Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 1 of 212>
If the emissivity of a body decreases then its temperature should decrease.18-02-2016 22:53
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
This is a Statement from One Punch Man that seems to embody the debate (except for the other 90% ad hominims that passes for discussion here) over most of this site.

I think there are two issues here.

One is the definition of Temperature. A measure of the amount of (kinetic) energy in a Body? (How do you measure that?!)

The second is, where are you going to measure the temperature on a "body" such as the planet earth? How can you, for instance, measure surface tempertures from outer space / satelites? Or of any layer of the atmosphere in between? By definition it would have to be done on the spot, right?

The one example that comes to mind has to do with real greenhouses. They are used on a continuous surface area near the southern tip of Spain (east of Andalusia). It 's probably where I get half my tomatoes summer and winter here in Germany. And you can see it very well on google. Anyway, the greenhouses "withhold" energy from the atmosphere, such that the air above it on the average is colder than it would otherwise (without the greenhouses) be.

Meaning: in that case, OPM is right.

Where he's wrong is: Where less energy is emitted, more energy truly remains - keeping the temperature (e.g. inside the greenhouse) high.

It's not only a question of logic. ..
18-02-2016 22:58
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Try looking up ERBE and CERES

May I also suggest reading Chapter 2 (Observations: Atmosphere and Surface) of the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 report and reading the cited research papers:

2.3- Changes in Radiation Budgets

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf



Edited on 18-02-2016 23:19
18-02-2016 23:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Ceist wrote:
Try looking up ERBE and CERES

May I also suggest reading Chapter 2 (Observations: Atmosphere and Surface) of the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 report and reading the cited research papers:

2.3- Changes in Radiation Budgets

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf


I just love it when you use the word 'budget' and a political organization in the same sentence.


The Parrot Killer
18-02-2016 23:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Into the Night wrote:I just love it when you use the word 'budget' and a political organization in the same sentence.

If Al Gore had been elected President, he would have appointed a Global Warming accounting czar who would have been responsible for overseeing the earth's energy budget and for making sure that the numbers "add up" perfectly.


.


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
19-02-2016 19:12
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
The emissivity is just a measure of a body to absorb radiation. A body with a higher emissivity absorbs more radiation and so has a higher temperature. This is why some scientists such as Nasif Nahle argue that CO2 has essentially no effect on temperature because they say it has a very low emissivity of 0.002.

Regarding the emissivity of a planet Surface Detail referenced an equation and once rearranged so temperature becomes the subject Wikipedia gives:



There are three variables in the equation, a, S, and ε. a is the albedo, S is the solar forcing, and ε the emissivity. The rest are constants. S (or 1368 W/m2) is divided by 4 in the equation apparently because the cross-sectional area exposed to the Sun is equal to 25% of the surface area of the Earth thereby giving around 239 W/m2 of solar radiation averaged out over the surface.

Assuming an emissivity of 0.612 we get a temperature of 288.2K. Decreasing emissivity increases the surface temperature in the equation. If the emissivity were 0.01 then the surface temperature would be 806K. That's a radiance at the surface of 23,900 W/m2. Is this possible, when solar forcing is only at 239 W/m2?

Regarding the emissivity of planetary temperatures Wikipedia says:

The temperature of a planet's surface is determined by the balance between the heat absorbed by the planet from sunlight, heat emitted from its core, and thermal radiation emitted back into space.

It seems that what Wikipedia is saying is that the emissivity of Earth reduces as greenhouse gases increase and they reduce outgoing longwave radiation. I assume Wikipedia is suggesting that the greenhouse gases distort Planck's black-body curve away from its original shape by creating depressions in the absorption wavebands thereby decreasing the emissivity of the planet.
Edited on 19-02-2016 19:29
19-02-2016 20:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
One Punch Man wrote:The emissivity is just a measure of a body to absorb radiation.

Emissivity is a constant.

One Punch Man wrote: Regarding the emissivity of a planet Surface Detail referenced an equation and once rearranged so temperature becomes the subject Wikipedia gives:


There are three variables in the equation, a, S, and ε. a is the albedo, S is the solar forcing, and ε the emissivity.

These are all constants.

There is no such thing as a "forcing."

S is the solar energy stream. You could/should treat it as a variable but it was being used as a constant value by Surface Detail.

Albedo is a constant. It's how much of S is reflected/deflected away.

One Punch Man wrote:Regarding the emissivity of planetary temperatures Wikipedia says:

I don't care what Wikipedia says. Can you find an authoritative source?

Anyway, the only way to increase earth's temperature T is for the sun to increase S. Emissivity, being a constant, does not change.

There is nothing to suggest that a higher quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere either reduces albedo or decreases emissivity.


.


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
20-02-2016 11:36
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
IBdaMann wrote:
Emissivity is a constant.

I am confused by what you mean here. By my understanding, the emissivity is a measure of how much radiation a body can absorb and emit across all wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum. The higher the emissivity of a body, the more radiation it can absorb and the higher its temperature should be. Hence why black materials with generally higher emissivities are hotter than white materials with lower emissivities. The emissivity of Earth I would think would not be a constant as the surfaces all have different emissivities and these surfaces are constantly changing, such as ice. The emissivity of a gas is also dependent on concentration. Hottel and Leckner have some interesting graphs based on experiments showing how the emissivity of CO2 changes with concentration.

Albedo is a constant. It's how much of S is reflected/deflected away.

