In general...

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:....heat, which is not energy...

Um, hate to state the obvious but heat is energy.

Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...heat itself is a form of energy,...

James___ wrote:
I just don't understand how the 2 of you don't get the basics.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:....heat, which is not energy...

Um, hate to state the obvious but heat is energy.

But James it's the obvious that ITN/IBD spend ALL of their time attacking (it's a way to avoid a real battle). Yep, you're right and IBD is dead wrong as usual. Max Planck has your back (as does Captain Obvious)

Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...heat itself is a form of energy,...

James___ wrote:
I just don't understand how the 2 of you don't get the basics.

The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars. They want to win and they have this pathetic insane strategy to do it. Meanwhile the real issue moves on without them.

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

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:....heat, which is not energy...

Um, hate to state the obvious but heat is energy.

But James it's the obvious that ITN/IBD spend ALL of their time attacking

tmiddles wrote:
(it's a way to avoid a real battle).

tmiddles wrote:
Yep, you're right and IBD is dead wrong as usual. Max Planck has your back (as does Captain Obvious)

tmiddles wrote:

Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...heat itself is a form of energy,...

James___ wrote:
I just don't understand how the 2 of you don't get the basics.

The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars. They want to win and they have this pathetic insane strategy to do it. Meanwhile the real issue moves on without them.

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:....heat, which is not energy...

Um, hate to state the obvious but heat is energy.

But James it's the obvious that ITN/IBD spend ALL of their time attacking (it's a way to avoid a real battle). Yep, you're right and IBD is dead wrong as usual. Max Planck has your back (as does Captain Obvious)

Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...heat itself is a form of energy,...

James___ wrote:
I just don't understand how the 2 of you don't get the basics.

The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars. They want to win and they have this pathetic insane strategy to do it. Meanwhile the real issue moves on without them.

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

I don't think they get it. I mean something that has a lot of heat content should be radiating it as heat. But what happens when it's conserved? It gets cooler but thermodynamics requires it to be radiated. A paradox in the laws of thermodynamics.

James___ wrote: I mean something that has a lot of heat content should be radiating it as heat.

A system has a well-defined internal energy, but we cannot say that it has a certain "heat content" or "work content". We use the phrase "heat transfer" to emphasize its nature.

James___ wrote: But what happens when it's conserved?

tmiddles wrote: The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars.

tmiddles wrote: They want to win ... "

tmiddles wrote:
But this is the sad thing. There is a robust, well supported and interesting counter to AGW put forth by real scientists like Huffman. The lunatics on this forum won't discuss them...

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
I can't let go of my belief that there are other very significant factors that influence global weather. However all I want to understand is the effect of CO2 on temperature. I want to remain open minded but am wary of being misled.

Since CO2 is not a source of energy, it does not add additional energy to Earth. Only the Sun provides Earth's energy. Using CO2 to raise the temperature violates the 1st law of thermodynamics...

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote]Harry C wrote:
A light bulb moment realizing the difference between energy and temperature change.

I really hate to dim light bulbs but a temperature change does, in fact, equal an amount of energy. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy, and a calorie is defined as the amount of energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1°C ... which equals 4.187 joules.

tmiddles wrote:
Only the SUN can do that boys...

tmiddles wrote:
Do you think textbooks are corrupted with a false 2nd LTD?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
... obviously staged photos by leftist fake-reporters.

...the Chorlotsville "Unite the Right" protest did not have...neo-Nazi presence? ...Presumably everyone in the photo was hired with the wealthy photographer hoping no one would tell on him later?

tmiddles wrote:
The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars. They want to win and they have this pathetic insane strategy to do it.

James___ wrote:
I don't think they get it. I mean something that has a lot of heat content should be radiating it as heat. But what happens when it's conserved? It gets cooler but thermodynamics requires it to be radiated. A paradox in the laws of thermodynamics.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
But this is the sad thing. There is a robust, well supported and interesting counter to AGW put forth by real scientists like Huffman. The lunatics on this forum won't discuss them...

Here it's a carrousel to nowhere. Huffman's asking questions about the process that determines a planet's surface and air temps, notably the striking agreement of Venus's air with Earth's at the 200 to 1000 mb pressure levels, if the greater solar flux at Venus is allowed for. That is a scientific observation, and it needs to be explained.

VernerHornung wrote:
There's also a low-pressure "Mars problem" with lots of CO2 and very little greenhouse. The global warming popularizers oddly forget our sister planets.

