IBdaMann's Signature06-10-2016 23:15 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
So we've all seen the quotes in IB's sig. "Huh," you might have though. "Those greenies sure do sound stupid." Well, what you've observed is nothing other than the art of taking-things-out-of-context. For posterity, I will provide and describe that context here. Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate. Usual jab. It's lacking the "WARMIZOMBIE" rant, though. 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 And here's what he's responding to: Ceist wrote: And here's his response to IB's OOC quote: trafn wrote: And Ceist's: Ceist wrote: You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. Aaand here's the whole paragraph. climate scientist wrote:IBdaMann wrote: IB thinks that an increase in the snowfall implies an increase in the mass balance. Apparently, he's never lived where it snows, because something tends to happen to ice and snow - it melts. Of course if you ignore melting, increasing accumulation increases the mass balance! And if you ignore relativity, I can travel at twice the speed of light. Neither of these actually matter in the real world. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank And here's the context. Hank wrote:DRKTS wrote:Into the Night wrote:Hank wrote: :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude Now, IB is known for stating that "evidence", "supporting data", and "sources" have no place in science, so he's one for talking, but he appears to be attempting to portray Leafsdude as saying that raw data is useless or doesn't need to be shown.
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 And this seems to be trying to paint Ceist as not having an understanding of Planck. Ceist wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Ask IB to explain what he thinks Planck's Law actually meansIBdaMann wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Ceist wrote: Ask IB to explain what he thinks Planck's Law actually means Ceist wrote: Yep, context. "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 06:12 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
jwoodward48 wrote: So we've all seen the quotes in IB's sig. "Huh," you might have though. "Those greenies sure do sound stupid." Hey Into the Night, you might be right. tafn might very well be back. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
10-10-2016 06:54 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
Not tafn. (Atmospheres just packing up and leaving? That was insane.) He was still saner than you. |
11-10-2016 01:21 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (22383) |
IBdaMann wrote:jwoodward48 wrote: So we've all seen the quotes in IB's sig. "Huh," you might have though. "Those greenies sure do sound stupid." It's possible. The same pattern is there. Whether it will reach meltdown proportions remains to be seen, of course. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
11-10-2016 01:22 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (22383) |
jwoodward48 wrote: Does the noise in my head bother you? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 11-10-2016 01:22 |
11-10-2016 01:35 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
Into the Night wrote:IBdaMann wrote:jwoodward48 wrote: So we've all seen the quotes in IB's sig. "Huh," you might have though. "Those greenies sure do sound stupid." Ah. You're saying that I'm like him. "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 01:36 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
Into the Night wrote:jwoodward48 wrote: Sorry, the last part was just an automatic jab. Learned it from the best! "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 16:57 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
jwoodward48 wrote:Ah. You're saying that I'm like him. You're more like a trafn clone. He denies science left and right as well. He's a bulveristic **** who has radical opinions despite knowing nothing. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
12-10-2016 10:51 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
You keep saying that. It's not true. Saying it another hundred times will also not make it true. |
12-10-2016 20:53 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (22383) |
jwoodward48 wrote: We have both dealt with trafn. You haven't. It's true. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
12-10-2016 23:33 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
Maybe trafn denied science, and maybe I can't know that, not having lived through that. But my own supposed denial of science - the same cannot be said. |
13-10-2016 18:10 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
jwoodward48 wrote: But my own supposed denial of science - the same cannot be said. Let's see. A. Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in temperature with decreasing emission, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann? B. Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in energy (i.e. increase in temperature) without increasing in energy (so as to not violate the 1st LoT)? ...the ball is in your court. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
13-10-2016 22:10 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