My understanding is that as albedo changes then less solar radiation is absorbed by the surface causing changes in temperature. Why is albedo a constant?
20-02-2016 16:47
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
One Punch Man wrote:
Why is albedo a constant?

Albedo and emissivity are not constants. They are measured values that do not change for a material. This means that they remain constant for that given material.

This is not the case for "objects" that do not remain the same: atmospheric and surface constitution, in our case. Amount of ice on the surface changes both, for instance.

Emissivity doesn't measure how much radiation can be absorbed but how much energy can be emitted as thermal energy.
20-02-2016 17:08
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Hank Samler wrote:
[quote]This is not the case for "objects" that do not remain the same: atmospheric and surface constitution, in our case. Amount of ice on the surface changes both, for instance.

I agree. Even the human influence of simply laying down concrete over grass must change the emissivity of the Earth's surface by a finite, albeit perhaps immeasurably small amount. I don't think it's a constant.

Emissivity doesn't measure how much radiation can be absorbed as thermal energy.

Absorptivity equals emissivity in thermodynamic equilibrium. That's Kirchhoff's law. Emissivity is measured from 0 to 1, with 1 representing 100% absorption of incident radiation and 0 representing 0% absorption.
Edited on 20-02-2016 17:12
20-02-2016 18:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
One Punch Man wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Emissivity is a constant.

I am confused by what you mean here. By my understanding, the emissivity is a measure of how much radiation a body can absorb and emit across all wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum. The higher the emissivity of a body, the more radiation it can absorb and the higher its temperature should be.

Emissivity is a constant for a given body. When you see an equation involving emissivity (in science, not Wikipedia) it represents the constant of emissivity for that body.

When you write "measure of how much radiation" you should actually specify "the aggregate of the percentages of every wavelength in the domain in question.

For a blackbody or a planet, the domain will normally encompass all wavelengths, but there is nothing preventing you from taking a substance into a lab and checking its emissivity of UV-C, but you would specify that as you write up your results, i.e. that your emissivity value is only of UV-C.

Obviously warmizombies need to legitimize the notion that a constant is a variable so they can assign the needed values to make their otherwise violations of physics "work." Hank Samler makes as good an attempt as any to impart imagery of an earth that is morphing and mutating like Bruce Banner turning into the hulk. Allow me to lay out the argument so we are clear where the errors lie:

1. The constant is a variable.
2. The variable is changing "at an alarming rate."
3. "greenhouse gas" drives the change.

In all science models, emissivity is a constant, never a variable. No one has ever measured a change in earth's emissivity and until that happens we should not simply assume it is changing.

Following from the above, if no one can measure any change at all, we should not simply start panicking at an "alarming" rate of change.

No change in atmospheric.CO2, water vapor or methane can affect earth's emissivity. What can or cannot be absorbed by the new substance will be absorbed by the rest of the atmosphere, surface or the ocean. The earth will still absorb exactly the same amount of energy and will radiate the same amount of energy.

Let's look at what Hank Samler has to say:

Hank Samler wrote: This is not the case for "objects" that do not remain the same: atmospheric and surface constitution, in our case. Amount of ice on the surface changes both, for instance.

Unfortunately, Hank Samler is treating both emissivity and albedo together and is conflating the two in the case of surface ice.

I'll address other points in a separate post.


.


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
20-02-2016 23:29
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:Hank Samler is treating both emissivity and albedo together and is conflating the two in the case of surface ice.

It would be very convenient if Hank Samler were confused and conflated, now wouldn't it be?-)

Look: Ice reflects certain wavelenths of light quite effectively. That gives it a high albedo. So what? That wasn't my point.

A given piece of ice also has an amount of heat that has nothing to do with whether it is being shined on or not. You're the one who loves to stress the fact that everything is always loosing heat. Emissivity has to do with the rate at which that happens. Could you imagine that ice has a different emissivity than liquid water which is likewise different than steam?

Second point: "Earth" doesn't have one albedo or emissivity. Different landscapes do. "Average" is usually what the mixture is called. Can you imagine that these landscapes change over time? Forests, deserts, lakes, grasslands and limestone mountains all have different properties. And those most certainly do change.

Next point: "Earth" has different layers that also act differently. Of course you can look at that from outer space and treat it as one object.

If that is what you prefer to do, then so be it. Meaning:

IBdaMann wrote:No change in atmospheric.CO2, water vapor or methane can affect earth's emissivity. What can or cannot be absorbed by the new substance will be absorbed by the rest of the atmosphere, surface or the ocean. The earth will still absorb exactly the same amount of energy and will radiate the same amount of energy.

is just pure humbug and the mistake that gets you into most of your wrong conclusions. Sorry.
21-02-2016 03:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Hank Samler wrote:Next point: "Earth" has different layers that also act differently. Of course you can look at that from outer space and treat it as one object.

If that is what you prefer to do, then so be it. Meaning:

IBdaMann wrote:No change in atmospheric.CO2, water vapor or methane can affect earth's emissivity. What can or cannot be absorbed by the new substance will be absorbed by the rest of the atmosphere, surface or the ocean. The earth will still absorb exactly the same amount of energy and will radiate the same amount of energy.

is just pure humbug and the mistake that gets you into most of your wrong conclusions. Sorry.

Sorry, you lose. When science addresses earth as a body, the earth is being treated as one object, with one albedo (hence the one constant) and one emissivity (hence the one constant).

