Remember me
▼ Content

ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil



Page 2 of 4<1234>
12-06-2020 05:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
pjfent wrote: I am open to real evidence either way.

Unfortunately, that is the crux of your problem. You are looking for "evidence."

pjfent in case this helps save you some time:
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

The strategy employed by team denial here is to say that the debate is over before it began because nothing can be known.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
12-06-2020 05:46
pjfent
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
IBdaMann wrote:
pjfent wrote: I am open to real evidence either way.

Unfortunately, that is the crux of your problem. You are looking for "evidence."

You should be demanding science, not "evidence." Evidence is subjective on many levels. Science is purely objective.

You should start with anyone and everyone claiming that Global Warming is true. Demand the science that supports that position. You won't get any because there isn't any.

That should be all you need to know.

Just as my signature reads, Global Warming is the preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate. That church doesn't have any science supporting its WACKY dogma.

Hey, if you have any questions, let me know.

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, how do you feel about Marxism, socialism, capitalism, communism, etc...

.


Thanks I appreciate that.
I meant Evidence in the sense of corroborating science.
So I agree, I am actually a believer in the scientific method's ability to discern the truth, eventually.
It just seems that there are inevitable bumps in the road on that long quest most of the time. It is the only system of thought that we have that will eventually weed out the effects of politics, incompetence, corruption, idiocy and self interest, and reach an unbiased accurate conclusion. That being said, it seems quite rare IMO that any science provides incontrovertible proof of anything in the short term. Results being based on the scientists conclusions, which can leave room for different interpretations and debate and requiring independent verification of the results, to be accepted, does not necessarily make for speedy changes in opinions of the general populace.
12-06-2020 05:58
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(366)
I consider we are in the same place pjfent.I also started seeking the truth and at this point have concluded that the theory of more CO2 increasing the temperature of the Earth at ground level is a great theory however given all the variables of wind orbit solar flares etc it just is not happening.The average temperature can not be known at any point in time as you would have to measure it all simultaneous to get the correct result however local trends can be observed and we have been cooling since 1998 it seems to cycle and be aware we are talking about miniscule amounts.The Earth is greener from space and no one seems to dispute that.I am gleaning as much as I can from every source and it is the disaster crew that have an agenda.Us bodies that claim every thing is fine have no agenda abart from live on and be happy.Regards Duncan
12-06-2020 06:52
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2060)
We never really know what's going to happen tomorrow. Who knew that there would be a pandemic this year? Who knew the governments of the world, would take a new approach to dealing with a new cold virus, which seems to have been a failure. Who knew the death of a felon, would spark worldwide protests, cities burned and looted? We wake up every morning, thinking it's going to be just another day in our lives, and something unforeseen jumps up, and changes our routine.

Life is full of unpleasant surprises, and we deal with them, and move on. It's really pointless to imagine disasters far in the future, when something else could just as easily pop up, and make all those plans and preparations, pointless. Consider that there are some pretty good size craters on the moon, even here on earth. If we were to get hit, by a large hunk of space rock, flying at considerable speed, it's going to have a worldwide impact. Things will change drastically for a while, lot of death and destruction, but many will survive, to rebuild, and get on with their lives.

Here in Florida, we get to see some widespread destruction, almost every year. Occasionally, it's pretty bad, we get hit by hurricanes several times. Not a whole lot of people get killed anymore, but it takes time to clean up the mess, and rebuild.

We don't know if climate change ever happened in the past, man-made or natural. Don't know if it'll happen in the future, or if we could actually have any influence. Totally pointless to focus, and prepare for an imagined threat, when we have more real problems to address, everyday.
12-06-2020 16:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
pjfent wrote: Thanks I appreciate that.

You are welcome.

pjfent wrote: I meant Evidence in the sense of corroborating science.

There is no such thing. You can have corroborating evidence but science is not concerned with corroborating evidence. Science is only concerned with evidence that shows something is false. Check for yourself. Start dropping things and gather lots of corroborating evidence for gravity. No one will care.

On the other hand, design a repeatable experiment in which something consistently falls upward and you will win the Nobel Prize in physics.

Nothing in science is ever considered "confirmed." All of science is that which has not yet been shown to be false. Of course, if something in science is ever shown to be false it is discarded until fixed.

The scientific method has one sole purpose: to show science theories are false. Experiments are specific tests designed to show that a particular theory is false. If the test fails to falsify the theory then the theory survives another day as a science model.

pjfent wrote:So I agree, I am actually a believer in the scientific method's ability to discern the truth, eventually.

Instead, be a believer in the scientific method's ability to show something false. That's what it does.

Oh, and in the meantime, you can use the scientific method to show that Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect are not science. The scientific method takes as its input a falsifiable theory that predicts nature. Run the falsifiable theories of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect through the scientific method as see if they are false.

