the surface. This law you keep using, let's call it the Stefen Bozo Law, for short, is not being broken at all. It's your reasoning that is broken. The Stephen Bozo law doesn't say that all the photons have to reach space. It just says that they have to be emitted by the body. You are trying to conclude that if they don't make it into space that they were not emitted, but they were. They were just re-purposed. Instead of getting to go flying off for lord knows where, they were absorbed by Greenhouse Gases, and turned into thermal energy, warming the air, just a tad bit.

The Stefan-Boltzmann IS measuring radiance as seen in space. The entire body of Earth, including its atmosphere, is counted for that radiance.
GreenMan wrote:
That tad bit slows the planet's ability to cool, just a tad bit.

Not even a tad bit.
GreenMan wrote:
So a tad bit less heat gets to leave the surface and gets stored in the ground, by raising the ground temperature just a tad bit.

You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder gas.
GreenMan wrote:
The problem is that those tad bits add up over time, and become big chunks in the long run.

You can't build a perpetual motion machine.

It takes energy to produce the light that happens to be absorbed by a CO2. That COOLS the surface, not warms it!

CO2 in turn is part of the radiance of Earth.

You cannot reduce the radiance and increase the temperature at the same time. Not even for a moment. Not even a bit a tad bit.


It's not a perpetual motion machine. Not even close. You aren't getting more out than you are putting in.

You are describing a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. You are describing a way to decrease entropy (and increase energy with it). Do not confuse that with a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order.
GreenMan wrote:
You are merely storing more energy in the earth, in the form of heat,

You cannot store heat.

Used the wrong word. Should have said thermal energy. Thermal energy can be stored in the ground.


Not really. Any concentration of energy dissipates. The ground cannot stay warm without continuing energy arriving from the Sun.

You are still trying to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which covers all energy, not just thermal energy).


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 22:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You can't slow energy.

Yes you can, according to your own rendition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Nope. You can't slow energy. Energy just is.
GreenMan wrote:
If the coupling changes to being a less conductive medium for thermal transfer [heat], then the energy transfer is slowed.

You are talking about heat. You are not slowing energy, you are reducing heat.
GreenMan wrote:
The Energy transfer is thermal energy moving from the ground to the air and then up, as it exits the atmosphere.

This is called 'heat'.
GreenMan wrote:
All it takes to change the conduction properties of the air is to change the temperature of the air.

Changing the temperature of the air does not change it's heat conductive properties one bit, with one exception...the condensation of water vapor into clouds, which increase the heat conductive properties of the air.
GreenMan wrote:
The air cools the surface a lot faster when it is cold relative to the surface.

This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action.
GreenMan wrote:
It is then that the most thermal energy is being transferred, as compared to when the air is close to the same temperature as the ground.

True.
GreenMan wrote:
Hardly any thermal energy transfer is occurring then.

True. Radiance, however is NOT stopped.
GreenMan wrote:
We know that raising the temperature of the air slows down it's ability to cool the surface.

But it raises the air's ability to cool itself by heating the colder air above. You can't ignore that.
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
If the air's cooling slows down a tad bit, then a tad bit more thermal energy gets to stay in the ground. That thermal energy raises the temperature of the ground, just that tad bit. And, as stated previously, those tad bits add up over time, and become a big chunk.
Not even a tad bit. You are ignoring the effects of heated air. Perhaps you have never seen a hot air balloon.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 22:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Doesn't contextomy require two things? One is repeating just a part of something that was said. And the other is that it changes the meaning of what was said, or written.

You have satisfied this definition in your contextomy.
GreenMan wrote:
It didn't change the meaning one bit, and you know it

It does..
GreenMan wrote:
That means that you are lying, again. You must have a very low opinion of people to think that everyone is too stupid to notice that, lol.

You are too stupid to notice that you are attempting to defend a fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
You actually said was that CO2 is warmed by surface radiation,

It is.
GreenMan wrote:
which will become important later, when you try to wiggle out of admitting that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.
GreenMan wrote:
You will try to claim that because it doesn't warm the planet that it's not a Greenhouse Gas.

CO2 can't warm the planet. It is not an energy source. You need an energy source to warm the planet.
GreenMan wrote:
Sorry. We can talk about that one later. For now we are talking about whether or not CO2 is warmed by surface, or earth radiation. And you have admitted that it does.

'Admitted' that it does? I know it does. There is nothing mysterious about that. All gases absorb light on certain frequencies and warm, just as all substances do.
GreenMan wrote:
That makes it a Greenhouse Gas.