Go check the formula and point out for the rest of us the "layer" variable.

What? There isn't one? How can science have missed that? I guess it's true that warmizombies do have divine insight that the rest of humanity does not.

In light of this new revelation, sure, let's unnecessarily convolute the discussion with "layers" until we show that these additional layers somehow increase earth's temperature without the additional energy needed to increase earth's temperature.

Hank Samler wrote:It would be very convenient if Hank Samler were confused and conflated, now wouldn't it be?-)

The convenience of your confusion has nothing to do with your confusion.

Hank Samler wrote: Second point: "Earth" doesn't have one albedo or emissivity.

Yes it does. The one body we call earth has one emissivity and one albedo. Earth's albedo is a theoretical aggregate involving integrals of all different frequencies at all different angles across the surface of incidence. I stress the theoretical nature of earth's albedo because we have no way to accurately measure such a complex aggregate. We can't even accurately estimate, despite what Wikipedia would have you believe. Any albedo value used for earth is as good a guess as any.

[quote]Hank Samler wrote: Different landscapes do. "Average" is usually what the mixture is called. Can you imagine that these landscapes change over time? Forests, deserts, lakes, grasslands and limestone mountains all have different properties. And those most certainly do change.
I grant that specific things change, however you still have not made the case that earth's emissivity is somehow changing. Simply stating that some things on the earth are changing does not equate to earth's emissivity changing, ... much less that earth is getting warmer.

----------------


By the way, just because we were discussing ice I figured I'd ask you, if some ice melts, how does the ice beneath (that is now exposed) affect earth's albedo? Similarly, where ice is accumulating, how does the new ice on top change earth's albedo? Just wondering.


.


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
21-02-2016 04:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, the only way to increase earth's temperature T is for the sun to increase S. Emissivity, being a constant, does not change.

This bee you've got in your bonnet about emissivity always being a constant is hilarious. It's not a mathematical constant like pi or e; it's just treated as a constant for some purposes. In reality, its value depends on the nature of the surface and atmosphere of a planet. If these change, then the effective emissivity of the planet will also change.
21-02-2016 05:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, the only way to increase earth's temperature T is for the sun to increase S. Emissivity, being a constant, does not change.

This bee you've got in your bonnet about emissivity always being a constant is hilarious. It's not a mathematical constant like pi or e; it's just treated as a constant for some purposes. In reality, its value depends on the nature of the surface and atmosphere of a planet. If these change, then the effective emissivity of the planet will also change.

I am glad you decided to double down on your WACKY dogma. Since you refuse to ask for help, you are putting on quite a show.

You are correct in that earth's particular emissivity constant is not a universal constant like the constant of gravity or the Boltzmann constant. It is just the constant that applies to earth.

Oh, by the way, so is earth's radius, which is also in the formula. Any gullible moron who buys your desperate stretch of logic that earth's emissivity is a variable that is being changed by human activity (at an alarming rate I suppose) must also buy the argument that human construction, which is happening at unprecedented levels, is changing earth's radius at an alarming rate, or some other such absurdity. The logic is the same. Neither is supported whatsoever, but both can be ridiculously asserted.

Hey, Surface Detail, if "greenhouse gas" causes an increase in temperature to a planet in equilibrium, according to the formula, how must the earth's radius change to balance it out?

It is proving to be very entertaining watching you double down on a stupid line of illogic that you obviously haven't thought through, just to defend your blind faith in a WACKY dogma.

Priceless.


.


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
21-02-2016 17:31
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
Sorry, you lose.

I guess it is possible to be right and to loose at the same time. Something like the converse of a Pyrrhic victory, no? It's so sad that you're not the Presiding Judge of Scientific Correctness that you wish you imagine yourself as being, isn't it?

Wait. That was an ad hominem. I'm really starting to slip in niveau. ..

IBdaMann wrote:
Hank Samler wrote: Second point: "Earth" doesn't have one albedo or emissivity.

Yes it does. The one body we call earth has one emissivity and one albedo.

I will grant you that there is only one God. I'm not yet willing to include Emissivity and Albedo in the Trinity, however, simply at your hubble behest.

Why not? Only 15000 years ago, earth had a much different albedo than today. Now, if it were a constant, then how could that be!?

I grant that specific things change, however you still have not made the case that earth's emissivity is somehow changing.

This was neither my argument nor my intention. My point was the same as Surface's. We're not talking about pi here. Nor the earth's diameter. (Of course, I could answer like a known politician: "The earth's emissivity is always changing..")

I think you've got me in the wrong camp. That's a shame, 'cause you might just waste a lot of time arguing with a Hank that is not on this forum.

By the way, just because we were discussing ice ..

I'm afraid I'll have to direct your search for wisdom to a much wiser meditant than yours truly.
21-02-2016 18:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Hank Samler wrote:I guess it is possible to be right and to loose at the same time.

Not if what you lost was the point you were trying to make.

Hank Samler wrote: I will grant you that there is only one God. I'm not yet willing to include Emissivity and Albedo in the Trinity, however, simply at your hubble behest.

Your Holy Trinity is "Climate" the father, Global Warming the son and the Holy "greenhouse effect", Amen.

I made the point that the earth, as a body, has one emissivity and one aggregate albedo. You are on tap to support your claim that earth somehow has two or more emissivities and two or more albedos. I see you found it necessary to work the ad hominem first, but I presume you'll be getting to it soon.