VernerHornung wrote:
Is Huffman wrong? Probably. And so are the CO2 devotees. Both hold pieces of the puzzle, and it's Jumbo Jigsaw with two pieces fitted, 998 to finish. But on the carrousel, we can't even get started on the unsolved pieces. They're falling off the ride in blatant self-contradictions like this:

1) It's not possible to measure temperature.
2) Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.

VernerHornung wrote:
If statement (1) is true, how could we know about the other statement?

VernerHornung wrote:
Nonetheless, (2) furnishes disinformation in our game of Spy vs. Spy:

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:
I can't let go of my belief that there are other very significant factors that influence global weather. However all I want to understand is the effect of CO2 on temperature. I want to remain open minded but am wary of being misled.

Since CO2 is not a source of energy, it does not add additional energy to Earth. Only the Sun provides Earth's energy. Using CO2 to raise the temperature violates the 1st law of thermodynamics...

IBdaMann wrote:

[quote]Harry C wrote:
A light bulb moment realizing the difference between energy and temperature change.

I really hate to dim light bulbs but a temperature change does, in fact, equal an amount of energy. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy, and a calorie is defined as the amount of energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1°C ... which equals 4.187 joules.

Test: Run your household furnace with the windows open until it's bone cold. If temperature can't increase without additional energy, then closing the windows won't warm the house.

VernerHornung wrote:
There's no additional energy, just the same furnace.

VernerHornung wrote:
Both of you have abused the heat capacity concept in your discussion with Harry C., as it's true one must add 4.187 J to raise a gram of water from 14.5˚C to 15.5˚. This definition, however, assumes no heat losses from the gram of water while James Joule adds his 4.187 J.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Only the SUN can do that boys...

So you need a furnace to raise the temperature of your house, but opening the windows introduces a large heat loss

VernerHornung wrote:
Messrs. Spy chose to ignore when "educating" Harry C. off the forum. The idea that air might act somewhat like a window bleaches the libertarian loons.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Do you think textbooks are corrupted with a false 2nd LTD?

'Twas was a hoax heartier than the moonwalks at Paramount Studios! A new textbook correcting the falsehoods of Joule, Kelvin, Planck and Fermi has therefore been written I trust you'll find amusing.

VernerHornung wrote:

James___ wrote:
I don't think they get it. I mean something that has a lot of heat content should be radiating it as heat. But what happens when it's conserved? It gets cooler but thermodynamics requires it to be radiated. A paradox in the laws of thermodynamics.

I'd advise consulting a book. But notice it's energy that's conserved, and heat is just one form of energy. It can be converted to other forms such as mechanical work, as in an automobile's cylinders, or radiation, as in the sun. And it isn't the same thing as temperature. A flaring matchhead is hot, but won't send enough energy to heat a cup of coffee. Ever notice how long it stays warm around a lake in the fall? The beach air is warmer than the air in a pasture a mile from the lake, and the weather grows wintry days before the lake freezes.

The temperature determines how quickly a surface will radiate, but not how long it will continue radiating before it cools to the temperature of the surrounding environment.

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' observation...

Into the Night wrote:
Sure it will. It just won't warm it as well, since you are also putting thermal energy outside (assuming it's colder outside).

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
If statement (1) is true, how could we know about the other statement?

The first law of thermodynamics.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' observation...

Great. Let's get our plows out, set up the shops for the miller, the butcher & the blacksmith and go back to living the way we did in 1348 when the Black Death was striking our neighbors down left and right for reasons we've no clue about.

People of that age were just as good at observing things as we are. They weren't stupid. But lacking a framework in which to sort out their observations, beyond religious teachings and the speculations of the newly-revived Aristotle, their ability to make progress at understanding—and controlling—their environment remained hobbled.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Sure it will. It just won't warm it as well, since you are also putting thermal energy outside (assuming it's colder outside).

And true to your style, you've put everything backward to confuse the issue. I said that closing the windows will warm your house if you've left them open while the furnace is running. I said nothing about the furnace warming the house while the windows were still open.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
If statement (1) is true, how could we know about the other statement?

The first law of thermodynamics.

Except you can't derive the first law of thermodynamics if it's impossible to measure temperature. Nor would you think to do so, if there's no such thing as scientific observation.

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, there are observations ... there just aren't any scientific observations. In your mind, what did you imagine constitutes a scientific observation vs. a normal, non-scientific observation?