Wait! Are you telling me that there are no falsifiable theories of Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect that somehow predict nature to run through the scientific method in the first place? Wow. They can't very well be science then, can they?

pjfent wrote: It just seems that there are inevitable bumps in the road on that long quest most of the time.

Nope. It's instantaneous. Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect are not science and you know that right this instant. You see? There are no delays and there is no waiting. You don't need to rely on anyone else to tell you of any findings or of "corroborating evidence" ... or even to tell you that "science has confirmed Global Warming" because it's all crap.

So let's talk about what Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect actually are. They are the Holy Trinity of the modern Marxist religions targeting scientifically illiterate dupes and indoctrinating them to hate capitalism and to destroy the world economy. The "Satan" of this religion is Big Oil, or Wal Mart or McDonalds or anyone who represents success under capitalism.


pjfent wrote: That being said, it seems quite rare IMO that any science provides incontrovertible proof of anything in the short term.

Science never provides proof of anything. That's not its job.

Hey, E=mc^2 ...where's the proof? Where's the incontrovertible proof? The only "proof" lies in the fact that no one has ever been able to show it to be false. No one ... and you know that many brilliant people have tried. The answer to your question is that the scientific method, by not being able to break a theory, provides you with all the reason you need to believe in that theory.

The scientific method also enables you to distinguish science from WACKY religious dogmas, e.g. Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhosue Effect.

pjfent wrote: Results being based on the scientists conclusions, which can leave room for different interpretations and debate and requiring independent verification of the results, to be accepted, does not necessarily make for speedy changes in opinions of the general populace.

Nope. Nobody's opinions come into play. No scientist's conclusions ever enter the picture. Science is not a subjective matter of opinion. There is no consensus. Either a theory is falsifiable (a requirement to be science) or it is simply unfalsifiable (the stuff of religion), and if it is falsifiable then it is either false or it has not yet been shown to be false. All science is comprised of falsifiable models that predict nature that have not yet been shown to be false.

Nobody owns science. Nobody gets to decide what is science and what is not. No institution, university or other organization's approval or blessing is required for science to exist. There is no "peer review" process in science. No credentials are required to make science, and any eight-year-old with no credentials is empowered to falsify any science model, with or without his parent's permission.


[*find-SCIENCEANDTHESCIENTIFICMETHOD]
.


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
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil12-06-2020 23:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
pjfent wrote:...it seems quite rare IMO that any science provides incontrovertible proof of anything in the short term...
Well said. Max Planck pointed out in WHERE IS SCIENCE GOING that:link
Max Planck wrote:Boltzmann, however, did not press his hypothesis very strongly [atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules.] before the notice of scientists and there was great hesitancy about accepting it, but nowadays it is fully accepted.
In fact most scientists in Boltzmann's time disbelieved in atoms and molecules at all. Yet great progress could still be made. Boltzmann actually pointed out that you could still work successfully setting aside whether or not you believed in atoms and absent any real proof.

IBdaMann wrote:...Run the falsifiable theories of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect through the scientific method as see if they are false.
The simple, original Greenhouse Effect we have from Fourier (nothing specifically to do with CO2) is that the atmosphere acts as a gas blanket retaining thermal energy, resulting in a higher ground level temp. The theory can be very simply tested by comparing the amount of atmosphere on the planets and moons we have measured directly to the ground level temp. So far they all correlate and the theory is not proven false.
The theory that greenhouse gases are all that matters seems to be contradicted by comparing Mars with Earth. Mars has far more greenhouse gases in the form of CO2 but a much lower ground level temp relative to the Solar radiance it receives. Yet, as Mars has a much much thinner atmosphere, it actually does not show Fourrier's Greenhouse Effect to be false.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 12-06-2020 23:36
12-06-2020 23:47
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
Hello ipiddlemyself,

If you could oh so kindly provide us all with Fourier's Greenhouse Effect equation, I would be oh so ever grateful.

Thank you,
gfm7175
13-06-2020 00:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
gfm7175 wrote:..provide us all with Fourier's Greenhouse Effect equation,...
What is it? I believe you just repeated a non-sequiter.

I'm unaware of a "Fourier's Greenhouse Effect equation".

I'm responding because I can tell you are going to repeat the question. I have answered you. I hope you'll respect the board and not post things pointlessly.
13-06-2020 03:39
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2060)
gfm7175 wrote:
Hello ipiddlemyself,

If you could oh so kindly provide us all with Fourier's Greenhouse Effect equation, I would be oh so ever grateful.

Thank you,
gfm7175


I've seen Fourier Transforms for electronics. Didn't know it applied to the destruction of Earth... Guess it's just one of those IPCC things, it has a cool, apocalyptic names, lets use it.
15-06-2020 02:17
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:..provide us all with Fourier's Greenhouse Effect equation,...
What is it? I believe you just repeated a non-sequiter.