No, it doesn't. All substances absorb light and warm up.
GreenMan wrote:
Whether or not it warms the planet is a different Theory, called Global Warming.


Not a theory. A theory, even a non-scientific one, must be internally consistent. No theory may be built on a fallacy.

In the case of 'global warming', 'greenhouse effect', or 'climate change', these are not definable terms by anything other than circular definitions. That means the 'theory' of some Holy Gas that warms the Earth is based on a vacuous argument, a fallacy.

It also builds paradoxes.

It also is not externally consistent. It is not compatible with existing theories of science.

It is also not falsifiable. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

If you are going to get anywhere with 'greenhouse effect', or 'global warming', you must first define them in some other way than circular definitions. You must then construct a null hypothesis for it from the model, and test it. The test must be available, be a specific test that produces a specific result. You must resolve the external inconsistencies. It MUST be compatible with the remaining theories of science. Then you must formalize it into mathematics if you wish to give the theory the power of prediction. You cannot use any mathematics related to random number mathematics such as probability or statistics.

These are the demands of any theory of science. All theories of science are falsifiable, internally consistent, and externally consistent; else it simply is not science.

Science, being an open system, does not by itself have the power of prediction. A theory of science MUST be formalized into a closed system to gain that power. Usually that closed system is mathematics.

Science is not data. It is not a university. It is not a government agency. It is not a peer review. It is not a circular argument. It is not observation. It is not a simple assertion. It is not a religion. It is not a Universal Truth. It does not handle every case for knowledge, and therefore is not knowledge by itself. It has no power of proof. It does not use supporting evidence. A theory remains a theory in exactly the same way it was formed, until the theory is destroyed.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is nothing more.


At what point will you stop your BS?

The theory of global warming is simple and consistent. It is claimed that CO2 slows the exit of the sun's emissions from earth. This causes the temperature to rise to the point where it again achieves a complete balance of energy in equals energy out. By raising the temperature it again hits the point at which the irradiance of the Earth balances the absorption or emissions of the Sun.

You have consistently shown yourself to not on not understand the slightest thing about science including your total misunderstanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

I do not agree with this theory but I am not so stupid to not understand that 100 times smarter scientists and 100 times dumber scientists understand that they are saying that increased CO2 causes a slightly lower irradiance of the Earth and so a higher temperature to achieve energy balances.

Greenman thinks that CO2 STOPS emissions and that would cause positive and runaway heating. He thinks that because as you do he thinks with his hands and not his brain.
05-09-2017 22:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
causing the earth to warm.

You are adding energy here, creating your perpetual motion machine.


Not adding energy.

You are adding energy. It takes energy to increase the temperature.
GreenMan wrote:
Just slowing down the transfer of energy out, while keeping the same amount of energy coming in.

You can't do that. Energy out is the same as energy in. The only exception is the thermal inertia of the Earth against a changing output of the Sun.

Let me re-iterate the paradox of your Magick Bouncing Photon theory again:

The International Space Stations has a daytime skin temperature that reaches 250 deg F. There is not CO2, no water vapor, not atmosphere at all to speak of.

On Earth, we have CO2 that supposedly warms the Earth. If that is true, why is the surface of the Earth so much COLDER than the skin of the space station? Magick Bouncing Photons?

The night side of the ISS skin temperature reaches -250 deg F. The night side of the Earth never gets this cold. Why is the night side of the Earth so much WARMER than the space station, it you need the Magick Bouncing Photon theory to warm the Earth? There is no Sun!

Magick Bouncing Photons are a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are building a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order (not the first).

GreenMan wrote:
The balance is stored in the ground

The ground doesn't store thermal energy. It dissipates from the ground, just the same as it does from anywhere.
GreenMan wrote:
as thermal energy [or what I usually call heat].

Calling thermal energy 'heat' is incorrect. Heat is the MOVEMENT of thermal energy, either by conduction (transferring energy from molecule to molecule), convection (moving the same set of molecules themselves), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again).

Warming the Earth REQUIRES adding energy from somewhere. Assuming the Sun is constant, you can't use a non-energy source to add the necessary energy. There is no sequence.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 22:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: Calling thermal energy 'heat' is incorrect. Heat is the MOVEMENT of thermal energy, either by conduction (transferring energy from molecule to molecule), convection (moving the same set of molecules themselves), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again).

Warming the Earth REQUIRES adding energy from somewhere. Assuming the Sun is constant, you can't use a non-energy source to add the necessary energy. There is no sequence.