Hank Samler wrote: Why not? Only 15000 years ago, earth had a much different albedo than today. Now, if it were a constant, then how could that be!?

So once again, after losing a not-well-thought-out point, the discussion is dragged down into the muck of semantic quibbling.

You are fighting tooth and nail to get accepted the notion that the earth's emissivity and albedo are changing measurably right now (otherwise it's a constant). Thus far your only support in this thread is to point to an equation and declare that a constant is a variable, then conclude that earth's emissivity is therefore changing such that "greenhouse effect" is proven...or something like that.

It's your claim that earth's emissivity is changing before our eyes. It's your burden to show it. Ad hominem welcome.

Hank Samler wrote:We're not talking about pi here. Nor the earth's diameter.

But I am. If Surface Detail can declare one of earth's constants (emissivity) a variable and then ask how that particular constant must change as T changes, then I too get to employ the same (il)logic and declare one of earth's constants (radius) a variable and ask how that particular constant must change as T changes.

Logic 101. You must either answer how much earth's radius will change wrt T or you must admit that Surface Detail's assertion is false.


.


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
21-02-2016 22:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, the only way to increase earth's temperature T is for the sun to increase S. Emissivity, being a constant, does not change.

This bee you've got in your bonnet about emissivity always being a constant is hilarious. It's not a mathematical constant like pi or e; it's just treated as a constant for some purposes. In reality, its value depends on the nature of the surface and atmosphere of a planet. If these change, then the effective emissivity of the planet will also change.


If these change, show how you calculate emissivity. Otherwise the equation itself has no meaning!


The Parrot Killer
22-02-2016 00:07
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
... It's your claim that earth's emissivity is changing before our eyes.

Where did I claim that? You're funny.

I have been introduced to your argument for not rationally discussing climate science since the first day on this board. It took me a couple of days to figure it out and find its glaring holes.

You on the other hand are obviously not above making my claims for me so that you have something to argue about, harping on your beliefs. What I completely disagree with you about is the use of terms in a formula:

Has the diameter of the earth changed in 15,000 years (or 1 billion for that matter)?

Not to my knowlege. If it did, then you can make the assumed constant a variable. (What if the earth were twice as wide? What a fun thought.)

Has the earth's Albedo changed in 15,000years?

Obviously.

Ergo: Variable.
22-02-2016 00:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Hank Samler wrote:I have been introduced to your argument for not rationally discussing climate science since the first day on this board.

...because there is no such thing as "climate science." There is "climate" dogma that warmizombies insist is science by their having appended the word "science."

You have not presented any science. You have demonstrated the inability to discern science from religion since the first day you started posting on this forum.

I'll tell you what, let's start over.

Present a falsifiable Global Warming argument and we'll discuss. Present the affirmative point that you want to make. If you aren't making any point then your job is easy and you don't have to post anything.

Hank Samler wrote: It took me a couple of days to figure it out and find its glaring holes.

Holes in science? Good luck trying to show those. I am not the one making any arguments for anything. I am simply applying science to the WACKY warmizombie arguments presented in this forum.

Oh wait. You do think science has holes...except you don't recognize the standard body of science as science. You have been duped into thinking that your WACKY religion is science. You blindly follow "The Science" which you believe is actual science because it has the word "Science" in the name. You never check for falsifiability because falsifiability is, in no way, desired. You don't ask for any margin of error because you believe your religion bestows divine knowledge upon you and, as such, is inerrant.

Hank Samler wrote: You on the other hand are obviously not above making my claims for me

I certainly don't want to do that. Let's start over. State your claims. Please ensure they are falsifiable.
Hank Samler wrote: What I completely disagree with you about is the use of terms in a formula:

...and that stems from your lack understanding of the formula. That's all. If you don't understand the formula then it's entirely understandable that you can't discuss it in proper context. But not doing your research is on you. You can't say that I haven't told you many times that emissivity is a constant in the equation in question.

You're free to simply disagree because your religious dogma requires it. I have no heartburn with that.

Hank Samler wrote: Has the diameter of the earth changed in 15,000 years (or 1 billion for that matter)?

Has the earth's diameter ever changed? Did you answer "yes"? Well good, it's variable too. So we're back to my question that you haven't answered, by the way. If the earth is in equilbrium, how much does the radius of the earth change to compensate for changes in S? It doesn't? OK. ...but I'm supposed to assume that emissivity changes, however.

Look up "special pleading."

.


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
22-02-2016 10:20
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank Samler wrote: Has the diameter of the earth changed in 15,000 years (or 1 billion for that matter)?

Has the earth's diameter ever changed?

You brought up diameter.

So here goes:
The diameter of the earth has changed. That was 4.5 billion years ago as the earth collided with Theia.

The result was the moon and a bigger earth.

Ever heard of that?
22-02-2016 13:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Hank Samler wrote:So here goes:
The diameter of the earth has changed. That was 4.5 billion years ago as the earth collided with Theia.

I am willing to treat earth's emissivity, radius and other constants as variables for purposes of our discussion.

So the question remains. How do these otherwise constant variables change to compensate for changes in T to maintain equilibrium.


.


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
22-02-2016 17:03
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
I am willing to treat earth's emissivity..

No you're not. Otherwise you would accept OPM's 806K.
22-02-2016 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Hank Samler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I am willing to treat earth's emissivity..

No you're not. Otherwise you would accept OPM's 806K.

