Remember me
▼ Content

If the emissivity of a body decreases then its temperature should decrease.



Page 2 of 2<12
24-02-2016 13:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
IBdaMann wrote:
I never said that it *must* remain constant. In fact we both agreed that earth's constants, e.g. radius, emissivity, etc, have changed in the past. You remember that agreement, yes?


Surface Detail wrote:You're the one who is having to backtrack because you were wrong. There is no logical reason for you to assert that emissivity doesn't change.


So the answer is that you still feel you need for me to be wrong somehow, even if it is a result of your misrepresentation of what I said.

Surface Detail wrote:I never said anything about the Earth's radius changing -

You insisted the earth's constants be treated as variables. I agreed to it. You then complained when you realized you hadn't thought it through very well.

Surface Detail wrote: you just made that up. You're the one who made the bizarre assertion that if humans are changing the Earth's emissivity, then they are also changing its radius. That's just crazy.

It is certainly crazy that you would mischaracterize my argument (and yours).

It was you who first asserted that earth's constants somehow change to compensate for T. I simply asked how earth's radius changes to compensate for T. You never finished that sub-thread.


.


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
24-02-2016 13:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I never said that it *must* remain constant. In fact we both agreed that earth's constants, e.g. radius, emissivity, etc, have changed in the past. You remember that agreement, yes?


Surface Detail wrote:You're the one who is having to backtrack because you were wrong. There is no logical reason for you to assert that emissivity doesn't change.


So the answer is that you still feel you need for me to be wrong somehow, even if it is a result of your misrepresentation of what I said.

Surface Detail wrote:I never said anything about the Earth's radius changing -

You insisted the earth's constants be treated as variables. I agreed to it. You then complained when you realized you hadn't thought it through very well.

Surface Detail wrote: you just made that up. You're the one who made the bizarre assertion that if humans are changing the Earth's emissivity, then they are also changing its radius. That's just crazy.

It is certainly crazy that you would mischaracterize my argument (and yours).

It was you who first asserted that earth's constants somehow change to compensate for T. I simply asked how earth's radius changes to compensate for T. You never finished that sub-thread.

I haven't claimed anywhere that the Earth's radius changes to compensate for T. That is entirely a figment of your rabid imagination. It is the Earth's effective emissivity (not its radius!) that changes as a result of changing its atmospheric composition.
24-02-2016 13:35
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)

You are talking about local albedo, not emissivity.

Not yet sufficiently shown. You seem to be confusing emissivity with albedo.

Why so? Emissivity is defined as the fraction of radiation absorbed and emitted by a body. If a body has an emissivity of 1 than it will absorb all radiation whereas an emissivity of 0 means it will absorb no radiation. The surfaces of Earth are continuously changing and all have different emissivities and therefore as the surfaces change the total emissivity of Earth will change. Agree? But then I suppose if changes to the emissivity of Earth from surface changes did not measurably change emissivity then perhaps it could be considered a constant. And I wouldn't know much the emissivity has changed over the last, say, 10,000 years. Maybe it's a lot, or maybe it's so inconsequential it's immeasurable.


The constant refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, not inside the nucleus of an atom. The acceleration of gravity is no longer a given constant and has not been since Newton. We use the universal gravitation constant (6.673 x 10-11 N m2/kg2) to calculate it now from altitude (actually the distance to the center of both masses), then add in the effects of centrifugal force, if any.

Perhaps so, but the acceleration of 9.8 ms^2 on Earth is still considered as a "constant" in equations. For example if you wanted to calculate the time it took for a body to fall in the Earth's gravitational field you would apply the equations: v = at, s = 1/2at^2; where s is seconds, v is the velocity, t is the time, and a is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 ms^2) and is a constant in the equation. And yes, I agree that c applies to a vacuum, but my point was that these constants are dependent on the circumstance, i.e. such as there being a vacuum.
Edited on 24-02-2016 13:54
24-02-2016 14:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Surface Detail wrote: I haven't claimed anywhere that the Earth's radius changes to compensate for T. That is entirely a figment of your rabid imagination.

Are you now saying that you don't want earth's constants to be treated as variables?

Don't tell me what you aren't saying (you sure love to do that). State your case. If you don't have one then we're done.

Surface Detail wrote:It is the Earth's effective emissivity (not its radius!) that changes as a result of changing its atmospheric composition.

This is called "special pleading" for your preferred constant. Why does your particular pet constant deserve to elevated to "variable" status but earth's other constants don't?