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, there are observations ... there just aren't any scientific observations. In your mind, what did you imagine constitutes a scientific observation vs. a normal, non-scientific observation?

Instruments per se have little to do with making an observation scientific.

VernerHornung wrote: It's the systematic recording of repeated observations and the attention paid to the conditions under which they're made that count.

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, there are observations ... there just aren't any scientific observations. In your mind, what did you imagine constitutes a scientific observation vs. a normal, non-scientific observation?

Instruments per se have little to do with making an observation scientific.

No instrument has any power to transform any observation into science, nor does any quantity of observations magickally create science. There are no "scientific" observations. There are only observations.

Humans create science. Any observations that potentially inspire science remain just observations ... that inspired the science which is completely separate and distinct.

VernerHornung wrote: It's the systematic recording of repeated observations and the attention paid to the conditions under which they're made that count.

... yet you never once came to Into the Night's defense when he was being bashed by tmiddles for explaining what is obviously your position on this.

Not once.

.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' observation...

Great. Let's get our plows out, set up the shops for the miller, the butcher & the blacksmith and go back to living the way we did in 1348 when the Black Death was striking our neighbors down left and right for reasons we've no clue about.

People of that age were just as good at observing things as we are. They weren't stupid. But lacking a framework in which to sort out their observations, beyond religious teachings and the speculations of the newly-revived Aristotle, their ability to make progress at understanding—and controlling—their environment remained hobbled.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Sure it will. It just won't warm it as well, since you are also putting thermal energy outside (assuming it's colder outside).

And true to your style, you've put everything backward to confuse the issue. I said that closing the windows will warm your house if you've left them open while the furnace is running. I said nothing about the furnace warming the house while the windows were still open.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
If statement (1) is true, how could we know about the other statement?

The first law of thermodynamics.

Except you can't derive the first law of thermodynamics if it's impossible to measure temperature.

VernerHornung wrote:
Nor would you think to do so, if there's no such thing as scientific observation.

VernerHornung wrote:
...deleted irrelevant material...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why worry about internal combustion engines anymore?

HarveyH55 wrote:
We are all going to be driving greenmobiles, whether we want to or not.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, least have on parked in the driveway or garage. Probably want get to use them much, with the frequent blackouts, preventing any but the rich, to keep them charged.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Renewable energy is useless, if it isn't reliable.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Our current distribution grid isn't compatible with unpredictable supplies, from many sources.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Our current grid, barely handles the unpredictable demands on it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Really surprised the global warming crap has lasted this long, it's got to die out soon.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The running out of fossil fuels has been running since the 70s, and still going strong, even though production has more than doubled, and still plenty of places barely touched on protected lands, and do to environmental concerns.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Basically, we still have a lot in the ground to last, long after global warming kills us off...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems to me, if the Russians can land on Venus, and send back a temperature reading or two, before everything melts. GM should be able to shove a thermometer into an engine block. They should also be able to come pretty close on paper, since they know all the volumes and materials involved.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, there are observations ... there just aren't any scientific observations. In your mind, what did you imagine constitutes a scientific observation vs. a normal, non-scientific observation?

Instruments per se have little to do with making an observation scientific.

VernerHornung wrote:
It's the systematic recording of repeated observations

VernerHornung wrote:
and the attention paid to the conditions

VernerHornung wrote:
under which they're made that count.

VernerHornung wrote:
Observing stuff in an offhand or occasional manner produces no science even if you have instruments.

VernerHornung wrote:
Scientific observations, therefore, are those made with a purpose

VernerHornung wrote:
—to discover a pattern in something,

VernerHornung wrote:
especially if it's not obvious from everyday experience.

VernerHornung wrote:
You and ITN appear bent on denying that there is any rhyme or reason to our world

VernerHornung wrote:
except when it serves in attacking others who post here.

VernerHornung wrote:
You started on me within hours of my arrival to discuss pollution from the Intermountain Power Project,

VernerHornung wrote:
even though I'd said nothing about any of your contributions at that point.

James___ wrote:I must disagree with you. The sextant can. Without benefit of modern technology it could demonstrate latitudes in the northern hemisphere. That is science (it is something based on evidence/observation and/or calculation) and does not require land.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:I must disagree with you. The sextant can. Without benefit of modern technology it could demonstrate latitudes in the northern hemisphere. That is science (it is something based on evidence/observation and/or calculation) and does not require land.