I'm unaware of a "Fourier's Greenhouse Effect equation".

I'm responding because I can tell you are going to repeat the question. I have answered you. I hope you'll respect the board and not post things pointlessly.

Then does that mean that you will now drop this Fourier nonsense?? If there's no equation, then there's nothing to talk about...
15-06-2020 03:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
On 13 JUL 2019,

tgoebbles wrote:
So the simple case for the original "Green House effect. "

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


_______________________


On 11 JUN 2020,

tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.
What is that IBD? I've never heard of it.



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
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil15-06-2020 10:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
gfm7175 wrote:If there's no equation, then there's nothing to talk about...
You don't have to talk about it if you don't want to GFM.

Not everything is an equation. Tyndall discovered that CO2 absorbs infrared radiance empirically, observing how the radiance was interfered with by CO2 in a tube. But you can't hear that because it's not an equation right?

Just to pick something non-thermodynamic: It was discovered that the plum pudding model for the atom was poppycock when it was observed that alpha particles could shoot right through a thin sheet of gold. The theory, that the atom is mostly hollow, was supported by the observation. No equations at all.


IBdaMann wrote:
On 13 JUL 2019,...gases act as a thermal blanket, ...
On 11 JUN 2020,
What are you pointing out IBD?

You guys are jumping threads not me:
On 7 JUN 2020,
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... the sun's radiance is converted to thermal energy, yes, which flows around via conduction, convection and thermal radiation. ... it finds its way into virtually all the matter from the bottom of the atmosphere up.

OK great. So I had first asked about Fourier's "Greenhouse Effect" here: link
tmiddles wrote:...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere....this happens on any planet with an atmosphere. A planet with an atmosphere is kept warmer by it. No atmosphere = colder planet. Everyone knows first hand air can be hot.
IBD you and ITN said:
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's review your post:......Violations of science ... no scientists believe in violations of physics. Only Climate Scientists preach violations of physics as being true
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.

So as Fourier, and I, simply noted that the gas atmosphere of a planet has thermal energy resulting in a higher temperature (where we are standing) how is that a violation of science and where does the objection that the 1st LTD is violated come from? (that being "You cannot create energy out of nothing.")

Certainly gravity is not a source of energy so it cannot solve a problem with energy being created out of nothing.

My answer to this as stated earlier is that the 1st LTD objection is nonsense since Earth is not an isolated system but has energy flowing into and out of it constantly.
Still waiting for you to respond VENUS IS HOTTER THAN MERCURY?!?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 15-06-2020 10:59
15-06-2020 17:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tgoebbles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:If there's no equation, then there's nothing to talk about...
You don't have to talk about it if you don't want to GFM.

He can't talk about Greenhouse Effect science with you when you are telling him that there isn't any.

tgoebbles wrote: Not everything is an equation.

All science involves mathematical equations or, as in chemistry which I will mention below, involves its own unambiguous specification notation that adheres to formal logic. It's that unambiguous falsifiability that allows science models to predict nature and that allows the scientific method to be applied. We live in glorious times.

... but in light of your admission that Greenhouse Effect is simply religious dogma pretending to be "thettttttttled thienth" then gfm7175 can decide whether he wants to join your church or to decline to discuss WACKY dogma with you.

tgoebbles wrote: Tyndall discovered that CO2 absorbs infrared radiance empirically,

... showing that he wasn't that quick on the uptake since ALL mater does.

tgoebbles wrote: But you can't hear that because it's not an equation right?

You are belaboring an observation, expecting some invalid conclusion be drawn.

Why don't you explain what conclusion you are expecting others draw from the observation that all matter absorbs IR, an observation that can be made by anyone?

tgoebbles wrote:Just to pick something non-thermodynamic:

There is no such thing. But just for grits and shins, let's see what you believe does not involve thermodynamics:

tgoebbles wrote: It was discovered that the plum pudding model for the atom was poppycock when it was observed that alpha particles could shoot right through a thin sheet of gold. The theory, that the atom is mostly hollow, was supported by the observation. No equations at all.

Au contraire mon frère, all the equations in chemistry were changed. Have you noticed how much more advanced our chemistry is today?

Oh by the way, thermodynamics applies to chemistry and to atoms.

tgoebbles wrote: What are you pointing out IBD?

Don't worry about it. It's beyond your grasp.

tgoebbles wrote:OK great. So I had first asked about Fourier's "Greenhouse Effect" causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere....this happens on any planet with an atmosphere. A planet with an atmosphere is kept warmer by it.

You mean "kept cooler" by it, yes? ... or are you still denying there is a daytime side of the moon?