IBdaMann wrote:jwoodward48 wrote: But my own supposed denial of science - the same cannot be said. The GHE reduces emissions. This causes an increase in temperature. B. Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in energy (i.e. increase in temperature) without increasing in energy (so as to not violate the 1st LoT)? No. There is an increase in energy. This doesn't violate the 1st, because there is a temporary decrease in the radiation that Earth gives off. The reduction of emissions exactly counterbalances the increase in temperature - more energy on Earth, less in space. ...the ball is in your court. Indeed. I'd just like to clarify something: do you think that any substance is capable of affecting the emissions of Earth? If so, is any substance capable of reducing the emissions of Earth? "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! |
14-10-2016 16:31 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
IBdaMann wrote:Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in temperature with decreasing emission, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann? jwoodward48 wrote: The GHE reduces emissions. This causes an increase in temperature. So your answer is "Yes, 'greenhouse gas' causes the earth to increase in temperature with decreasing emission in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann science that is being denied." Thank you. IBdaMann wrote:Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in energy (i.e. increase in temperature) without increasing in energy (so as to not violate the 1st LoT)? jwoodward48 wrote: No. There is an increase in energy. This doesn't violate the 1st, because there is a temporary decrease in the radiation that Earth gives off. The reduction of emissions exactly counterbalances the increase in temperature - more energy on Earth, less in space. So your answer is that you violate the 1st LoT while claiming that you aren't violating the 1st LoT. Thank you. jwoodward48 wrote: Indeed. I'd just like to clarify something: do you think that any substance is capable of affecting the emissions of Earth? That pesky Stefan-Boltzmann answers this question. Is a constant solar radiation implicit in your question? If so, what does Stefan-Boltzmann say? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
14-10-2016 17:59 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
IBdaMann wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in temperature with decreasing emission, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann?jwoodward48 wrote: The GHE reduces emissions. This causes an increase in temperature. I have a question for you now: Is it possible for the atmosphere to affect the radiation that goes off the surface (that is, can the radiation leaving the Earth-system differ from the radiation leaving the Earth-surface?)? IBdaMann wrote:Does "greenhouse gas" cause the earth to increase in energy (i.e. increase in temperature) without increasing in energy (so as to not violate the 1st LoT)?jwoodward48 wrote: No. There is an increase in energy. This doesn't violate the 1st, because there is a temporary decrease in the radiation that Earth gives off. The reduction of emissions exactly counterbalances the increase in temperature - more energy on Earth, less in space. No, I don't. The total amount of energy in the ESS (Earth, Sun, space) system is not different between Earth-without-GHG and Earth-with-GHG. The amount of energy on Earth has increased, the amount of energy in space has decreased. jwoodward48 wrote: Indeed. I'd just like to clarify something: do you think that any substance is capable of affecting the emissions of Earth? That's not a yes-or-no answer, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is no. Is that correct? "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! |
14-10-2016 19:18 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
jwoodward48 wrote: I have a question for you now: Is it possible for the atmosphere to affect the radiation that goes off the surface (that is, can the radiation leaving the Earth-system differ from the radiation leaving the Earth-surface?)? Sure. Of course my weasel-alert flag is now raised. Why are you now focusing on the "surface" instead of the entire earth as a body? jwoodward48 wrote: The amount of energy on Earth has increased, the amount of energy in space has decreased. Exactly ... like I said, this happens in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann you are denying. You should think about adjusting your claims to align with the science you deny, and stop denying it in the process. jwoodward48 wrote:That's not a yes-or-no answer, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is no. Is that correct? You would be correct. That is what Stefan-Boltzmann says. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
14-10-2016 21:37 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
IBdaMann wrote:jwoodward48 wrote: I have a question for you now: Is it possible for the atmosphere to affect the radiation that goes off the surface (that is, can the radiation leaving the Earth-system differ from the radiation leaving the Earth-surface?)? Only because I was trying to show that the atmosphere alters the emissions. jwoodward48 wrote: The amount of energy on Earth has increased, the amount of energy in space has decreased. I believe that you meant "the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics." jwoodward48 wrote:That's not a yes-or-no answer, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is no. Is that correct? Do you know what S-B is derived from? Planck. Can you derive the emissions of the Earth from a Planck distribution? If so, please do show. (Not just say "domains". Give at least a sentence of description, please, or it's pointless.) "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! |
14-10-2016 22:48 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
