Remember me
▼ Content

hurricanes during the ice age?



Page 1 of 4123>>>
hurricanes during the ice age?09-10-2016 07:59
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
What were those like? More? Less? Bigger? Smaller?
Edited on 09-10-2016 08:02
09-10-2016 12:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
What were those like? More? Less? Bigger? Smaller?


Who knows? Who cares?

Just as my random guess, they would probably stay the same, since a hurricane is based on difference of temperature, not absolute temperature.


The Parrot Killer
09-10-2016 13:29
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
This link might be of value

http://www.giyf.com/

Your welcome
09-10-2016 16:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.


source
Edited on 09-10-2016 16:31
09-10-2016 16:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
jwoodward48 wrote:
We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.


source


Why would anyone feel inclined to believe this article? There's no science, just a bunch of subjunctive presented as fact. Personally, I dismiss it out of hand.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2016 17:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.


source


Why would anyone feel inclined to believe this article? There's no science, just a bunch of subjunctive presented as fact. Personally, I dismiss it out of hand.


.


Why believe anything?
09-10-2016 17:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
spot wrote:Why believe anything?

You should believe falsifiable models that have survived a rigorous scientific method.

You should doubt, question and scrutinize anything that doesn't meet the above criteria.

You should dismiss anything that EVADES the above.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2016 18:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:Why believe anything?

You should believe falsifiable models that have survived a rigorous scientific method.

You should doubt, question and scrutinize anything that doesn't meet the above criteria.

You should dismiss anything that EVADES the above.


.


Does that include things that you say?
09-10-2016 20:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:Why believe anything?

You should believe falsifiable models that have survived a rigorous scientific method.

You should doubt, question and scrutinize anything that doesn't meet the above criteria.

You should dismiss anything that EVADES the above.


.


Does that include things that you say?


Anything that anyone says that does not pertain to, or is not derived from, a falsifiable model that has survived a rigorous scientific method should absolutely be questioned, doubted and scrutinized.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2016 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.


source


So...you are believer of data concocted out of a computer program.

"It's in a nice neat row of numbers! They've gotta be right!"

This isn't data. It's a computer simulation. Dismissed.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-10-2016 23:05
09-10-2016 23:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:Why believe anything?

You should believe anything that I say.

You should doubt, question and scrutinize anything that disagrees with what I say.

You should dismiss anything that isn't falling over itself to be nice to me.


.



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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 23:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:Why believe anything?

You should believe falsifiable models that have survived a rigorous scientific method.

You should doubt, question and scrutinize anything that doesn't meet the above criteria.

You should dismiss anything that EVADES the above.


.


Does that include things that you say?


Anything that anyone says that does not pertain to, or is not derived from, what I say should absolutely be questioned, doubted and scrutinized.


.



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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 23:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.


source


So...you are believer of data concocted out of a computer program.

"It's in a nice neat row of numbers! They've gotta be right!"

This isn't data. It's a computer simulation. Dismissed.


Computer simulations = absolutely useless, we should go back to the 1500s, science was better back then.

The more you know!


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 23:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.


source


Why would anyone feel inclined to believe this article? There's no science, just a bunch of subjunctive presented as fact. Personally, I dismiss it out of hand.


.


Of course you do. Anything that you disagree with is dismissed out of hand.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 05:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
jwoodward48 wrote:Of course you do. Anything that you disagree with is dismissed out of hand.

That would be you. You are projecting again.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-10-2016 06:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Of course you do. Anything that you disagree with is dismissed out of hand.

That would be you. You are projecting again.


.


No, that would be you. You project.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 01:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.


source


So...you are believer of data concocted out of a computer program.

"It's in a nice neat row of numbers! They've gotta be right!"

This isn't data. It's a computer simulation. Dismissed.


Computer simulations = absolutely useless, we should go back to the 1500s, science was better back then.

The more you know!


Computer simulations are not knowledge. They are not data. They are a way to try out some ideas (and of course are good for entertainment value. The gaming industry would be nowhere without it!).

The computer is a pocket calculator hooked up to a sequencing device not much more complicated then your average washing machine timer. Don't give them godlike powers.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-10-2016 01:58
11-10-2016 02:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool. This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming. The important part is the models.
11-10-2016 03:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

Not really.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool.
Then stop treating it like God.
jwoodward48 wrote:
This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming.
Really? What would they use 6 side dice or 20 sided dice?
jwoodward48 wrote:
The important part is the models.