What a moron.

tgoebbles wrote: So as Fourier, and I, simply noted that the gas atmosphere of a planet has thermal energy resulting in a higher temperature

You are egregiously WRONG!

You must remove the word "higher" to be correct, i.e. "that the gas atmosphere of a planet has thermal energy resulting in a temperature." You can only use the words "higher temperature" when you are properly accounting for additional energy, which you are not.

Dismissed.

tgoebbles wrote: Certainly gravity is not a source of energy so it cannot solve a problem with energy being created out of nothing.

You have the equations. Where is work performed?

tgoebbles wrote: My answer to this as stated earlier is that the 1st LTD objection is nonsense since Earth is not an isolated system but has energy flowing into and out of it constantly.

Your response is nonsense. If you are claiming an increase in temperature you must account for additional energy. You have not and you will be summarily dismissed until you do.


.


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
15-06-2020 17:56
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:If there's no equation, then there's nothing to talk about...
You don't have to talk about it if you don't want to GFM.

Not everything is an equation. Tyndall discovered that CO2 absorbs infrared radiance empirically, observing how the radiance was interfered with by CO2 in a tube. But you can't hear that because it's not an equation right?

Just to pick something non-thermodynamic: It was discovered that the plum pudding model for the atom was poppycock when it was observed that alpha particles could shoot right through a thin sheet of gold. The theory, that the atom is mostly hollow, was supported by the observation. No equations at all.

...deleted various other piddle...

Dude, you just got done telling me that there is no science regarding Greenhouse Effect... I can't discuss "the science" with you when you are telling me that there isn't any...
15-06-2020 18:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
To be clear to ipiddlemyself, I do NOT wish to join the Church of Global Warming nor do I wish to discuss its Greenhouse Effect dogma with him.

If he can provide me with a Greenhouse Effect equation, then I will be willing to discuss the equation with him. Until then, I'm not interested in his wacky religion that requires one to outright deny logic, science, and mathematics.

Hell, even the main religion that I subscribe to (Christianity) does not require one to deny such things... Atheism is also perfectly okay with such things... This outright denial of logic/science/mathematics sure says a lot about the Church of Global Warming, doesn't it?
15-06-2020 23:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Tyndall discovered that CO2 absorbs infrared radiance empirically,

... showing that he wasn't that quick on the uptake since ALL mater does....
You are belaboring an observation, expecting some invalid conclusion be drawn....Why don't you explain what conclusion you are expecting others draw from the observation that all matter absorbs IR, an observation that can be made by anyone?
Tyndal observed that the radiance from the boiling water did not pass straight through the CO2 to reach the detector, as it did with room air. The theory was that it was because CO2 was absorbing the radiance. However that's not a forgone conclusion as it could be reflecting/scattering the radiance as well.

But there is still no equation involved with that very important bit of science.

I'd like to point out the obvious:
You and GFM are fighting for the argument that we can't talk about Fourrier's Greenhouse Effect. That we can't consider it, debate it or think about it because it's somehow "disqualified".

Guess what gents? You're free to switch your brain off whenever and wherever you please.

I'm here to debate the issue.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:OK great. So I had first asked about Fourier's "Greenhouse Effect" causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere....this happens on any planet with an atmosphere. A planet with an atmosphere is kept warmer by it.
You mean "kept cooler" by it, yes? ... or are you still denying there is a daytime side of the moon?
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So as Fourier, and I, simply noted that the gas atmosphere of a planet has thermal energy resulting in a higher temperature

You are egregiously WRONG!

You must remove the word "higher" to be correct, i.e. "that the gas atmosphere of a planet has thermal energy resulting in a temperature." You can only use the words "higher temperature" when you are properly accounting for additional energy, which you are not.
And you also said:
IBdaMann wrote:
For any given planet that has an atmosphere, the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be higher than the planet's average black-body science temperature.
How about we talk about that?
gfm7175 wrote:
Dude, you just got done telling me that there is no science regarding Greenhouse Effect...
How about it GFM, how about we discuss IBD's statement above? I'm sure he has an equation and everything.

For any given planet that has an atmosphere, the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be higher than the planet's average black-body science temperature. ~ IBD

Surely you can't object to THAT being "science" can you?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil15-06-2020 23:33
James___
★★★★★
(2834)
tmiddles wrote:OK great. So I had first asked about Fourier's "Greenhouse Effect" causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere....this happens on any planet with an atmosphere.