jwoodward48 wrote: I believe that you meant "the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics." No. Stefan-Boltzmann requires radiance and temperature to go in the same direction, i,e, if temperature increases then so does radiance. You insist on violating this. Anytime you claim radiance decreases but temperature increases then you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
14-10-2016 23:28 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
There is a positive correlation between temperature and radiance. In reality, there are other things that affect the radiance too. |
17-10-2016 15:17 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
jwoodward48 wrote:There is a positive correlation between temperature and radiance. Stefan-Boltzmann shows that pretty clearly, yes? jwoodward48 wrote: In reality, there are other things that affect the radiance too. But those other factors are constants. That's key, and you should point that out. There are no other variables within the relationship between temperature and radiance. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
17-10-2016 18:46 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
IBdaMann wrote:jwoodward48 wrote:There is a positive correlation between temperature and radiance. Can emissivity etc. not be changed? If I painted the Earth black, wouldn't its absorbance change? "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! |
17-10-2016 19:59 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
jwoodward48 wrote: Can emissivity etc. not be changed? In science, constants don't change. If something changes, it is a "variable." jwoodward48 wrote: If I painted the Earth black, wouldn't its absorbance change? Can you paint the earth black? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
17-10-2016 22:49 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
IBdaMann wrote:jwoodward48 wrote: Can emissivity etc. not be changed? Constant: "a quantity or parameter that does not change its value whatever the value of the variables, under a given set of conditions." A good example of a "constant" that's really a variable would be the solar constant. jwoodward48 wrote: If I painted the Earth black, wouldn't its absorbance change? ...yes! I can! It's infeasible, but it's possible. "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! |
18-10-2016 00:13 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (22383) |
jwoodward48 wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Wow! I'm going to invest in Sherman Williams! I think you had better take a good long look at where pigments (especially black pigment) for paints come from. Then you should probably consider how you're going to paint the ocean. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
18-10-2016 00:24 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
It's incredibly infeasible, to the point of being functionally impossible, but it could be done. If we had a black tarp, say, over the ocean, or something like that, we could make the whole Earth black. |
18-10-2016 01:45 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
jwoodward48 wrote: It's incredibly infeasible, to the point of being functionally impossible, ... So it's at least one type of impossible. Let me know when you can do it, not just when you can imagine it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
18-10-2016 04:19 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
IB, that's not the point. I could construct an asteroid such that, when I press a button, the outsides flip around and become black. Emissivity is not always constant. |
18-10-2016 15:29 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
jwoodward48 wrote: IB, that's not the point. I could construct an asteroid such that, when I press a button, the outsides flip around and become black. Emissivity is not always constant. This might be a semantic quibble but you need to then find a different term. "Emissivity" is defined as a constant. I have a question for you, though. What solar radiation does "greenhouse gas" absorb that the earth's surface does not? Is there any? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
18-10-2016 15:38 | |
jwoodward48★★★★☆ (1537) |
IBdaMann wrote:jwoodward48 wrote: IB, that's not the point. I could construct an asteroid such that, when I press a button, the outsides flip around and become black. Emissivity is not always constant. You mean within the context of S-B and Planck? Yes, it is. That's what allows us to make the graphs - we assume that the emissivity is constant over all wavelengths. But even without changing the substance, that's not true for everything! Many substances have different emissivities for different wavelengths. That assumption is not true for most of reality. I have a question for you, though. Almost none. The GHGs don't significantly interact with sunlight IIRC. "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! |
18-10-2016 21:37 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
jwoodward48 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:I have a question for you, though. What solar radiation does "greenhouse gas" absorb that the earth's surface does not? Is there any? Almost none? So there is some, yes? Then my question stands. What solar radiation does "greenhouse gas" absorb that the earth's surface does not? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
20-10-2016 16:21 | |
Ceist★★★☆☆ (592) |
Edited on 20-10-2016 16:31 |
20-10-2016 19:42 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826) |
Ceist wrote: What's the emoticon for "Wow! No answers. What a surprise!" ? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |