Remember me
▼ Content

In general...



Page 5 of 5<<<345
17-10-2019 11:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
VernerHornung wrote:
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.

Then why isn't the radon all at the bottom, zapping and suffocating us, with the CO2 above it, and then the argon, oxygen, nitrogen and water vapor, in order of their molecular weights?

Question already answered. Pay attention.
VernerHornung wrote:
We have 29 stations, by the way, not just one, measuring CO2, and marine environments don't affect the one at 20000 feet in the Himalayas.

There is no station in the Himalayas.
VernerHornung wrote:
They don't even affect Mauna Loa that much; the air's drier there than it is in Utah's deserts.

No, dude. Hawaii is surrounded by the ocean. The station is surrounded by volcanoes.
VernerHornung wrote:
Sure, some variations exist between stations;

...and the points where there are no stations is the problem. Of course, Mauna Loa is a problem anyway since they've been caught cooking their data. It's useless.
VernerHornung wrote:
Grim measures about 5 ppm less than Mauna Loa despite being much closer to all that carbonated ocean water you're thinking about.

The ocean isn't carbonated water.
VernerHornung wrote:
So do the Antarctic stations.

There is one CO monitoring station in the Antarctic, operated by the United States. This is on a continent that is that is larger than the continental United States.
VernerHornung wrote:
Apparently the northern hemisphere has a bit more CO2, 410 ppm versus 405 in the southern.

Argument from randU fallacy. There is no record of global or even hemispheric CO2 concentration.
VernerHornung wrote:
The European stations read slightly higher than any of the others even though they're in the Alps.

There are no European stations. There is one in Asia, operated by the Russians.
The only other stations besides Mauna Loa and the two I already mentioned are at Samoa, and another at Barrow, AK. Both marine environments.


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2019 14:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
VernerHornung wrote:our hot climate of polarization has forced scientists to take stances they might have avoided committing to had a sober forum prevailed, ...

Amen. The loons don't realize they are the best thing that every happened to their opponents. This film: PROMISED LAND Film has an interesting sub plot. An "opponent" comes in that's really a plant to ensure victory. They make their case but are discredicted. All the peoople who lined up behind them go down with the ship.

VernerHornung wrote:
Since the clouds are cooler, they can't heat the surface directly
I think the term "Heat" to often implies more than it should. Radiance from a cooler object can be absorbed and transformed into thermal energy by a hotter object. YET! A cooler object cannot "HEAT" a hotter object because that would mean increasing it's total thermal energy, and the hotter object will give up more than it gets. But it's misleading to not point out that the absorption occures.

VernerHornung wrote:
Huffman does profess a number of strange ideas related to intelligent design as you may note from his book list....
Yet an ad hominem attack is out of order.
I don't think so. It's not an attack it's an observation. It's not practical to dig into everything someone presents. It's useful to know what their agenda is and do a more pointed BS test.

VernerHornung wrote:
Huffman's ...he seems to extend this too far in another post by denying (as ITN did) that cooler objects can radiate to warmer ones
Now this is very interesting. He seems to sort of suggest it in an offhand way without a citation or explanation. Certainly not presenting it as a poison pill to the entirety of his research. "Oh and by the way everyone no point to any of this since back radiation is impossible". I think I'll send him a message! He can't be too busy he's floating lonely out there in cyber space.

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), and it will "bounce" any ray it absorbs by re-emission in a random direction.
That's very good to point out. I really like Planck describing molecules crashing into each other.
Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules.


VernerHornung wrote:
Nonetheless, I admire Huffman's questioning the herd mentality
It's the only way to get anywhere right? A failed experiment can do more to further science than a successful one. Like the failed Michelson–Morley attempt to find the ether.

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

Best stop before we get to motormouth Limbaugh; I'll gag.
Hey now Verner, the guys a drug addict, he's hopped up on pills, show a little consideration for his disability ; )

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

It was fun at first. ...each knot of BLM kids trying to rush the stage and that told me enough about the raw anger Trump was manipulating to eke out a win.
History and our own grade school experiences teach us that cruelty is easy to find in humanity. We need our leaders to help society control it. There's yelling fire in a crowded theater and then there is passing out torches. I do think the left is still not accepting their roll in goading the opposition though. I identify with them and they make me sick.