More stupidity from the master of stupid.

Thermal energy is the energy contained in a mass due to it's heat. Not "the flow" or "storage" or anything else you want to talk about. It is nothing else but the energy required to heat a mass to a temperature.

You know - like the Stefan-Boltzmann equation states?
05-09-2017 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I already did. You that Stefan-Boltzmann law I'm always going on about?

Yes, I think I do know that Stefan-Boltzmann law that you are always going on about, for no good reason, which we will get to in a minute. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about though, and I think you know it, but are trying to wiggle out of acknowledging it.

It has a lot to do with what you are talking about. Now you are trying to deny that law completely.
GreenMan wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law pertains to earth radiation. It says that the earth must radiate an amount of energy that is proportional to the temperature of the earth. But there is another way for the planet to cool itself,

None.
GreenMan wrote:
and if not for that way, we would all freeze to death. Because we don't get our heat from earth radiation. We get our heat from earth's thermal energy. It's what warms the air. And as it warms the air, the surface cools.

Any form of energy leaving the surface will cool the surface.
GreenMan wrote:
The earth is warmer than outer space, so we have the two objects that are at a different temperature, that contact each other, so we have thermal energy transfer going on.

Earth doesn't 'heat' space by conduction, but by radiance. That radiance includes the radiance of the atmosphere. Most of it, however, comes from the surface itself.
GreenMan wrote:
That transfer is going on through the atmosphere. This is a picture of it, just so everyone knows what I'm talking about.

The only way for Earth to cool is by radiance. You cannot conduct thermal energy into an almost nothing effectively. There is almost no coupling.
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted unrelated link...
Notice thermal energy being lost from the surface in Evaporation and Convection. That's what I'm talking about.

Now how it's lost. The only way is radiance.
GreenMan wrote:
That picture is from here:
...deleted Holy Link...
I'm not trying to use their information, just making sure you know what I'm talking about.

You ARE trying to use their information. You are also trying to do THAT improperly. At least the image is referring to radiance, not thermal energy.
GreenMan wrote:
In fact, if you read that information on that link, you will notice that they say the air gets warmer than the ground, thus heating the ground.

The air does not heat the surface. It is colder than the surface.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't know if that is true or not, even though I did think that was how it worked until not long ago. Now I'm sure that it doesn't matter if the air gets warmer than the ground. All that matters is that the air gets warmer due to gases,

The presence of gases does not warm the air.
GreenMan wrote:
regardless of whether or not it gets warmer than the ground. That's because just getting warmer means that it slows down cooling of the surface.

No, it doesn't. It means is SPEEDS UP the cooling of the warm air. The surface is effectively cooled just the same.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You see, I thought that you were talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which has to do with heat.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics actually has to do with any energy. ANY concentration of energy will dissipate. It never gathers without putting energy into it from somewhere else.

Sun

Contextomy. You can't just change the parameters of the system in the middle of the law. The 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to the SAME system (whatever that is).

The Sun is part of the Sun-Earth-space system. You are ignoring space.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking that heat moves to outer space through the atmosphere, which is the coupling between the earth and outer space.
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
And I'm also thinking that you know that, which means that you are deliberately lying to people. And what you are lying to people about will get a lot of people killed. Do you really want that on your conscious?

False dichotomy. There is no problem. No one is going to die from 'global warming' or 'climate change'. No one has died from 'global warming' or 'climate change'.

You can't even define what they are without using circular definitions.

You can stuff your religion of doom and gloom.


Well, actually, my religion of doom and gloom is mostly for people like you. Those who listen to me end up getting to avoid that part of it.

Really??? Are you standing on some other planet or something??


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 23:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

That's what I did when I wanted to know the truth about this whole mess. I wanted to know for sure if this was truly the scourge that threatened humanity, as predicted in the Bible.

You don't believe in the Bible. You believe in reincarnation, remember?


They aren't mutually exclusive, as you apparently think.
They are mutually exclusive.
GreenMan wrote:
It's a religion thing, not really a Bible thing. The Bible refers to reincarnation in many places.
Christians usually assume it's talking about resurrection though.

Resurrection is not reincarnation.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 23:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Doesn't contextomy require two things? One is repeating just a part of something that was said. And the other is that it changes the meaning of what was said, or written.

You have satisfied this definition in your contextomy.
GreenMan wrote:
It didn't change the meaning one bit, and you know it

It does..
GreenMan wrote:
That means that you are lying, again. You must have a very low opinion of people to think that everyone is too stupid to notice that, lol.