Unfortunately no, but you are thinking along the right lines. The sextant is technology, a wonder of applied math. It is a calculating device ... but for angles instead of numbers.

The sextant is technology that is based on math and not so much on science. It was designed by Captain John Campbell, a Royal Navy officer, who figured out a way that math could actually be useful. He reasoned that angles could help in maritime navigation, go figure! Today we use modern surveying equipment for terrestiral placement and precision clocks/timepieces for navigation.

The sextant uses observations as inputs (to determine the initial angles) and calculates the position or the vector needed.

I don't think you could have picked a better example.

.

VernerHornung wrote:...we can't even get started on the unsolved pieces. They're falling off the ride in blatant self-contradictions like this:
1) It's not possible to measure temperature.
2) Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature cannot increase without additional energy,...

Test: Run your household furnace with the windows open until it's bone cold. If temperature can't increase without additional energy, then closing the windows won't warm the house. There's no additional energy, just the same furnace.

VernerHornung wrote:
The bizarre rush to embrace Trump mystifies me.

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Venus is unknown.

IBdaMann wrote:
No instrument has any power to transform any observation into science...

IBdaMann wrote:
...nor does any quantity of observations magickally create science.

Into the Night wrote:
Indeed, that thermometer remains in the engine. It is used to control your induction system and cooling system.

Into the Night wrote:
All measurements are against a zero reference point of your choosing, and an offset; using units of your choosing...Measurements or any other observation does not produce 'science'.

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'pollution'. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. NONE of these phrases has been defined by you.

Into the Night wrote:
You just keep chanting Holy Mantras of meaningless phrases as if they meant something.

tmiddles wrote: We have done well in debunking BS and those arguments are here for anyone looking.

tmiddles wrote: Should you attempt to explain this away ITN/IBD kindly explain Venus while you're at it.

VernerHornung wrote:The bizarre rush to embrace Trump mystifies me.

tmiddles wrote: It makes sense to me having watched Limbaugh and Coulter over the years leading up to him. They would never criticize republicans for running up the deficit or anything along those lines.

tmiddles wrote: ... I got it! I realized that while CNN was showing this thinking it was evidence of a horrible side effect, I realized it was pay dirt of Trump. They loved those tears, it was the goal! CRUSH THE ENEMY. We are in a civil war of sorts right now.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Venus is unknown.

AND you're a joke.

tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD serve of some use in solidifying some arguments. We can and should move forward.

tmiddles wrote:
Seems to me the Mars scenario lines up with Huffman don't you agree? Low pressure = low effect.

tmiddles wrote:
Of course there is not ground there radiating up from a solid surface. Do you see that as making his argument of parity false?

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:I must disagree with you. The sextant can. Without benefit of modern technology it could demonstrate latitudes in the northern hemisphere. That is science (it is something based on evidence/observation and/or calculation) and does not require land.

Unfortunately no, but you are thinking along the right lines. The sextant is technology, a wonder of applied math. It is a calculating device ... but for angles instead of numbers.

The sextant is technology that is based on math and not so much on science. It was designed by Captain John Campbell, a Royal Navy officer, who figured out a way that math could actually be useful. He reasoned that angles could help in maritime navigation, go figure! Today we use modern surveying equipment for terrestiral placement and precision clocks/timepieces for navigation.

The sextant uses observations as inputs (to determine the initial angles) and calculates the position or the vector needed.

I don't think you could have picked a better example.

.

It's kind of sad that all you and itn seem to find interesting is mind games. Do you belong to the same tribe?

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:...we can't even get started on the unsolved pieces. They're falling off the ride in blatant self-contradictions like this:
1) It's not possible to measure temperature.
2) Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.

NO no no Verner we ARE moving forward.

tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD serve of some use in solidifying some arguments.
We can and should move forward. (and we are).

tmiddles wrote:
More skeptics will come, I'm so glad you did. We have done well in debunking BS and those arguments are here for anyone looking.

tmiddles wrote:
Now Huffman does not seem to be saying he's totally got Venus figured out, only that where we would expect to find CO2 playing a larger roll (at 1000mb) it is not. Of course there is not ground there radiating up from a solid surface. Do you see that as making is argument of parity false?

Seems to me the Mars scenario lines up with Huffman don't you agree? Low pressure = low effect.

tmiddles wrote:
So tidbit on "Additional Energy". I believe if I'm not mistaken the "Energy" is from the sun, and the "Total Energy" would be how much has come from the sun over time.

tmiddles wrote:
In the billions of years Earths been in orbit that's a lot. So it's simply not a limiting factor in the equation to say you're limited to the energy from the sun.

tmiddles wrote:
This reality of the total is painfully clear if you're paying the gas bill for that furnace!

tmiddles wrote:
Should you attempt to explain this away ITN/IBD kindly explain Venus while you're at it.

tmiddles wrote:
It clicked for me watching an Iranian cab driver crying on the news when his wife (Muslim) was being kept out of the country after visiting a relative.

tmiddles wrote:
He said he would probably leave the country for good and I got it! I realized that while CNN was showing this thinking it was evidence of a horrible side effect,

tmiddles wrote:
We are in a civil war of sorts right now.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Venus is unknown.

AND you're a joke.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
No instrument has any power to transform any observation into science...

Which is exactly what I said.

VernerHornung wrote:
I love the way you and ITN gaslight everyone here, starting off as if the persons you're replying to had said the exact opposite of what they did say.

VernerHornung wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
...nor does any quantity of observations magickally create science.

Quantity of observation matters even if it's not the sole criterion for quality in scientific work.

VernerHornung wrote:
Discipline, not magic, is what makes for advances in science.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Indeed, that thermometer remains in the engine. It is used to control your induction system and cooling system.

The thermometer in your car measures the oil temperature.

VernerHornung wrote:
The thermometers I was talking about, the ones the engineers use when designing an engine block that won't be prone to overheating, are placed at various points on the outside surface of the block,

VernerHornung wrote:
and equations for heat flow used to determine temps inside the block.

VernerHornung wrote:
Those are, basically, the same equations used to infer temperatures on or inside planets.

VernerHornung wrote:
And in case you haven't noticed while busy bamboozling Harvey, I'm not anxious to see the US force electric cars onto the market prematurely. They still have lots of problems, explosive lithium battery fires among them.

They are not explosive fires. Just an intense class A fire.

VernerHornung wrote:
But the goal of obtaining a responsible energy policy

Such a goal is unconstitutional. Fascism is not constitutional.

VernerHornung wrote:
won't be met by stonewalling and denial of facts,

Not facts. Arguments. Learn what 'fact' means. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

VernerHornung wrote:
the course Donald Trump's administration has chosen.

They've chosen to get out of 'managing' energy. A correct direction. The federal government has no authority there. It was never given that authority by the Constitution.

VernerHornung wrote:
Policymaking requires compromise and those who refuse to negotiate find every last thing they hate rammed down their throats when their opponents get into power.

There is no compromise. The Constitution prevails.

VernerHornung wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
All measurements are against a zero reference point of your choosing, and an offset; using units of your choosing...Measurements or any other observation does not produce 'science'.

We're agreed on both of these points.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'pollution'. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. NONE of these phrases has been defined by you.

They've already been defined in the literature. The world scarcely needs definitions for them from me.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You just keep chanting Holy Mantras of meaningless phrases as if they meant something.

Has it occurred to you there are people who oppose the global warming political agenda without resorting to futile disputes over geophysics the world's best scientists have established over 200 years?

VernerHornung wrote:
There's nothing sacred about it at all, unless you're Bernie Sanders or AOC or someone from C2ES.

VernerHornung wrote:
Unfortunately, our hot climate of polarization has forced scientists to take stances they might have avoided committing to had a sober forum prevailed, and given the proclivities of academia, they now side with the left.

VernerHornung wrote:
This trend and a millennial fascination with computer models combine to yield faith in models predicting catastrophic weather events and sea level rise. Then the media feast. Leftist wonks demand carbon taxes and mass redistributions of income that have no chance of passage,

VernerHornung wrote:
and the right withdraws the USA from international organs where we could influence deliberations.

VernerHornung wrote:
What we've gotten is the worst of all possible worlds—an obstinacy that's allowed the utopians of Europe to control debate

VernerHornung wrote:
and coddle harebrained, materials-intensive energy schemes for the developing nations.

tmiddles wrote:
It makes sense to me having watched Limbaugh and Coulter over the years leading up to him.

tmiddles wrote:
They would never criticize republicans for running up the deficit or anything along those lines.

tmiddles wrote:
It's not ideology or principles...

tmiddles wrote:
They love the misery he is bringing to the enemy.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD serve of some use in solidifying some arguments. We can and should move forward.

They've served me in deciding whether it's time for a visit with my psychiatrist!
~

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Seems to me the Mars scenario lines up with Huffman don't you agree? Low pressure = low effect.

Low pressure does reduce the effect. Mars has lots more CO2 than we do, but it has almost nothing else.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Of course there is not ground there radiating up from a solid surface. Do you see that as making his argument of parity false?

Not necessarily; the solar heating aloft on Venus hits where the arrow is, and the temperature resumes decreasing linearly with height just above the arrow, as it does just above the surface. So the clouds are absorbing rays coming down from the sun, but this means those rays don't reach the surface. Since the clouds are cooler, they can't heat the surface directly (ITN was right about that). However, they can radiate toward the ground to reduce its rate of heat loss, in the way that house walls radiate toward the people in the room. If you imagine pumping all the air out without imploding your house or killing its occupants—

—then the people will lose less heat by radiation if the walls are at 80˚ than they will if the walls are only 40˚.

VernerHornung wrote:
Yet an ad hominem attack is out of order. Isaac Newton was nuts, too,

VernerHornung wrote:
The most interesting part of Huffman's post was the comment section and his replies. He invoked Occam's Razor, the principle in science that the simplest theory which accounts for the facts is usually the better. Huff's theory (adiabatic lapse rate controls temperature regardless of how the energy is deposited) is simpler. It deems greenhouse back-radiation an unnecessary ornament, though he seems to extend this too far in another post by denying (as ITN did) that cooler objects can radiate to warmer ones:

VernerHornung wrote:
I believe he made a couple mistakes: An individual molecule has no temperature as far as I know (temperature is a bulk property),

VernerHornung wrote:
and it will "bounce" any ray it absorbs by re-emission in a random direction.

VernerHornung wrote:
Heat still flows up, as it's the top of the atmosphere, not the solid surface, from which outgoing radiation must balance the incoming sunlight.

VernerHornung wrote:
Nonetheless, I admire Huffman's questioning the herd mentality and indoctrination which have taken over climate studies. The lesson is clear: PhDs regularly trip over the simple Monty Hall Problem in TV game shows. And they've yet to demonstrate a loud signal, over other possible causes and background noise, for the 125 ppm CO2 humans have added since 1750.

Into the Night wrote:
So you DO see a psychiatrist.

Into the Night wrote:
Neither pressure nor the presence of any gas warms any planet using IR from that planet's surface.

Into the Night wrote:
Any energy at the surface is balanced leaving the surface.

Into the Night wrote:
Any energy absorbed by the Earth as a whole also leaves.

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot compare two systems as if they were the same system.

Into the Night wrote:
Absorbed photons are DESTROYED. They do not 'bounce'.

Into the Night wrote:
No one measuring CO2 in the atmosphere in 1750. CO2 monitoring equipment didn't appear until 1958...We do not have enough stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Neither pressure nor the presence of any gas warms any planet using IR from that planet's surface.

Right. And neither blowers nor the presence of any windows warms a house using hot air from that house's furnace.

VernerHornung wrote:
True, but the energy reaching the surface may include back-radiation from the atmosphere, or even from warmer raindrops falling on it during an ice storm.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Any energy absorbed by the Earth as a whole also leaves.

Also true, but the energy leaving the Earth includes only a portion of the energy leaving its solid surface. You can see that easily; clouds for instance block everything coming up from beneath them. Gases that appear transparent to the naked eye may block radiation at frequencies the eye cannot detect. The balance is made good by up-radiation from the atmosphere.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot compare two systems as if they were the same system.

Indeed. And I'm not treating the solid surface and the atmosphere as if they were the same thing.

Into the Night wrote:
Absorbed photons are DESTROYED. They do not 'bounce'.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
So you DO see a psychiatrist.

As it runs $400 an hour, not very often. You'll be shocked to discover that Medicare doesn't cover the entire tab.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Neither pressure nor the presence of any gas warms any planet using IR from that planet's surface.

Right. And neither blowers nor the presence of any windows warms a house using hot air from that house's furnace.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Any energy at the surface is balanced leaving the surface.

True, but the energy reaching the surface may include back-radiation from the atmosphere, or even from warmer raindrops falling on it during an ice storm.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Any energy absorbed by the Earth as a whole also leaves.

Also true, but the energy leaving the Earth includes only a portion of the energy leaving its solid surface.

VernerHornung wrote:
You can see that easily; clouds for instance block everything coming up from beneath them.