They haven't shown this conclusively. If a rise of 100 ppm = 1º C. Then what does the other 300 ppm do to warm the Earth? Of course, it can be shown that when warming started in 1978 that the ozone layer was depleted as well. And we know that the ozone layer reflects some solar radiation back out into space thus helping to keep our planet cool. And this in a way goes back to the northern and southern lights. Particles charged by the upper atmosphere cause them. With less ozone, more of those particles also make it into the lower atmosphere as well.
Could you imagine if ozone being split into O and O2 absorbs the energy of those particles, I mean it does take a significant amount of energy to break a single valence bond in an ozone molecule.
To break a single O=O bond is about 286kJ. And if a solar particle has a wavelength of 210 - 300 nm. Almost have to wonder if that's how ozone absorbs UV radiation and not when ozone occurs. After all, O2 + hv > O + O. Then O2 + O = O3. This would be a slightly different consideration of how the Chapman cycle works to remove heat from our atmosphere. With this, the energy required to break a bond in an O3 molecule might not be absorbed. The collision might release (some of) it (radiate it) back into space. After this, it might get complicated.

Edited on 15-06-2020 23:38
15-06-2020 23:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:OK great. So I had first asked about Fourier's "Greenhouse Effect" causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere....this happens on any planet with an atmosphere.

They haven't shown this conclusively. If a rise of 100 ppm = 1º C.
You're talking about CO2.
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil16-06-2020 00:32
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
I'd like to point out the obvious:
You and GFM are fighting for the argument that we can't talk about Fourrier's Greenhouse Effect. That we can't consider it, debate it or think about it because it's somehow "disqualified".

Guess what gents? You're free to switch your brain off whenever and wherever you please.

I'm here to debate the issue.

There is no SCIENCE to talk about with regard to it... The religious dogma aspect of it can be discussed until pigs start shitting bon bons, but I'm not interested in discussing and debating about a wacky religious dogma. I'm interested in discussing science. If there is any science with regard to Fourier's "Greenhouse Effect", then please, do tell... Otherwise, I'm not interested.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:OK great. So I had first asked about Fourier's "Greenhouse Effect" causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere....this happens on any planet with an atmosphere. A planet with an atmosphere is kept warmer by it.
You mean "kept cooler" by it, yes? ... or are you still denying there is a daytime side of the moon?
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So as Fourier, and I, simply noted that the gas atmosphere of a planet has thermal energy resulting in a higher temperature

You are egregiously WRONG!

You must remove the word "higher" to be correct, i.e. "that the gas atmosphere of a planet has thermal energy resulting in a temperature." You can only use the words "higher temperature" when you are properly accounting for additional energy, which you are not.
And you also said:
IBdaMann wrote:
For any given planet that has an atmosphere, the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be higher than the planet's average black-body science temperature.
How about we talk about that?
gfm7175 wrote:
Dude, you just got done telling me that there is no science regarding Greenhouse Effect...
How about it GFM, how about we discuss IBD's statement above? I'm sure he has an equation and everything.

For any given planet that has an atmosphere, the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be higher than the planet's average black-body science temperature. ~ IBD

Surely you can't object to THAT being "science" can you?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

His statement seems fine to me. What about it?

You need to study up on the Ideal Gas Law, which has already been explained to you ad nauseum.

Also, you are not talking about the same thing that IBD is talking about.
Edited on 16-06-2020 00:46
16-06-2020 00:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tgoebbles wrote: Tyndal observed that the radiance from the boiling water did not pass straight through the CO2 to reach the detector, as it did with room air. The theory was that it was because CO2 was absorbing the radiance. However that's not a forgone conclusion as it could be reflecting/scattering the radiance as well.

There are various types of theories. You are talking about speculation. You are not talking about science. You are not talking about any theory of any "effect" but rather speculation about a specific observation.

So you are telling us that Tyndal observed incident radiance being absorbed by CO2 and essentially recognized that CO2 has a high absorptivity of that particular wavelength.

Good. What conclusion beyond that am I supposed to draw? What is the "effect" in all that? Energy changing form?

tgoebbles wrote: But there is still no equation involved with that very important bit of science.

It's not science. The lack of any equation should have been your first clue.

tgoebbles wrote: I'd like to point out the obvious:
You and GFM are fighting for the argument that we can't talk about Fourrier's Greenhouse Effect.

Of course we cannot. You haven't defined any Greenhouse Effect. How can we talk about something that is completely undefined in a manner that isn't a complete waste of time?

tgoebbles wrote: That we can't consider it, debate it or think about it because it's somehow "disqualified".

Yes. The undefined is immediately disqualified. Try defining it, unambiguously.

The fact that no human to date has formally defined either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect such that the scientific method can be applied and that doesn't violate physics ... should tell you've adopted one seriously fugged-up religion, one that happens to be based on HATRED and intolerance ... like BLM.

tgoebbles wrote: I'm here to debate the issue.

Sure, but you are NOT here to define it.

Let us know when you are here to DEFINE it first, then we'll gladly debate you.

You're free to turn your brain on any time you're good and ready.


.


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
16-06-2020 00:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tgoebbles wrote: Surely you can't object to THAT being "science" can you?