Before you start calling people a liar dude, answer the question put to you. It is not necessary to accept a number unless one knows the source and method of creating that number.

The question now stands:
How does emissivity change (how is it calculated or measured)? If you are going to use it as a variable, you must have an answer to this question first.


The Parrot Killer
22-02-2016 21:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Hank Samler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I am willing to treat earth's radius..

No you're not. Otherwise you would accept OPM's 806K.

Wow. Talk about showing your true colors. It turns out that you were not interested in me allowing earth's constants to be treated as variables to facilitate discussion. You wanted only for me to blindly accept some conclusion, shutting down all conversation on the matter.

OK, so we're back to earth's constants being constants. Are we done?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-02-2016 21:53
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
OK, so we're back to earth's constants being constants. Are we done?

Boy, that was fun.

If emissivity is a constant, then you have to explain something very, very deep, important and utterly non-avoidable for arguing climate.

Earth's temperature (average or what have you) depends on radiation (light, uv and infrared) from the sun.

How do you explain that 3 Billion years ago, the sun shone at 80% of ist present luminosity? Which means that the earth got 80% of its present radiation, of course. The earth, however was about the same temperature as it is today.

So praytell, what was different back then??

Could it be that the composition of the atmosphere was so much different than that of today? Methane, CO2 and much more water vapor?

Or can you pull another variable out of your..

..hats?
23-02-2016 00:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Hank Samler wrote: How do you explain that 3 Billion years ago, the sun shone at 80% of ist present luminosity? Which means that the earth got 80% of its present radiation, of course. The earth, however was about the same temperature as it is today.


That's some pretty divine knowledge you're getting from all that faith you have in Global Warming. Here we are in modern day and humanity still cannot accurately measure/compute the average global temperature (whatever that is supposed to mean) but all you have to do is pray to "climate" and the earth's average global temperatures throughout history are revealed unto thee.

When you have a spare moment look up "proof by assertion."


.


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
23-02-2016 12:36
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
When you have a spare moment look up "proof by assertion."


So what your saying is that we don't know that the sun was at least 20% weaker than it is now. That THE SCIENCE doesn't know that the sun is a G-type main-sequence star and that these stars increase in strength about 7% every billion years.

Or what is it you're trying to convey?

From that time (back then) we have fossilized Stromatolites (okay, 2.7 billion years ago) and because of photosynthesis and the production of oxygen, the earth got colder and froze over from 2.4 to 2.1 billion ya).

Please figure out what was going on back then and get back to us.
23-02-2016 13:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Hank Samler wrote: So what your saying is ...

This is not a "What your [sic] saying is..." moment. I wrote exactly what I was saying.

You somehow believe that your WACKY religious faith bestows virtual omniscience. You actually expect acceptance of your Global Warming dogma on that basis.

I.e. you expect gullibility in others just as you were gullible.

Hank Samler wrote: Please figure out what was going on back then and get back to us.

Will you accept whatever my omniscience tells you?


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
23-02-2016 14:05
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
Will you accept whatever my omniscience tells you?

I would be surprised if you have any explanation.

The only thing I see you and ITN do on this forum is to say "no it isn't".

"There is no such thing as an average temperature" ?!?
"And if there were one, then it is falling and not rising (or about to beause of the next Minimum)!??
"Air composition has no effect on surface temperature" ?!?
"Glaciers are not receding" ?!?
Ask anyone in the Alps what has happened to the glaciers the past 200 years - a process that has sped up in the last decades, just to name one example.

Yes, the earth is warming. How much? That is certainly a matter of debate and of measurement and margins of error.
Yes, Co2 has a part in that. How much of it? I doubt as much as the models from the IPCC indicate.
Yes, human activity is a major cause. Probably more from changing the landscapes and building cities and parking lots (smallest changes in albedo) than from that "evil gas" Co2 (smallest changes in emissivity).

Can I prove any of this? Not much.

Am I afraid for myself or for my children because of it? Hardly. The world's poor will probably get hit hard - which they do whenever Problems come along.

If that's a true "believer" to you, then we really don't have a basis for conversation. If you're trying to find wisdom/knowledge or whatever, I'm more than willing to compare notes.
23-02-2016 14:56
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, the only way to increase earth's temperature T is for the sun to increase S. Emissivity, being a constant, does not change.

But this is not true. The Earth's emissivity is dependent on the surfaces (and also the atmospheric constituents such as clouds) and these surfaces are continuously changing in accordance with a host of environmental parameters including the human influence of covering over grass with concrete. Therefore the emissivity of the Earth must also change by definition. And when that happens, the Earth will absorb more or less radiation, and its temperature will change. Whether the emissivity of the Earth is known to be changing I think is irrelevant to the question of whether or not emissivity is a constant. It cannot be a constant because if it was a constant then the Earth's surface would never change. The equation on Wikipedia predicting a temperature of 806K at an emissivity of 0.1 may be scientific mumbo-jumbo, but emissivity is not a constant.
Edited on 23-02-2016 15:16
23-02-2016 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
One Punch Man wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, the only way to increase earth's temperature T is for the sun to increase S. Emissivity, being a constant, does not change.