Models are not a source of data.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 04:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

Not really.

So the models only work when they're describing existing data that we already know? Sounds useless.

The power of models is that they apply where we don't have data.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool.
Then stop treating it like God.

I'm not. Stop strawmanning.
jwoodward48 wrote:
This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming.
Really? What would they use 6 side dice or 20 sided dice?

Neither. They don't just pull some random numbers out of their silicon arses. That's not how models work.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The important part is the models.

Models are not a source of data.

True. Models predict. If I can't go there and measure, a model is the next best thing - and it's pretty damn good, because if it's applied to everything we've seen, it'll probably be decent in another situation.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 11:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

Not really.

So the models only work when they're describing existing data that we already know? Sounds useless.

In most cases, that is correct. They are quite useless.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The power of models is that they apply where we don't have data.

No.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool.
Then stop treating it like God.

I'm not. Stop strawmanning.

You are. Stop treating the computer like God. Stop treating simulations like data.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming.
Really? What would they use 6 side dice or 20 sided dice?

Neither. They don't just pull some random numbers out of their silicon arses. That's not how models work.

That's exactly what they do. That IS how models work.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The important part is the models.

Models are not a source of data.

True. Models predict. If I can't go there and measure, a model is the next best thing - and it's pretty damn good, because if it's applied to everything we've seen, it'll probably be decent in another situation.

Nope. Just as useless.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 12:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

Not really.

So the models only work when they're describing existing data that we already know? Sounds useless.

In most cases, that is correct. They are quite useless.

Into, that is not true. You want 100% sureness? Science never gives it. But our best guess, and a very good guess, is that the same models that apply well to today apply decently to yesterday.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The power of models is that they apply where we don't have data.

No.

*sigh* Tell me, Into, what is the power of models? Don't escape hatch. Just answer.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool.
Then stop treating it like God.

I'm not. Stop strawmanning.

You are. Stop treating the computer like God. Stop treating simulations like data.

So you're saying that data is God? Funny. I thought that data had no place in science. Make up your mind.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming.
Really? What would they use 6 side dice or 20 sided dice?

Neither. They don't just pull some random numbers out of their silicon arses. That's not how models work.

That's exactly what they do. That IS how models work.

You're clueless. You think that when the scientists make their simulations, they just pull up random.org and pick a number, then pass it off as simulated?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The important part is the models.

Models are not a source of data.

True. Models predict. If I can't go there and measure, a model is the next best thing - and it's pretty damn good, because if it's applied to everything we've seen, it'll probably be decent in another situation.

Nope. Just as useless.

Completely useless? How so?


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 13:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Never trust those infernal adding machines true scientists restrict themselves to sliderules , to be honest I always thought the abacus was the beginning of the end of true science.
11-10-2016 13:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
spot wrote:Never trust those infernal adding machines true scientists restrict themselves to sliderules , to be honest I always thought the abacus was the beginning of the end of true science.

As far as you know, does Planck's apply to gases? Again, as far as you know.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 13:53
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:Never trust those infernal adding machines true scientists restrict themselves to sliderules , to be honest I always thought the abacus was the beginning of the end of true science.

As far as you know, does Planck's apply to gases? Again, as far as you know.


.


I recall having this discussion with you before I recall explaining how it was nonsensical.

Tell me why have the same damm conversion over and over again what do you expect to learn?

I am convinced that you have nothing useful to say on this subject and have made that clear so why try and instruct me?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
11-10-2016 14:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, it doesn't. We have a thread for this, don't bring that here IB.
11-10-2016 15:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
spot wrote:I recall having this discussion with you before I recall explaining how it was nonsensical.

Tell me why have the same damm conversion over and over again what do you expect to learn?

I am convinced that you have nothing useful to say on this subject and have made that clear so why try and instruct me?

Excellent defensive posturing. Excellent projection.

My question accomplished everything I intended.

Too funny.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 15:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
jwoodward48 wrote: No, it doesn't. We have a thread for this, don't bring that here IB.

Is that a direct order?