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.
Besides a simple check on the math of buring sequestered carbon means an increase should be expected. It would be a pretty exotic theory on how it wouldn't increase right?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Any body else notice that this back and forth warming arguments, are pretty much the same used to justify perpetual motion,
Do you not believe Venus is Warmer than Mercury Harvey? Given your statement that would be like getting a perpetual motion machine of your very own from Walmart tomorrow wouldn't it?

Venus is warmer than Mercury. Mercury is closer to the sun. Warming happens.

Oh and we're warmer than the moon. (we have been there too).


"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
01-11-2019 15:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tmiddles wrote: Oh and we're warmer than the moon.

Water boils at 100degC/212degF.

Right now, at this very moment, a sizeable portion of the moon's surface is substantially above 116degC/240degF. No place on the surface of the earth has ever recorded such temperatures. This is generally accepted as the atmosphere's powerful refrigeration affect keeping the earth's surface much cooler than extreme temperatures baking the moon's surface.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-11-2019 16:48
keepit
★★★☆☆
(694)
I'm not an expert on this but it seems to me that here are 2 ways (at least) to warm an object - kinetic energy from molecules bumping each other. This is where a cool object can't heat a warmer object - ok, that may be so but the other way to heat an object is through radiation energy. This can heat any? object. And that is how the atmosphere is warmed. There could be flaws in this - have at it IBDM and ITN, but you could get tripped up in your attack.
Edited on 01-11-2019 16:51
01-11-2019 20:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
keepit wrote:
I'm not an expert on this but it seems to me that here are 2 ways (at least) to warm an object - kinetic energy from molecules bumping each other. This is where a cool object can't heat a warmer object - ok, that may be so but the other way to heat an object is through radiation energy. This can heat any? object. And that is how the atmosphere is warmed. There could be flaws in this - have at it IBDM and ITN, but you could get tripped up in your attack.


You cannot heat any warmer object using a cooler one. Entropy cannot be decreased in any system.

You can't do it by conduction, you can't do it by convection, and you can't do it by radiance.

You can't do it.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2019 00:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Oh and we're warmer than the moon.
...the atmosphere's powerful refrigeration affect

Define temperature IBD.

The EARTH's ground level has a HIGHER "TEMPERATURE" than the Moon's ground level.

And no temperature is not something you cherry pick. It's not defined that way. Well maybe in the oral tradition when you learned on the streets, but if so you learned wrong.

a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in an object,

So yeah, outerspace isn't warmer than Earth either.

But you know this you're just trying to kill debate. One more wasted moment with the dictionary instead of actually discussing something.

keepit wrote:... 2 ways (at least) to warm an object - kinetic energy from molecules bumping each other. ...other way to heat an object is through radiation energy.
ITN/IBD become very quiet when you ask them what happens to radiance from a cooler object when it reaches a warmer one.
The only options by the way are:
1- Absorption
2- Reflection
3- Transmission

"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
02-11-2019 01:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Oh and we're warmer than the moon.
...the atmosphere's powerful refrigeration affect

Define temperature IBD.
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
The EARTH's ground level has a HIGHER "TEMPERATURE" than the Moon's ground level.
RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
And no temperature is not something you cherry pick.
Non-sequitur fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
It's not defined that way. Well maybe in the oral tradition when you learned on the streets, but if so you learned wrong.
RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in an object,
So what is the temperature of a baseball at 60mph?
tmiddles wrote:
So yeah, outerspace isn't warmer than Earth either.
Space has no temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
But you know this you're just trying to kill debate.
Thought terminating cliche fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
One more wasted moment with the dictionary instead of actually discussing something.
Non-sequitur fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:... 2 ways (at least) to warm an object - kinetic energy from molecules bumping each other. ...other way to heat an object is through radiation energy.
ITN/IBD become very quiet when you ask them what happens to radiance from a cooler object when it reaches a warmer one.
Nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
The only options by the way are:
1- Absorption
2- Reflection
3- Transmission

Usually it is reflected or the photon might just pass right on by (transparent).
RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-11-2019 01:57
02-11-2019 11:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ITN/IBD become very quiet when you ask them what happens to radiance from a cooler object when it reaches a warmer one.
Nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
The only options by the way are:
1- Absorption
2- Reflection
3- Transmission

Usually it is reflected or the photon might just pass right on by (transparent).
RQAA.