But this is not true. The Earth's emissivity is dependent on the surfaces (and also the atmospheric constituents such as clouds) and these surfaces are continuously changing in accordance with a host of environmental parameters including the human influence of covering over grass with concrete. Therefore the emissivity of the Earth must also change by definition. And when that happens, the Earth will absorb more or less radiation, and its temperature will change. Whether the emissivity of the Earth is known to be changing I think is irrelevant to the question of whether or not emissivity is a constant. It cannot be a constant because if it was a constant then the Earth's surface would never change. The equation on Wikipedia predicting a temperature of 806K at an emissivity of 0.1 may be scientific mumbo-jumbo, but emissivity is not a constant.

Then you must be able to show how it is calculated or measured.


The Parrot Killer
23-02-2016 22:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Hank Samler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Will you accept whatever my omniscience tells you?

I would be surprised if you have any explanation.

The only thing I see you and ITN do on this forum is to say "no it isn't".

Because we are generally disagreeing with someone (like you) that keep veering from the laws of physics or that keep wandering into fallacies.

"There is no such thing as an average temperature" ?!?[/quote]
There isn't.
Hank Samler wrote:
"And if there were one, then it is falling and not rising (or about to beause of the next Minimum)!??

There still isn't. IBdaMann is talking about sun activity and its probable effect, not about global temperature, which doesn't exist.
Hank Samler wrote:
"Air composition has no effect on surface temperature" ?!?

It doesn't.
Hank Samler wrote:
"Glaciers are not receding" ?!?

They aren't. Some are, some are not, some are growing.
Hank Samler wrote:
Ask anyone in the Alps what has happened to the glaciers the past 200 years - a process that has sped up in the last decades, just to name one example.

This is as you say one example. It's not even right. The Alps range consists of many glaciers, some growing, some receding, some just staying there. Glaciers grow and recede more due to snowfall or the lack of it than anything else, not temperature changes.
Hank Samler wrote:

Yes, the earth is warming.

How do you know?
Hank Samler wrote:
How much? That is certainly a matter of debate and of measurement and margins of error.

Unknown. There is no global temperature.
Hank Samler wrote:
Yes, Co2 has a part in that.

Why?
Hank Samler wrote:
How much of it?

None.
Hank Samler wrote:
I doubt as much as the models from the IPCC indicate.

Quite true.
Hank Samler wrote:
Yes, human activity is a major cause.

How do you know this? There is no data. Just a semi-useless government statistic.
Hank Samler wrote:
Probably more from changing the landscapes and building cities and parking lots (smallest changes in albedo) than from that "evil gas" Co2 (smallest changes in emissivity).

I think you will find we change the landscape very little. Cities can modify where some weather goes, but only in a very minor way.
Hank Samler wrote:
Can I prove any of this?

No. For two reasons. First, there is no data. Second, there is no such thing as a proof in science or rhetoric.
Hank Samler wrote:
Am I afraid for myself or for my children because of it? Hardly.

Good.
Hank Samler wrote:
The world's poor will probably get hit hard

Why?
Hank Samler wrote:
- which they do whenever Problems come along.

Is there a problem?
Hank Samler wrote:
If that's a true "believer" to you, then we really don't have a basis for conversation. If you're trying to find wisdom/knowledge or whatever, I'm more than willing to compare notes.

The true believer in the Religion accepts the dogma that CO2 has some magick properties. They accept the dogma that man is destroying the planet. They accept the dogma that we must cast aside everything to deal with the 'problem' as soon as possible. They accept the use of fudged and fabricated data to 'prove' their theory, even though observations do not prove theories in science.

If you call putting down this Religion as saying "No, it isn't" all the time, then you are right. I have no intention on joining the Religion. I do not think IBdaMann has any intention of doing so either.


The Parrot Killer
23-02-2016 22:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Hank Samler wrote:I would be surprised if you have any explanation.

Explanation for what? I'm not the one claiming violations of the laws of physics. That would be you.

Oh wait, that's right. We're in the "attempt to shift the burden of proof" phase of the cycle. You want me to somehow explain how you don't really have divinely bestown omniscience, and if I don't thusly prove that you do not, to your satisfaction, you must then somehow be correct in your divinely bestown omniscience.

Yeah, I see how that works.

While I have you, would you mind helping me settle a standing bet that I have with a friend? What was the earth's average global temperature 476, 838,029 years ago at noon zulu? Since we can't carry tens of millions of synchronized thermometers back in time we are somewhat dependent upon your kind of "climate" omniscience.

Hank Samler wrote: The only thing I see you and ITN do on this forum is to say "no it isn't".

I'd love to take credit for all that but the credit goes to all the scientists who created our current body of science that I merely cite. They did all the hard work so that my job is really easy, i.e. showing the absurd dogma of your WACKY religion to be false (when, of course, you make occasional falsifiable assertions).

Hank Samler wrote:"There is no such thing as an average temperature" ?!?

Did you just omit key wording in order to completely misrepresent my position so you can attack something I never said so you can "claim victory"?

I never said that there is no such thing as an average temperature.

Hank Samler wrote: "And if there were one, then it is falling and not rising (or about to beause of the next Minimum)!??

If you're talking about solar output currently decreasing then yes. When the sun's output decreases then earth's T decreases. Check your formula.

Hank Samler wrote:"Air composition has no effect on surface temperature" ?!?

Did you just completely alter the semantics of something completely different that I did say into the above that I did not say just to attack that which I did not say so you can 'claim victory"?

I'm seeing a pattern here. Are you not able to state what your argument is? I still don't see it anywhere.