VernerHornung wrote:
Gases that appear transparent to the naked eye may block radiation at frequencies the eye cannot detect.

VernerHornung wrote:
The balance is made good by up-radiation from the atmosphere.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot compare two systems as if they were the same system.

Indeed. And I'm not treating the solid surface and the atmosphere as if they were the same thing.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Absorbed photons are DESTROYED. They do not 'bounce'.

Certainly. Yet if you prefer a simple model where atmospheres don't matter at all, why introduce complications such as photons being absorbed and converted to kinetic energy with other photons being emitted at somewhat different frequencies? Complexity is why the radiative transfer equation is difficult to solve.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No one measuring CO2 in the atmosphere in 1750. CO2 monitoring equipment didn't appear until 1958...We do not have enough stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

CO2 is quite well-mixed in the atmosphere

VernerHornung wrote:
as long as you stay away from swamps, cities, power plants, chicken coops and classrooms full of heavily-breathing jocks.

VernerHornung wrote:
A mountaintop in the middle of the Pacific is one of the best places to measure it.

VernerHornung wrote:
Or northwest Tasmania, where there's another baseline station.

VernerHornung wrote:
Data from these are checked against secondary readings taken elsewhere.

VernerHornung wrote:
We also have a good idea regarding CO2 levels that prevailed before mass consumption of fossil fuels began.

VernerHornung wrote:
It's trapped in air bubbles in ice.

VernerHornung wrote:
1750 itself is problematic as we can't be sure air inside glaciers is truly locked away until there's up to 300 feet of ice atop the air bubble of interest—gotta watch out for firn, crevasses, and so on.

VernerHornung wrote:
The CO2 records of Vostok thus extend from roughly 800000 to 2500 years ago and do not cover the period after the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the Moon was built.

VernerHornung wrote:
Yet concentrations stayed between 180 and 280ppm all that time.
...deleted Holy Link...

VernerHornung wrote:
Because 1958 CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were 315 ppm but hit 408.46 ppm yesterday, it's clear that most of the CO2 has been added since World War II.

VernerHornung wrote:
It very likely came from human-related sources.

VernerHornung wrote:
There's a daily report on it, here:
...deleted Holy Link...

VernerHornung wrote:
As for gases not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, most of us fret over radon, putting the monitor for that gas in our basements.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Any body else notice that this back and forth warming arguments, are pretty much the same used to justify perpetual motion, or free energy machines? There has never been one functional example of perpetual motion, over hundreds of years of trying. There are quite a few, that go into some obscure physics, which they exploit, to 'achieve' perpetual motion, which is always flawed, and fail. Our atmosphere isn't a perpetual motion machine, energy is added constantly from the sun, but to only one half of the planet, at an given period of time.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Any body else notice that this back and forth warming arguments, are pretty much the same used to justify perpetual motion, or free energy machines? There has never been one functional example of perpetual motion, over hundreds of years of trying. There are quite a few, that go into some obscure physics, which they exploit, to 'achieve' perpetual motion, which is always flawed, and fail. Our atmosphere isn't a perpetual motion machine, energy is added constantly from the sun, but to only one half of the planet, at an given period of time.

You noticed that too, eh? Excellent observation.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Any body else notice that this back and forth warming arguments, are pretty much the same used to justify perpetual motion, or free energy machines? There has never been one functional example of perpetual motion, over hundreds of years of trying. There are quite a few, that go into some obscure physics, which they exploit, to 'achieve' perpetual motion, which is always flawed, and fail. Our atmosphere isn't a perpetual motion machine, energy is added constantly from the sun, but to only one half of the planet, at an given period of time.

You noticed that too, eh? Excellent observation.

I have to say, Into the Night, you were a frequent commenter on how different violations of thermodynamics were, in fact, attempts to create differing classes of perpetual motion machines ... but that has died off as of late in deference to merely pointing to denial of a specific law of thermodynamics.

I'd like to start a petition to have you bring back the traditional "perpetual motion machine" analyses. The current "direct method" is certainly functional and gets the job done, but it lacks the dimensionality of the former.

Viva L'Demon D'Maxwell!

.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Any body else notice that this back and forth warming arguments, are pretty much the same used to justify perpetual motion, or free energy machines?

Into the Night wrote:
...marine environments...the weight of the gas relative to other gases in the atmosphere, coupled with variable amounts of mixing due to variable winds and temperatures.