I gave you that equation on at least three separate occasions.

Were you paying attention? If not, why should I believe that you will be paying attention now?


.


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
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil16-06-2020 00:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
gfm7175 wrote:
You need to study up on the Ideal Gas Law, which has already been explained to you ad nauseum.
No it actually hasn't been explained by IBD, ITN or you at all. If it has quote it and prove me wrong.
IBdaMann wrote:
I gave you that equation on at least three separate occasions.
I am capable of looking up the ideal gas law as well. You keep forgetting that my opening post in the topic this belongs in included it:
Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? Huffmann "My comparison is just over the tropospheric pressures of Earth, 1,000 down to 200 mb, and the ideal gas law is generally used for this region"

Doesn't the ideal gas law violate the 1st LTD if it raised the temperature without additional energy GFM?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 16-06-2020 00:43
16-06-2020 00:49
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
You need to study up on the Ideal Gas Law, which has already been explained to you ad nauseum.
No it actually hasn't been explained by IBD, ITN or you at all. If it has quote it and prove me wrong.
IBdaMann wrote:
I gave you that equation on at least three separate occasions.
I am capable of looking up the ideal gas law as well. You keep forgetting that my opening post in the topic this belongs in included it:
Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? Huffmann "My comparison is just over the tropospheric pressures of Earth, 1,000 down to 200 mb, and the ideal gas law is generally used for this region"

Doesn't the ideal gas law violate the 1st LTD if it raised the temperature without additional energy GFM?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

I hope you fully realize that you are making ZERO new arguments here and that your drivel has been specifically addressed NUMEROUS times already...

I'm not wasting my time explaining it yet ANOTHER time...
16-06-2020 00:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
gfm7175 wrote:
I hope you fully realize that you are making ZERO new arguments here ...
How is it that the temperature increases without additional energy? Doesn't that violate the 1st LTD as laid out by ITN/IBD?

For 5 years they have been saying we can't even talk about CO2 causing an increase in temp without additional energy because it would violate the 1st LTD.

No that has never once been addressed.

How about instead of running away you actually debate?
16-06-2020 00:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tgoebbles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
You need to study up on the Ideal Gas Law, which has already been explained to you ad nauseum.
No it actually hasn't been explained by IBD, ITN or you at all.

You are a liar ... but you already knew that.

The Ideal Gas Law has not only been explained to you, its application has been completely spelled out with regards to planets and atmospheres.

If there is any aspect which you don't undrstand, the fault is entirely yours.

tgoebbles wrote:Doesn't the ideal gas law violate the 1st LTD if it raised the temperature without additional energy GFM?

I walked you through it. I led you by the hand. I spoon-fed you the information. I explained the work that was accomplished by the force of gravity on the atmosphere in increasing the pressure which increased the temperature. I supplied you with all the necessary equations. We had a healthy discussion on grill presses ...

... and you are a liar.

.


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
16-06-2020 00:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:
I walked you through it.
How about a quote?

I don't doubt the ideal gas law and you keep forgetting it was the subject of my topic on Venus.

YOU and ITN have never once explained how it is that there is a higher temp without additional energy in violation of your (incorrect) take on the 1st LTD?

I know the answer, it's because the 1st LTD doesn't apply here.
16-06-2020 01:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: I walked you through it.
How about a quote?

Nope. Not at the moment. I've got other more deserving posts to which to respond.

.


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
16-06-2020 02:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
You need to study up on the Ideal Gas Law, which has already been explained to you ad nauseum.
No it actually hasn't been explained by IBD, ITN or you at all. If it has quote it and prove me wrong.

Lie. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I gave you that equation on at least three separate occasions.
I am capable of looking up the ideal gas law as well. You keep forgetting that my opening post in the topic this belongs in included it:
Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? Huffmann "My comparison is just over the tropospheric pressures of Earth, 1,000 down to 200 mb, and the ideal gas law is generally used for this region"

Doesn't the ideal gas law violate the 1st LTD if it raised the temperature without additional energy GFM?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
16-06-2020 02:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I hope you fully realize that you are making ZERO new arguments here ...
How is it that the temperature increases without additional energy? Doesn't that violate the 1st LTD as laid out by ITN/IBD?
No. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
For 5 years they have been saying we can't even talk about CO2 causing an increase in temp without additional energy because it would violate the 1st LTD.
Correct.
tmiddles wrote:
No that has never once been addressed.
Yes it has. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
How about instead of running away you actually debate?

You are not debating.


The Parrot Killer
16-06-2020 02:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I walked you through it.
How about a quote?

I don't doubt the ideal gas law

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
and you keep forgetting it was the subject of my topic on Venus.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
YOU and ITN have never once explained how it is that there is a higher temp without additional energy in violation of your (incorrect) take on the 1st LTD?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I know the answer, it's because the 1st LTD doesn't apply here.