This is where we currently stand: You are bothered that your WACKY religious dogma cannot be expressed in anything falsifiable that does not violate the laws of physics. You thus are avoiding making falsifiable statements concerning your dogma (lest they shown to be false and you feel even more bothered) and you misrepresent my application of science to your WACKY religious dogma in order to make yourself feel better.

Unfortunately, science won't be going away anytime soon. Your religion, on the other hand, is dying. It would be best to get out now before your religion pulls a Moby Dick on you.

Hank Samler wrote: "Glaciers are not receding" ?!?

Of course there are some glaciers that are receding. Do you acknowledge that there are glaciers that are growing as well? Do you acknowledge that ice is accumulating on the Greenland Ice Sheet? Hint: check my signature below. Climate Scientist ran away crying because he couldn't accept the official findings of accurate measurements showing an overall accumulation of ice on the sheet. Are you going to run away crying as well? That's what I call "run away Global Warming"!

Hank Samler wrote: Yes, the earth is warming. How much? That is certainly a matter of debate and of measurement and margins of error.

In that one sentence you have conveyed that:

1) Mortal humans cannot know the earth's temperatures given humanity's technical limitations, *BUT*

2) You, on the other hand, can nonetheless know because your faith and devotion simply grant you the knowledge and the wisdom.

I suppose it would therefore be silly to ask you how, despite humanity being unable to accurately measure the earth's average global temperature (whatever that is supposed to mean) for any useful purpose, that you are able to know that earth's temperature is specifically increasing right now and specifically not decreasing right now.

Hank Samler wrote: Yes, Co2 has a part in that.

How? Please explain, in falsifiable terms, how CO2 increases temperature and I'll happily apply verifiable science to show that you are full of WACKY religious Global Warming shit.

Please, explain away...

Hank Samler wrote:How much of it? I doubt as much as the models from the IPCC indicate.

IPCC models are merely exercises in proving what has already assumed. Any invocation of "IPCC models" or "climate models" is invalid and summarily dismissed.

Hank Samler wrote: Yes, human activity is a major cause.

Gun rights is also a major cause. So is finding a cure for cancer.

Hank Samler wrote: Can I prove any of this? Not much.

I figured that much. You simply have faith that it's true, just like Christians have faith that their dogma is true.

Hank Samler wrote:Am I afraid for myself or for my children because of it? Hardly. The world's poor will probably get hit hard - which they do whenever Problems come along.

Christians tell me that they aren't afraid of the coming judgement day either. Sure, the sinners and non-believers will probably get hit hard - which they do whenever God makes a judgement.

Hank Samler wrote: If that's a true "believer" to you, then we really don't have a basis for conversation.

I know. You have EVADED all discussion on science, instead keeping the discussion within the safety of your dogma and your WACKY assumptions. You can't support any of it, remember?

Let's bury this point, shall we? Let's leave religion far behind. State, for the record, the science that you have reviewed and understand that has convinced you that Global Warming is real. Right here. Right now. I am dying to compare notes.


.


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 01:13
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]One Punch Man wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
Then you must be able to show how it is calculated or measured.

How what is measured and calculated? The entire average emissivity of the Earth? I don't need to know how the average emissivity of the Earth is calculated to be able to say that concrete is a different material than grass and therefore they must have different emissivities. I am not claiming to know what the average emissivity of Earth is or if it has changed measurably. What I am saying simply is that the emissivity of the Earth is not a constant. It cannot be a constant, by definition, because the surfaces of the planet are in a constant state of flux. Of course, I suppose the word constant is itself problematic because a lot of the constants that we call constants are not constants. For example the acceleration constant due to gravity on Earth is given as 9.8 ms^2 but varies and the speed of light changes depending on the circumstances such as inside of an atomic nuclei.
24-02-2016 01:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
One Punch Man wrote:How what is measured and calculated? The entire average emissivity of the Earth? I don't need to know how the average emissivity of the Earth is calculated to be able to say that concrete is a different material than grass and therefore they must have different emissivities.

You are mistaken.

If the subject is earth's emissivity then I don't care about anything else's emissivity. If you are going to claim a change in earth's emissivity then yes, you absolutely need to show how earth's emissivity will be measured to verify said change in earth's emissivity.

Fine, talk all day about the differences in emissivity of a never-ending list of different substances. Nothing in that indicates any more or any less of the sun's energy is absorbed by the earth, and thus radiated by the earth. You can certainly speculate but until you verify earth's emissivity has changed you can't assert earth's emissivity has changed.

To assert earth's emissivity has changed, you need to measure it and discover two different values...hence, a change.

So, how will you measure earth's emissivity?


.


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 02:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, the only way to increase earth's temperature T is for the sun to increase S. Emissivity, being a constant, does not change.

But this is not true. The Earth's emissivity is dependent on the surfaces (and also the atmospheric constituents such as clouds) and these surfaces are continuously changing in accordance with a host of environmental parameters including the human influence of covering over grass with concrete. Therefore the emissivity of the Earth must also change by definition. And when that happens, the Earth will absorb more or less radiation, and its temperature will change. Whether the emissivity of the Earth is known to be changing I think is irrelevant to the question of whether or not emissivity is a constant. It cannot be a constant because if it was a constant then the Earth's surface would never change. The equation on Wikipedia predicting a temperature of 806K at an emissivity of 0.1 may be scientific mumbo-jumbo, but emissivity is not a constant.

Then you must be able to show how it is calculated or measured.