You are too stupid to notice that you are attempting to defend a fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
You actually said was that CO2 is warmed by surface radiation,

It is.
GreenMan wrote:
which will become important later, when you try to wiggle out of admitting that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.
GreenMan wrote:
You will try to claim that because it doesn't warm the planet that it's not a Greenhouse Gas.

CO2 can't warm the planet. It is not an energy source. You need an energy source to warm the planet.
GreenMan wrote:
Sorry. We can talk about that one later. For now we are talking about whether or not CO2 is warmed by surface, or earth radiation. And you have admitted that it does.

'Admitted' that it does? I know it does. There is nothing mysterious about that. All gases absorb light on certain frequencies and warm, just as all substances do.
GreenMan wrote:
That makes it a Greenhouse Gas.

No, it doesn't. All substances absorb light and warm up.
GreenMan wrote:
Whether or not it warms the planet is a different Theory, called Global Warming.


Not a theory. A theory, even a non-scientific one, must be internally consistent. No theory may be built on a fallacy.

In the case of 'global warming', 'greenhouse effect', or 'climate change', these are not definable terms by anything other than circular definitions. That means the 'theory' of some Holy Gas that warms the Earth is based on a vacuous argument, a fallacy.

It also builds paradoxes.

It also is not externally consistent. It is not compatible with existing theories of science.

It is also not falsifiable. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

If you are going to get anywhere with 'greenhouse effect', or 'global warming', you must first define them in some other way than circular definitions. You must then construct a null hypothesis for it from the model, and test it. The test must be available, be a specific test that produces a specific result. You must resolve the external inconsistencies. It MUST be compatible with the remaining theories of science. Then you must formalize it into mathematics if you wish to give the theory the power of prediction. You cannot use any mathematics related to random number mathematics such as probability or statistics.

These are the demands of any theory of science. All theories of science are falsifiable, internally consistent, and externally consistent; else it simply is not science.

Science, being an open system, does not by itself have the power of prediction. A theory of science MUST be formalized into a closed system to gain that power. Usually that closed system is mathematics.

Science is not data. It is not a university. It is not a government agency. It is not a peer review. It is not a circular argument. It is not observation. It is not a simple assertion. It is not a religion. It is not a Universal Truth. It does not handle every case for knowledge, and therefore is not knowledge by itself. It has no power of proof. It does not use supporting evidence. A theory remains a theory in exactly the same way it was formed, until the theory is destroyed.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is nothing more.


At what point will you stop your BS?

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not BS.
Wake wrote:
The theory of global warming is simple and consistent.

It is a vacuous argument. It is not a theory...not even a non-scientific one.
Wake wrote:
It is claimed that CO2 slows the exit of the sun's emissions from earth.

The Sun doesn't emit from the Earth.

CO2 does not slow down light in any significant way.
Wake wrote:
This causes the temperature to rise to the point where it again achieves a complete balance of energy in equals energy out.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law completely again. There is no sequence. You are adding rewriting the equation to include a sequence that changes by time.
Wake wrote:
By raising the temperature it again hits the point at which the irradiance of the Earth balances the absorption or emissions of the Sun.

There is no sequence.
Wake wrote:
You have consistently shown yourself to not on not understand the slightest thing about science including your total misunderstanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

You are denying the equation completely. You are substituting one of your own and calling the 'Stefan-Boltzmann equation'. You are making the same mistake as Greenman.
Wake wrote:
I do not agree with this theory
You do not agree with the Stefan-Boltzmann law or it's theory??? Do you agree with Planck's work at all?
Wake wrote:
but I am not so stupid to not understand that 100 times smarter scientists and 100 times dumber scientists understand that they are saying that increased CO2 causes a slightly lower irradiance of the Earth and so a higher temperature to achieve energy balances.

No scientist I know denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Do have a list of such idiots?
Wake wrote:
Greenman thinks that CO2 STOPS emissions and that would cause positive and runaway heating.

No, he actually thinks the same way you do on this.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 23:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Calling thermal energy 'heat' is incorrect. Heat is the MOVEMENT of thermal energy, either by conduction (transferring energy from molecule to molecule), convection (moving the same set of molecules themselves), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again).

Warming the Earth REQUIRES adding energy from somewhere. Assuming the Sun is constant, you can't use a non-energy source to add the necessary energy. There is no sequence.


More stupidity from the master of stupid.

Thermal energy is the energy contained in a mass due to it's heat.

WRONG. Thermal energy is the random linear motion of molecules.
Wake wrote:
Not "the flow" or "storage" or anything else you want to talk about.

WRONG. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It is not the energy itself.
Wake wrote:
It is nothing else but the energy required to heat a mass to a temperature.

WRONG. Thermal energy is the random linear motion of molecules.
Wake wrote:
You know - like the Stefan-Boltzmann equation states?

WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't talk about thermal energy, other than the use of temperature as an independent variable.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2017 03:37
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

That's what I did when I wanted to know the truth about this whole mess. I wanted to know for sure if this was truly the scourge that threatened humanity, as predicted in the Bible.

You don't believe in the Bible. You believe in reincarnation, remember?


They aren't mutually exclusive, as you apparently think.
They are mutually exclusive.
GreenMan wrote:
It's a religion thing, not really a Bible thing. The Bible refers to reincarnation in many places.
Christians usually assume it's talking about resurrection though.

Resurrection is not reincarnation.


Nah, they aren't mutually exclusive. Here's another example of the Bible clearly saying that people are born over again. This time from Job, another favorite.
Job 1
18 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, "Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother's house, 19 and suddenly a great wind came from across[d] the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead; and I alone have escaped to tell you!"

20 Then Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said:

"Naked I came from my mother's womb,
And naked shall I return there.


He is clearly saying that he will return to the womb naked, or be born again as another person. Unless you think he is saying that he has to find his mother and crawl back into her womb. And if you think that, then you are an idiot.

And yes, I know that reincarnation and resurrection are different things. One is a logical conclusion. If you are a spirit in a body now, then you could have been a spirit in a body before now, and you could be a spirit in a body in the future, following your death in this life. There are no impossibilities related to that belief. The other belief is that a person will be placed back on earth, from some time in the past, and continue living as if they didn't die. There are multitudes of logical errors with that one. Like for example. If you died of old age, do you have to come back as an old wore out geezer, ready for the grave, or do you get to pick your favorite age? If you got shot in the head when you died, does it still hurt? And what about the changes that have taken place? Do you get to drive those new fangled cars that haul ass a lot faster than a danged old horse? And where are you going to live. Is someone going to be providing room and board, until you can learn a modern trade? How will the local police departments handle all the people popping in all of the sudden, wearing ancient clothes and begging in the streets for food? And how will they beg for food? With hand gestures maybe, since they won't be able to speak any modern English, or Russian, or French, or whatever language they need for the land they pop back into. Of course, all those questions get answered with, "everything is possible with God." And then this big fantasy about how Jesus is going to come back and have his own little gathering spot. I'm thinking that WalMart might be working with FEMA to create those little places. You see, the theory goes that WalMart has these secret little doors that lead down to tunnels. Those tunnels go to containment areas, where people are rounded up and taken to FEMA containment centers. And what they are going to do is take the homeless people that come into WalMart into the "doors," and round them all up. They go into WalMart to get warm in the Winter. Of course, the newly resurrected people will do the same, and Jesus will be waiting for them at the FEMA containment complexes.

To me, that makes as much sense as anything else I've ever heard about how resurrection works.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
06-09-2017 04:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

That's what I did when I wanted to know the truth about this whole mess. I wanted to know for sure if this was truly the scourge that threatened humanity, as predicted in the Bible.

You don't believe in the Bible. You believe in reincarnation, remember?


They aren't mutually exclusive, as you apparently think.
They are mutually exclusive.
GreenMan wrote:
It's a religion thing, not really a Bible thing. The Bible refers to reincarnation in many places.
Christians usually assume it's talking about resurrection though.

Resurrection is not reincarnation.


Nah, they aren't mutually exclusive. Here's another example of the Bible clearly saying that people are born over again. This time from Job, another favorite.
Job 1
18 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, "Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother's house, 19 and suddenly a great wind came from across[d] the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead; and I alone have escaped to tell you!"

20 Then Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said:

"Naked I came from my mother's womb,
And naked shall I return there.


He is clearly saying that he will return to the womb naked, or be born again as another person. Unless you think he is saying that he has to find his mother and crawl back into her womb. And if you think that, then you are an idiot.