How are you going to measure earth's emissivity to demonstrate a reason to even BELIEVE it is somehow changing? There is absolutely nothing in the body of science to suggest any atmospheric gas has any effect on earth's emissivity whatsoever. All equations involving a body's emissivity have emissivity as a constant. Perhaps you noticed that there is no emissivity function for a body in terms of its percentage of CO2. Do you know why that is? Do you imagine that, after decades of Global Warming prophecies of doom that researchers simply haven't gotten around to it yet?

As to the question of earth's radius, was it you or someone else that pointed out that the earth has geological activity? Doesn't that raise mountains, move continents and such? Were you trying to make the case that such activity might lead to changes in earth's radius, or was that someone else? Nevermind, it was someone else.


Anyway, my official position is that I still think all of earth's constants should be treated as constants, including earth's radius, emissivity, etc...

...but you say otherwise?


.


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
24-02-2016 20:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
One Punch Man wrote:

Why so? Emissivity is defined as the fraction of radiation absorbed and emitted by a body. If a body has an emissivity of 1 than it will absorb all radiation whereas an emissivity of 0 means it will absorb no radiation.

Essentially the opposite of albedo.
One Punch Man wrote:
The surfaces of Earth are continuously changing and all have different emissivities and therefore as the surfaces change the total emissivity of Earth will change. Agree?

Not particularly. The surfaces of the Earth are barely changing. This is why both albedo and emissivity are considered practical constants.
One Punch Man wrote:
But then I suppose if changes to the emissivity of Earth from surface changes did not measurably change emissivity then perhaps it could be considered a constant.

Badly worded, but agree.
One Punch Man wrote:
And I wouldn't know much the emissivity has changed over the last, say, 10,000 years. Maybe it's a lot, or maybe it's so inconsequential it's immeasurable.

That is an unknown, therefore not part of a practical discussion on the matter.


My point is this. If albedo is a variable, or emissivity is a variable (they both are or they both aren't), then a method of calculating them or measuring them accurately is going to be required to use the equation at all, else the equation has no meaning.

We currently have no way of doing either.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2016 20:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
One Punch Man wrote:

The constant refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, not inside the nucleus of an atom. The acceleration of gravity is no longer a given constant and has not been since Newton. We use the universal gravitation constant (6.673 x 10-11 N m2/kg2) to calculate it now from altitude (actually the distance to the center of both masses), then add in the effects of centrifugal force, if any.

Perhaps so, but the acceleration of 9.8 ms^2 on Earth is still considered as a "constant" in equations. For example if you wanted to calculate the time it took for a body to fall in the Earth's gravitational field you would apply the equations: v = at, s = 1/2at^2; where s is seconds, v is the velocity, t is the time, and a is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 ms^2) and is a constant in the equation. And yes, I agree that c applies to a vacuum, but my point was that these constants are dependent on the circumstance, i.e. such as there being a vacuum.


That acceleration is a secondary constant, still quite usable for practical matters. It happens to ignore where you are on Earth and ignores your altitude, but it's good enough for most work. It is similar to why we usually use 3.14 for PI instead of millions of digits of precision for our calculations.

Every constant of nature depends on the circumstances. That makes it no less valid. It is why the circumstance it applies to is always remarked for that constant.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2016 21:41
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)

Not particularly. The surfaces of the Earth are barely changing. This is why both albedo and emissivity are considered practical constants.

Of course it is not just the surfaces but the atmosphere too. When you say that emissivity and albedo "are considered practical constants" I should point out that the current mainstream science does not consider them as constants. They consider them as variables. There are numerous papers that suggest that clouds contribute to albedo by reflecting incoming solar radiation back out into space and estimates of this are around 50 W/m2 (Segalstad 1996). Assuming this figure is correct (I understand it might not be) then even a small decrease in cloud cover would have a big effect on absorbed shortwave radiation. In fact, there are a number of studies that show a signficant increase in absorbed radiation that coincided with a decrease in cloud cover between the 1980's-2000's.

My point is this. If albedo is a variable, or emissivity is a variable (they both are or they both aren't), then a method of calculating them or measuring them accurately is going to be required to use the equation at all, else the equation has no meaning. We currently have no way of doing either.

I wouldn't know. All I know is what I have seen regarding clouds and their contribution to refelecting incoming solar radiation back out into space. I do not know how the 50 W/m2 was measured though. I guess I should look into that.
Edited on 24-02-2016 21:54
24-02-2016 22:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
One Punch Man wrote:

Not particularly. The surfaces of the Earth are barely changing. This is why both albedo and emissivity are considered practical constants.

Of course it is not just the surfaces but the atmosphere too.

Not of course. It has to be specified what you are measuring, or the measurement is meaningless.
One Punch Man wrote:
When you say that emissivity and albedo "are considered practical constants" I should point out that the current mainstream science does not consider them as constants.

There is no such thing as 'mainstream' science. The concept of consensus does not exist in the scientific method.
One Punch Man wrote:
They consider them as variables.

Many do. There is certainly no reason not to, especially when you are comparing different atmospheres between planets. But to use them as variables in the equation means you must have some way of obtaining their values accurately, either by calculation or by reasonably accurate measurement.
One Punch Man wrote:
There are numerous papers that suggest that clouds contribute to albedo by reflecting incoming solar radiation back out into space and estimates of this are around 50 W/m2 (Segalstad 1996).

Meaningless papers. Estimates are useless. It is tantamount to religion.
One Punch Man wrote:
Assuming this figure is correct (I understand it might not be)

Let's stop here for a moment. Why assume a number is correct?
One Punch Man wrote:
then even a small decrease in cloud cover would have a big effect on absorbed shortwave radiation.

How do you know this? The only way to know this is to have a formula for calculating both albedo and emissivity, then to have a related equation that converts to cloud cover. Then you must have a way to accurately measure cloud cover.
One Punch Man wrote:
In fact, there are a number of studies that show a signficant increase in absorbed radiation that coincided with a decrease in cloud cover between the 1980's-2000's.

Big hairy deal. See the Ig Nobel Prize website. None of these studies measured cloud cover, were able to show a mathematical relationship between cloud cover and emissivity or albedo, or provided any mechanism of relation at all other than just stating it. I submit that these studies are not in the realm of science at all.

One Punch Man wrote:
My point is this. If albedo is a variable, or emissivity is a variable (they both are or they both aren't), then a method of calculating them or measuring them accurately is going to be required to use the equation at all, else the equation has no meaning. We currently have no way of doing either.

I wouldn't know. All I know is what I have seen regarding clouds and their contribution to refelecting incoming solar radiation back out into space. I do not know how the 50 W/m2 was measured though. I guess I should look into that.

That you should. A good position to take with all these numbers flying around is to not trust any number until you know where it came from, how it was generated, who generated it, and for what purpose. Cuts through a lot of crap that way.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2016 23:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
One Punch Man wrote:I should point out that the current mainstream science does not consider them as constants.

I should point out that the word "mainstream" applies to a religion and not to science. Science is science. Yes, those of the mainstream Global Warming faith need for earth's constants to be changing at "unprecedented rates."

Science treats earth's constants a constants.

No one as of yet has been able to measure any changes in earth's emissivity so no one, especially no one in science, has any basis for asserting that earth's emissivity is changing.

If earth's emissivity is not known to be changing then it is rightfully treated as a constant, except in mainstream Global Warming dogma, of course.

One Punch Man wrote:They consider them as variables.

Nope. In science, earth's constants are treated as constants.

One Punch Man wrote:There are numerous papers that suggest that clouds contribute to albedo by reflecting incoming solar radiation back out into space and estimates of this are around 50 W/m2 (Segalstad 1996).

"Papers" don't determine science, except in mainstream Global Warming dogma.


.


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
29-02-2016 01:35
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)

Meaningless papers. Estimates are useless. It is tantamount to religion.

Segalstad's papers are certainly not "meanginless" and I think he's doing real science. He argues that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is natural and puts forward a convincing case in his 1996 and 1998 papers. The estimates of absorbed and reflected radiation did not come from Segalstad directly but a paper that he references. The figures may be accurate, or they may not be. But since they are accepted by the IPCC et al they are good to use when one wants to refute them with their own arguments, figures and equations.


How do you know this? The only way to know this is to have a formula for calculating both albedo and emissivity, then to have a related equation that converts to cloud cover. Then you must have a way to accurately measure cloud cover.

There are such equations but as I understand you do not think they are valid whereas I simply admit that I do not know how valid they are and just accept them for argument's sake because they are useful when refuting the IPCC with their own arguments. The standard equations used to determine the changes in absorbed radiation at the surface from changes in albedo and cloud-cover can be applied to the decrease in cloud-cover observed by satellites from the 1980's to the early 2000's and by using those equations one can infer that there has been a signficant increase in absorbed radiation at the surface.
Edited on 29-02-2016 01:49
29-02-2016 03:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
One Punch Man wrote:

Meaningless papers. Estimates are useless. It is tantamount to religion.

Segalstad's papers are certainly not "meanginless" and I think he's doing real science. He argues that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is natural and puts forward a convincing case in his 1996 and 1998 papers. The estimates of absorbed and reflected radiation did not come from Segalstad directly but a paper that he references. The figures may be accurate, or they may not be. But since they are accepted by the IPCC et al they are good to use when one wants to refute them with their own arguments, figures and equations.


How do you know this? The only way to know this is to have a formula for calculating both albedo and emissivity, then to have a related equation that converts to cloud cover. Then you must have a way to accurately measure cloud cover.

There are such equations but as I understand you do not think they are valid whereas I simply admit that I do not know how valid they are and just accept them for argument's sake because they are useful when refuting the IPCC with their own arguments. The standard equations used to determine the changes in absorbed radiation at the surface from changes in albedo and cloud-cover can be applied to the decrease in cloud-cover observed by satellites from the 1980's to the early 2000's and by using those equations one can infer that there has been a signficant increase in absorbed radiation at the surface.


To say the estimates are 'good enough for the IPCC' simply is the old argument of consensus again. The IPCC is hardly in a position to bless anything as true.

To say there is an equation without specifying what it is makes the statement circular. I know of no such set of equations.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-02-2016 03:44
29-02-2016 13:55
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]
To say the estimates are 'good enough for the IPCC' simply is the old argument of consensus again. The IPCC is hardly in a position to bless anything as true.

To say there is an equation without specifying what it is makes the statement circular. I know of no such set of equations.

The equation to calculate changes in absorbed radiation from changes in albedo and cloud-cover has been referenced on this forum a lot and I thought you would be familar with it. Hence my not specifying it. If you want to to show it again I'll be happy to. Like I said above, the equation might be accurrate, or it might not be. I am simply accepting the IPCC's equations for argument sake to show how they are wrong and that the warming in the temperature record from the 1980's to 2000's can be adequately explained by a reduction in cloud-cover.
Edited on 29-02-2016 13:56
29-02-2016 14:12
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
*reaches for the popcorn*...


29-02-2016 16:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Ceist *reaches for Kleenex*:



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
29-02-2016 16:50
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
*Ceist blows nose, says thankyou and kindly passes back the large box of tissues to IBAwesome who has been making big mess all over the forum for the past few months with his emission issues*



Edited on 29-02-2016 16:51
01-03-2016 00:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
One Punch Man wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]
To say the estimates are 'good enough for the IPCC' simply is the old argument of consensus again. The IPCC is hardly in a position to bless anything as true.

To say there is an equation without specifying what it is makes the statement circular. I know of no such set of equations.

The equation to calculate changes in absorbed radiation from changes in albedo and cloud-cover has been referenced on this forum a lot and I thought you would be familar with it. Hence my not specifying it. If you want to to show it again I'll be happy to. Like I said above, the equation might be accurrate, or it might not be. I am simply accepting the IPCC's equations for argument sake to show how they are wrong and that the warming in the temperature record from the 1980's to 2000's can be adequately explained by a reduction in cloud-cover.

The equation you shows does not calculate emissivity or albedo. It just assumes some value for them. You have not shown how these values are calculated or the instrumentation by which they are measured.


The Parrot Killer
01-03-2016 13:13
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Into the Night wrote:
The equation you shows does not calculate emissivity or albedo. It just assumes some value for them. You have not shown how these values are calculated or the instrumentation by which they are measured.

Because it is not my aim to show how they are calculated or measured. My aim, as already mentioned, is to use the IPCC's own equations and figures to show that the warming in the temperature record can be adequately explained (by the IPCC's own figures) by natural causes, in this case, changes in cloud-cover, despite the fact that the IPCC say that natural causes are inconsequential and point the finger of blame almost entirely at human CO2 emissions.
Edited on 01-03-2016 13:19
01-03-2016 14:06
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Into the Night wrote:
That acceleration is a secondary constant

Perhaps so, but it's still used as constant in equations and so I can call it a constant in those equations. Even you have just acknowledged that it is used as a constant but have simply pre-fixed it with the word "secondary".

Every constant of nature depends on the circumstances. That makes it no less valid. It is why the circumstance it applies to is always remarked for that constant.

I know that lots of constants depend on circumstances. You are just repeating what I have already said. I never said that 9.8 ms^2 was fixed and acknowledged in my first post that it varies on Earth. Hence why I said in my first post "a lot of what we call constants aren't true constants" and was agreeing with IBdmann that perhaps Earth's emissivity could be considered a constant if the changes were small enough not to have a significant knock-on effect on calculations.
Edited on 01-03-2016 14:16
01-03-2016 14:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
One Punch Man wrote: Because it is not my aim to show how [emissivity, albedo] are calculated or measured. My aim, as already mentioned, is to use the IPCC's own equations and figures to show that the warming in the temperature record can be adequately explained (by the IPCC's own figures) by natural causes, in this case, changes in cloud-cover, despite the fact that the IPCC say that natural causes are inconsequential and point the finger of blame almost entirely at human CO2 emissions.

You are attempting a "proof by contradiction" and you get bonus points for the effort. Yours is a perfectly valid line of reasoning. In this case, however, I don't think you have much of a chance of succeeding.

Now I could be mistaken, as I have not scrutinized the specific numbers to the same extent you have; however, the IPCC has presented no valid arguments (I mean that in the strictest sense of the term). In this case, a proof by contradiction requires first that there be some valid argument from the IPCC that you will use to generate the contradiction when you apply the IPCC assumption in question.

It's just that the IPCC is normally very careful to ensure everything is completely unfalsifiable. It's a religion, after all, and you are aware of this. The IPCC is the caretaker of the official church dogma and they simply cannot allow it to be proven false. Great care is thus taken with every word that is written to ensure no one can successfully accomplish what you are attempting.

Additionally, the IPCC operates on the Intelligent Design (ID) principle, i.e. start by assuming whatever it is you wish to conclude/prove. Christianity, as a religion, is based on certain assumptions, e.g. God exists, Jesus is the savior, etc.. ID is an argument which presupposes a "creator" and then proves "creation." It's a perfectly valid argument that many consider to not be a sound argument.

The IPCC similarly begins by assuming Global Warming is true. Thus everything leads to the same assumption/conclusion that Global Warming is true. All roads within Rome will certainly take you to Rome.

So good luck. I'd be interested in following your effort, and if there is anything I can do to help, please don't hesitate to ask.


.


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
01-03-2016 15:55
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
IBdaMann wrote:
Now I could be mistaken, as I have not scrutinized the specific numbers to the same extent you have; however, the IPCC has presented no valid arguments (I mean that in the strictest sense of the term). In this case, a proof by contradiction requires first that there be some valid argument from the IPCC that you will use to generate the contradiction when you apply the IPCC assumption in question.

I think you're right that the IPCC have presented no valid arguments and so ironically my counterarguments will themselves be invalid by default, but it is fun to see warmists squirm when you use the IPCC's own data against them. After all disagreeing with the sacrosanct words of IPCC is unthinkable to them. It also shows how the IPCC's conclusions are inconsistent and self-contradictory. You can actually take the IPCC's own figures and equations and calculate an increase of 0.37C from a doubling of CO2 which is somewhat hilarious. Of course not knowing the underlying assumptions of how the values in the equations are determined I cannot know how realistic they are and without knowing this I cannot estimate the probabilities of its predictions accuracies. For all anyone can tell, its underlying assumptions might all be false, making the equations wildly inaccurate.

It's just that the IPCC is normally very careful to ensure everything is completely unfalsifiable. It's a religion, after all, and you are aware of this. The IPCC is the caretaker of the official church dogma and they simply cannot allow it to be proven false. Great care is thus taken with every word that is written to ensure no one can successfully accomplish what you are attempting.

Of course, the IPCC is very clever and tries not to leave itself open to to be falsified, but I think anyone who spins enough lies (and let's face it, that's essentially what AGW is) will eventually trip over themselves no matter how conscientious they try to be.
01-03-2016 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
One Punch Man wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The equation you shows does not calculate emissivity or albedo. It just assumes some value for them. You have not shown how these values are calculated or the instrumentation by which they are measured.

Because it is not my aim to show how they are calculated or measured. My aim, as already mentioned, is to use the IPCC's own equations and figures to show that the warming in the temperature record can be adequately explained (by the IPCC's own figures) by natural causes, in this case, changes in cloud-cover, despite the fact that the IPCC say that natural causes are inconsequential and point the finger of blame almost entirely at human CO2 emissions.


Fine, but using an equation that makes use of values you can't determine the source of isn't a good way to go about it, unless you want to show the uselessness of the equation itself on that basis.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate If the emissivity of a body decreases then its temperature should decrease.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
Earth surface temperature measurements9325-09-2019 19:46
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Black body radiation2919-08-2019 09:11
▲ 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