Nope, that's a major logic fail on your part. You and IBdaMann are the ones who are making the ridiculous assertion that emissivity must remain constant. OMP has merely pointed out that if the factors upon which emissivity depends, i.e. the nature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, change, then emissivity must also change. He doesn't have to do any more than that to show that you're wrong.

The equation, by the way, is not mumbo-jumbo. It is just the simplest way of expressing the radiation balance of the Earth. The Earth would indeed have a very high temperature if its emissivity were 0.1; it doesn't have an emissivity of 0.1 though, and is never likely to.
24-02-2016 02:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, the only way to increase earth's temperature T is for the sun to increase S. Emissivity, being a constant, does not change.

But this is not true. The Earth's emissivity is dependent on the surfaces (and also the atmospheric constituents such as clouds) and these surfaces are continuously changing in accordance with a host of environmental parameters including the human influence of covering over grass with concrete. Therefore the emissivity of the Earth must also change by definition. And when that happens, the Earth will absorb more or less radiation, and its temperature will change. Whether the emissivity of the Earth is known to be changing I think is irrelevant to the question of whether or not emissivity is a constant. It cannot be a constant because if it was a constant then the Earth's surface would never change. The equation on Wikipedia predicting a temperature of 806K at an emissivity of 0.1 may be scientific mumbo-jumbo, but emissivity is not a constant.

Then you must be able to show how it is calculated or measured.

Nope, that's a major logic fail on your part. You and IBdaMann are the ones who are making the ridiculous assertion that emissivity must remain constant. OMP has merely pointed out that if the factors upon which emissivity depends, i.e. the nature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, change, then emissivity must also change. He doesn't have to do any more than that to show that you're wrong.

Yes he does. So do you if you are going to go down this road. You are claiming a circular argument as logic. Do NOT try to battle me with logic! You will lose!

Surface Detail wrote:
The equation, by the way, is not mumbo-jumbo. It is just the simplest way of expressing the radiation balance of the Earth. The Earth would indeed have a very high temperature if its emissivity were 0.1; it doesn't have an emissivity of 0.1 though, and is never likely to.

The equation is meaningless unless you can show me how both emissivity and albedo are either calculated or measured with any reasonable accuracy. I reserve judgement on the sensibilities of the equation itself at this time.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2016 03:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
One Punch Man wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]One Punch Man wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
Then you must be able to show how it is calculated or measured.

How what is measured and calculated? The entire average emissivity of the Earth?

Yes.
One Punch Man wrote:
I don't need to know how the average emissivity of the Earth is calculated to be able to say that concrete is a different material than grass and therefore they must have different emissivities.

You are talking about local albedo, not emissivity.
One Punch Man wrote:
I am not claiming to know what the average emissivity of Earth is or if it has changed measurably.

You will have to know it to use it in the equation.
One Punch Man wrote:
What I am saying simply is that the emissivity of the Earth is not a constant.

Not yet sufficiently shown. You seem to be confusing emissivity with albedo.
One Punch Man wrote:
It cannot be a constant, by definition, because the surfaces of the planet are in a constant state of flux.

An extension of the same confusion.
One Punch Man wrote:
Of course, I suppose the word constant is itself problematic because a lot of the constants that we call constants are not constants. For example the acceleration constant due to gravity on Earth is given as 9.8 ms^2 but varies
[quote]One Punch Man wrote:
and the speed of light changes depending on the circumstances such as inside of an atomic nuclei.

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.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-02-2016 03:11
24-02-2016 04:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Surface Detail wrote: You and IBdaMann are the ones who are making the ridiculous assertion that emissivity must remain constant.

You are apparently making no attempt to be honest.

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? I even agreed to treat earth's constants as variables for purposes of our discussion when strangely you declared that I somehow was not authorized to agree to that or some other such odd assertion. Do you remember declaring that I don't agree to what I agreed?

In any event, you are the one claiming that earth's emissivity is changing measurably yet you remain in a death-struggle to EVADE explaining how you know this. Your preferred tactic is to attack the misrepresentation of my position that you have assigned to me.

Let's start by you showing how earth's emissivity is changing right now without confusing emissivity for albedo. Please include how you measure earth's emissivity for verification.

Surface Detail wrote: OMP has merely pointed out that if the factors upon which emissivity depends, i.e. the nature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, change, then emissivity must also change.

One cannot "point out" that which is not true.

Vague, undefined "changes" of the undefined "nature" of the earth's surface do not necessarily change the earth's emissivity. It seems OPM is conflating emissivity with albedo. Why did you not alert him to his error? Might it be that you have not thought this through very well and that you also made the same error?

Surface Detail wrote: He doesn't have to do any more than that to show that you're wrong.

At this point you only seem to be in this to prove me wrong about something. I'll help you out.

Black is white.
Night is day.
Thomas Jefferson was a communist.

There. Will that do?

Surface Detail wrote:The equation, by the way, is not mumbo-jumbo. It is just the simplest way of expressing the radiation balance of the Earth.

If you'll notice, the equation does not represent a "balance" of anything but rather the relationship between an incoming energy stream to the temperature of a body, with various constants factoring into the relationship.


.


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 10:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, the only way to increase earth's temperature T is for the sun to increase S. Emissivity, being a constant, does not change.

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?

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.

I never said anything about the Earth's radius changing - 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.
Edited on 24-02-2016 10:52
Page 1 of 212>





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