Lie. Mantras...20a1...20n...20e3...10b...29...39k...39d...

No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science.


The Parrot Killer
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil16-06-2020 17:01
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I hope you fully realize that you are making ZERO new arguments here ...
How is it that the temperature increases without additional energy?

RQAA. You've been given an explanation of the Ideal Gas Law, you've been given equations, you've been given examples of how the IGL is applied, you've been given a good example (remember the "grill presses" convo?) to help you understand how it works. There is nothing more that we can do for you if you absolutely refuse to learn about any of these things.

tmiddles wrote:
Doesn't that violate the 1st LTD as laid out by ITN/IBD?

No. RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
For 5 years they have been saying we can't even talk about CO2 causing an increase in temp without additional energy because it would violate the 1st LTD.

... because you are attempting to create energy out of nothing. That indeed violates the 1st LTD.

tmiddles wrote:
No that has never once been addressed.

Yes it has, liar.

tmiddles wrote:
How about instead of running away you actually debate?

I have not "ran away", liar. You are not "debating", liar.
Edited on 16-06-2020 17:08
17-06-2020 00:29
James___
★★★★★
(2834)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I hope you fully realize that you are making ZERO new arguments here ...
How is it that the temperature increases without additional energy? Doesn't that violate the 1st LTD as laid out by ITN/IBD?

For 5 years they have been saying we can't even talk about CO2 causing an increase in temp without additional energy because it would violate the 1st LTD.

No that has never once been addressed.

How about instead of running away you actually debate?



There's a difference between heat, temperature and energy. Conserved electromagnetic radiation is energy. If the density of an atmosphere is increased by reducing O2 levels while slightly increasing CO2 levels, does this increase then number of collisions of N2 and O2 which can released conserved electromagnetic radiation?
If so, that increases the amount of energy which is flowing, this is known as "heat". And if you considered the amount of "heat" being released by 1 mol (about 22.4 liters = volume) then that is what's known as temperature.
I actually think having less O2 in the atmosphere might be a bigger concern than CO2 is. But if we can convert CO2 into CH2O and O2, then we would be restoring some of the O2 that the atmosphere has lost because of the combustion process.
17-06-2020 00:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
James___ wrote: There's a difference between heat, temperature and energy.

Spot on.

James___ wrote: Conserved electromagnetic radiation is energy.

All electromagnetic radiation is energy, yes. But what is "conserved" electromagnetic radiation? Is that even possible?


.


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
17-06-2020 04:06
James___
★★★★★
(2834)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: There's a difference between heat, temperature and energy.

Spot on.

James___ wrote: Conserved electromagnetic radiation is energy.

All electromagnetic radiation is energy, yes. But what is "conserved" electromagnetic radiation? Is that even possible?


.




It's basically the mass that something has.
17-06-2020 04:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
gfm7175 wrote:...You've been given an explanation of the Ideal Gas Law, you've been given equations, you've been given examples of how the IGL is applied, you've been given a good example (remember the "grill presses" convo?) to help you understand how it works. There is nothing more that we can do for you if you absolutely refuse to learn about any of these things.


GFM I agree completely that the ideal gas law is real, I've know about it since HS Physics, and it's fairly easy to understand.

I will remind you (AGAIN!) that my topic: Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? Went right to the issue of the IDL and the concept Huffmann presented which has been presented many times by many people:
tmiddles wrote:... Harry Dale Huffman, (posts)has an argument here against the current meaning of "Greenhouse Effect", namely that greenhouse gases increase temperature:
there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

My understanding of it is that you have to compare the same atmospheric pressures on Venus and Earth, which means comparing the surface of earth with an altitude above the surface of Venus, which has a much denser atmosphere with all that CO2. If you do that the temperature is what you would expect to find based on the distance from the sun.

That of course a heavier blanket is warmer, but CO2 doesn't seem to be influencing the temperature dramatically. He is of course not refuting the original "Greenhouse Effect" as described by Fourier (or in describing actual greenhouses), but instead the newer meaning of "Greenhouse Effect" as commonly used today to describe the CO2 factor in planetary temperature.

As Venus is much much hotter than it should be without an atmosphere:


So let me spell this out for you (AGAIN!) GFM, and I'll clarify it as needed let me know:

ITN/IBD have claimed that for the temperature to be higher there has to be additional energy or the 1st LTD is being violated. Debunked here: link

The temperature is higher and there is not additional energy. Gravity is not a source of energy.

So 1st LTD "need extra energy" argument is BS.

Got it? Questions?

It also debunks the "Plancks Law" argument, debunked here: link
Because the temp is higher at the bottom of the atmosphere than the planets thermal radiation to space (because the bottom of the atmosphere is NOT "the Surface" by itself).