What's your main reason for making the WACKY claim that Planck's does not apply to gases? Just the main reason. Is it because you are gullible and desperate for Surface Detail's approval? I'm dying to know.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 15:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:I recall having this discussion with you before I recall explaining how it was nonsensical.

Tell me why have the same damm conversion over and over again what do you expect to learn?

I am convinced that you have nothing useful to say on this subject and have made that clear so why try and instruct me?

Excellent defensive posturing. Excellent projection.

My question accomplished everything I intended.

Too funny.


.


You have a strange way of amusing yourself.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
11-10-2016 15:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Is it bottle hitting time over there?
11-10-2016 15:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: No, it doesn't. We have a thread for this, don't bring that here IB.

Is that a direct order?

What's your main reason for making the WACKY claim that Planck's does not apply to gases? Just the main reason. Is it because you are gullible and desperate for Surface Detail's approval? I'm dying to know.


.


Because it doesn't. Would you like it if I agreed with you? Then demonstrate. Apply it to my scenario. I've given you a chance to demonstrate your claims, and you haven't.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 16:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
jwoodward48 wrote: Because it doesn't.

Aaaah, the "just because" reason. It makes perfect sense now that you put it that way.

jwoodward48 wrote: Then demonstrate. Apply it to my scenario. I've given you a chance to demonstrate your claims, and you haven't.

Your lame attempt to shift your burden of proof is dismissed.

Are we done?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 18:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hey, I've given you explanations before. Do you want me to list them, or should I just insult you and insist that you are a closed-minded religious nut who doesn't understand anything? The latter works for me.

We are debating. You are saying that Planck's applies to gases. If that is true, then it should be possible to apply it. You should do so, not to prove your point, but because it is disputed. It's the easiest way of ending the debate! If someone insisted that the formula for the area of a circle didn't apply to circles, I would demonstrate the application. Instead, you choose to insult and assert, which isn't convincing anybody.
11-10-2016 18:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
jwoodward48 wrote: We are debating. You are saying that Planck's applies to gases. If that is true, then it should be possible to apply it.

Planck's has survived a rigorous scientific method. You are claiming that there exists some temperature T and wavelength W for some gas that radiates an E that differs from what Planck's specifies.

OK, what is it?

Let me know when you get that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 19:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: We are debating. You are saying that Planck's applies to gases. If that is true, then it should be possible to apply it.

Planck's has survived a rigorous scientific method. You are claiming that there exists some temperature T and wavelength W for some gas that radiates an E that differs from what Planck's specifies.

OK, what is it?

Let me know when you get that.

He's not claiming anything of the sort. Look up the definition of spectral radiance. Gases cannot have a spectral radiance (which is what Planck's Law gives) because they don't have surfaces.
11-10-2016 19:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
Surface Detail wrote: He's not claiming anything of the sort.

Both he and you insist gases do not radiate per Planck's. It's not my fault that you cannot read a simple equation. You might want to talk to your UK educators.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 19:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: He's not claiming anything of the sort.

Both he and you insist gases do not radiate per Planck's. It's not my fault that you cannot read a simple equation. You might want to talk to your UK educators.

Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance?
11-10-2016 20:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
Surface Detail wrote:Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance?

Did you find one example of some gas, any gas, whose measured E at temperature T and wavelength W differs from what Planck's specifies? I didn't see any example in your last post so I figure you're going to be posting it soon, yes?

After all, you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's. You insist. I figure you must have examples for every gas, no?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 21:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance?

Did you find one example of some gas, any gas, whose measured E at temperature T and wavelength W differs from what Planck's specifies? I didn't see any example in your last post so I figure you're going to be posting it soon, yes?

After all, you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's. You insist. I figure you must have examples for every gas, no?

A gas has no surface, therefore it cannot have a spectral radiance. How can you not understand this?
11-10-2016 21:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
Surface Detail wrote:A gas has no surface, therefore it cannot have a spectral radiance. How can you not understand this?

Nope, no example in there either. Try again.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate hurricanes during the ice age?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
"GREENLANDS melting ice may affect everyone"316-10-2019 17:43
Plant Growth and Ice Cores617-09-2019 22:45
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Siberian ice melting!012-06-2019 21:32
▲ 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