And yes, I know that reincarnation and resurrection are different things. One is a logical conclusion. If you are a spirit in a body now, then you could have been a spirit in a body before now, and you could be a spirit in a body in the future, following your death in this life. There are no impossibilities related to that belief. The other belief is that a person will be placed back on earth, from some time in the past, and continue living as if they didn't die. There are multitudes of logical errors with that one. Like for example. If you died of old age, do you have to come back as an old wore out geezer, ready for the grave, or do you get to pick your favorite age? If you got shot in the head when you died, does it still hurt? And what about the changes that have taken place? Do you get to drive those new fangled cars that haul ass a lot faster than a danged old horse? And where are you going to live. Is someone going to be providing room and board, until you can learn a modern trade? How will the local police departments handle all the people popping in all of the sudden, wearing ancient clothes and begging in the streets for food? And how will they beg for food? With hand gestures maybe, since they won't be able to speak any modern English, or Russian, or French, or whatever language they need for the land they pop back into. Of course, all those questions get answered with, "everything is possible with God." And then this big fantasy about how Jesus is going to come back and have his own little gathering spot. I'm thinking that WalMart might be working with FEMA to create those little places. You see, the theory goes that WalMart has these secret little doors that lead down to tunnels. Those tunnels go to containment areas, where people are rounded up and taken to FEMA containment centers. And what they are going to do is take the homeless people that come into WalMart into the "doors," and round them all up. They go into WalMart to get warm in the Winter. Of course, the newly resurrected people will do the same, and Jesus will be waiting for them at the FEMA containment complexes.

To me, that makes as much sense as anything else I've ever heard about how resurrection works.


I'm not going to interpret the Bible for you. It is clear you want to quote stuff out of context like any fundamentalist and put your own spin on it.

This is a forum on climate, not a forum on resurrection or reincarnation.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2017 05:01
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

That's what I did when I wanted to know the truth about this whole mess. I wanted to know for sure if this was truly the scourge that threatened humanity, as predicted in the Bible.

You don't believe in the Bible. You believe in reincarnation, remember?


They aren't mutually exclusive, as you apparently think.
They are mutually exclusive.
GreenMan wrote:
It's a religion thing, not really a Bible thing. The Bible refers to reincarnation in many places.
Christians usually assume it's talking about resurrection though.

Resurrection is not reincarnation.


Nah, they aren't mutually exclusive. Here's another example of the Bible clearly saying that people are born over again. This time from Job, another favorite.
Job 1
18 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, "Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother's house, 19 and suddenly a great wind came from across[d] the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead; and I alone have escaped to tell you!"

20 Then Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said:

"Naked I came from my mother's womb,
And naked shall I return there.


He is clearly saying that he will return to the womb naked, or be born again as another person. Unless you think he is saying that he has to find his mother and crawl back into her womb. And if you think that, then you are an idiot.

And yes, I know that reincarnation and resurrection are different things. One is a logical conclusion. If you are a spirit in a body now, then you could have been a spirit in a body before now, and you could be a spirit in a body in the future, following your death in this life. There are no impossibilities related to that belief. The other belief is that a person will be placed back on earth, from some time in the past, and continue living as if they didn't die. There are multitudes of logical errors with that one. Like for example. If you died of old age, do you have to come back as an old wore out geezer, ready for the grave, or do you get to pick your favorite age? If you got shot in the head when you died, does it still hurt? And what about the changes that have taken place? Do you get to drive those new fangled cars that haul ass a lot faster than a danged old horse? And where are you going to live. Is someone going to be providing room and board, until you can learn a modern trade? How will the local police departments handle all the people popping in all of the sudden, wearing ancient clothes and begging in the streets for food? And how will they beg for food? With hand gestures maybe, since they won't be able to speak any modern English, or Russian, or French, or whatever language they need for the land they pop back into. Of course, all those questions get answered with, "everything is possible with God." And then this big fantasy about how Jesus is going to come back and have his own little gathering spot. I'm thinking that WalMart might be working with FEMA to create those little places. You see, the theory goes that WalMart has these secret little doors that lead down to tunnels. Those tunnels go to containment areas, where people are rounded up and taken to FEMA containment centers. And what they are going to do is take the homeless people that come into WalMart into the "doors," and round them all up. They go into WalMart to get warm in the Winter. Of course, the newly resurrected people will do the same, and Jesus will be waiting for them at the FEMA containment complexes.

To me, that makes as much sense as anything else I've ever heard about how resurrection works.


I'm not going to interpret the Bible for you. It is clear you want to quote stuff out of context like any fundamentalist and put your own spin on it.

This is a forum on climate, not a forum on resurrection or reincarnation.


Don't need you to interpret anything for me, dumb ass.
And you are the one who brought it into the forum, in an attack on me, idiot.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Greenhouse Gases Are Real:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
9 Signs That Prove Climate Change Is Real and Affecting Everyone917-10-2019 03:22
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
▲ 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