In short the "debate killer" objections from your crew are crap.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
17-06-2020 13:43
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(366)
Professor Don Eastman who gave a report to the climate panel advising the government on policy in 2013 who completely disagrees with climate change models agreed that increasing CO2 will create more atmosphere that can affect radiance however its the amounts he disagreed with and actually uses his thumb and finger to indicate the amount.How can so little of something create such a large effect.Again for some reason I believe this guy and not M Mann
17-06-2020 16:17
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(248)
pjfent wrote:


I was recently doing some basic personal research on historical temperature variations, and came across the above.
As a layman, it brought some very alarming questions to mind, that I, unfortunately, don't have answers for.

Since we are technically living in the Quaternary ice age, and inhabiting a relatively short, warmer, interglacial phase at the moment, what does the future hold?

Are we at the peak of the Interglacial period or have we actually started downward to increased glaciation, or would have without our unconscious CO2 intervention.

Even with the upward temperature pressure of our greenhouse gas emissions, will there still be a gradual downward temperature trend that overwhelms what we have done and lead to an inevitable catastrophe for a human civilization of 7.6 Billion?

Are the real warming effects of our carbon emissions being masked by downward pressure by the other causative factors of the end of an interglacial phase?

Have we really averted a future catastrophe, by sheer luck, or do we need to slow, end, or even possibly increase greenhouse gas emissions, in the long term, to moderate our climate?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/300px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png


The timing of the ice ages ahs to do with shifts in the Earth's orbit, primarily due to its resonance with Jupiter. At the moment we are in a particularly stable phase that will likely go on for another 10,000 to 15,000 years so no imminent ice age.

The additional CO2 in the atmosphere can produce a tipping point where we go into a permanent change in the global climate. If the resulting increase in global temperatures is large enough we may not get another ice age (at least until most of the excess CO2 is removed from the atmosphere due to rock weathering (millions of years).

So the conclusion is that short of a super-volcanic eruption or a major asteroid impact that an ice age is not imminent.
17-06-2020 16:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
duncan61 wrote:
Professor Don Eastman ... agreed that increasing CO2 will create more atmosphere that can affect radiance

How can any atmosphere alter Stefan-Boltzmann?

duncan61 wrote: however its the amounts he disagreed with and actually uses his thumb and finger to indicate the amount.How can so little of something create such a large effect.Again for some reason I believe this guy and not M Mann

He still sounds like a scheister ... telling a non-warmizombie audience merely what they want to hear, not what is correct.

.


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
RE: ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil17-06-2020 16:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
duncan61 wrote:...CO2 will create more atmosphere that can affect radiance however its the amounts he disagreed with...
Yeah and in fact if you can come to a conclusion that the amount is insignificant then you don't even need to bother with if the theory is sound or not. So what is easier?:
- Figuring out if CO2 in particular can cause the temp to increase, or
- figuring out (assuming it can) if the quantity at issue is significant.

DRKTS wrote:...short of a super-volcanic eruption or a major asteroid impact that an ice age is not imminent.
DRKTS I have two problems/question about if that is relevant:

one is that if an ice age is eminent it'll take thousands of years to develop so a AGW effect that should be fully realized in the next 500 years wouldn't be affected anyway.

The other is that the ice ages have been a full 7 degrees cooler. What estimates are you going by for a maximum warming due to AGW?

IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...CO2 will create more atmosphere that can affect radiance

How can any atmosphere alter Stefan-Boltzmann?
Your comment makes no sense. That radiance would be absorbed before it can make it out into space by CO2 or a cloud doesn't "alter" the Stefan-Botzmann equation on how much radiance matter emits based on it's temperature, it simply means that a different bit of matter will be doing the final emission to space.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 17-06-2020 17:00
17-06-2020 17:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tgoebbles wrote: The other is that the ice ages have been a full 7 degrees cooler.

Omniscience at its finest.

tgoebbles wrote: Your comment makes no sense.

Sorry, the question stands. You are the one claiming it affirmatively happens, you bear the full burden to explain all the details ...

... and you are dismissed until you do.

tgoebbles wrote: That radiance would be absorbed before it can make it out into space by CO2 or a cloud doesn't "alter" the Stefan-Botzmann equation on how much radiance matter emits based on it's temperature, it simply means that a different bit of matter will be doing the final emission to space.

Your unintelligible run-on sentence does not answer any questions ... but it does attempt to subdivide the atomic unit, i.e. the earth.

Dismissed.

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil :

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
hudson bay sea ice1601-07-2020 22:12
Electric cars vs ICE cars2215-05-2020 23:22
the coming little ice age will wreck havoc on global economy613-05-2020 21:36
Nature stops humans burning fossil fuel101-05-2020 19:13
Hurricane season coming. Lockdown end?523-04-2020 19:37
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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