Here we have the classic setup from the text book Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao:


So ITN you're claiming that with two plates facing each other that the radiance from the cooler plate is "usually" reflected right back or maybe, even though it's a low frequency radiance, it's transmitted right through?

Now just to simplify your insanity you believe this is also true of two objects at thermal equilibrium correct?

Heck let's cut to the chase. You believe that matter at say 100 C radiating to other matter also at 100 C will not have that radiance absorbed but instead reflect right?

So if I have a hollow box at 100 C, the walls inside will radiate but that radiance cannot be absorbed but will be reflected right? So you have a box that continues to radiate but the radiance inside cannot be absorbed or escape? It would just build and build?

I won't waste time trying to get any citations from you. I know the ITN/IBD oral tradition.

My 12 references on NET radiative heat transfer.

"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
03-11-2019 19:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ITN/IBD become very quiet when you ask them what happens to radiance from a cooler object when it reaches a warmer one.
Nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
The only options by the way are:
1- Absorption
2- Reflection
3- Transmission

Usually it is reflected or the photon might just pass right on by (transparent).
RQAA.

Here we have the classic setup from the text book Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao:


So ITN you're claiming that with two plates facing each other that the radiance from the cooler plate is "usually" reflected right back or maybe, even though it's a low frequency radiance, it's transmitted right through?

Now just to simplify your insanity you believe this is also true of two objects at thermal equilibrium correct?

Heck let's cut to the chase. You believe that matter at say 100 C radiating to other matter also at 100 C will not have that radiance absorbed but instead reflect right?
You cannot create energy out of nothing. Whatever is radiating does not stay at the same temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
So if I have a hollow box at 100 C, the walls inside will radiate but that radiance cannot be absorbed but will be reflected right?
It can be absorbed.
tmiddles wrote:
So you have a box that continues to radiate but the radiance inside cannot be absorbed or escape? It would just build and build?

You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
I won't waste time trying to get any citations from you.

I already provided them. You ignore and deny them.
RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
04-11-2019 08:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So if I have a hollow box at 100 C, the walls inside will radiate but that radiance cannot be absorbed but will be reflected right?
It can be absorbed.
Well well well! So two objects at equilibrium have their radiance absorbed by one another you'll admit? It "can be" ? Or it is?

Isn't thermal energy causing radiance to leave one surface, radiating to another surface, and having that radiance absorbed by the other surface a transfer of thermal energy?

Are you actually acknowledging that two objects in thermal equilibrium do that? That they exchange thermal energy through radiance?

"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
04-11-2019 17:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So if I have a hollow box at 100 C, the walls inside will radiate but that radiance cannot be absorbed but will be reflected right?
It can be absorbed.
Well well well! So two objects at equilibrium have their radiance absorbed by one another you'll admit? It "can be" ? Or it is?

Isn't thermal energy causing radiance to leave one surface, radiating to another surface, and having that radiance absorbed by the other surface a transfer of thermal energy?

Are you actually acknowledging that two objects in thermal equilibrium do that? That they exchange thermal energy through radiance?

You forgot to read the rest of the answer. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
04-11-2019 17:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tmiddles wrote: Well well well! So two objects at equilibrium have their radiance absorbed by one another you'll admit?

... the clear indication that you have completely misunderstood everything up to this point.

Of course, you could have avoided your complete misunderstanding at any point if you hadn't been so utterly lazy that you wouldn't read some previous posts that contained all the answers to all of your questions.

Anyway, carry on.


.


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
05-11-2019 05:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
IBdaMann wrote:...some previous posts that contained all the answers...

Wow! ALL the answers. Such a golden easter egg hidden somewhere. Oh if only someone would link to it!

Into the Night wrote:
You forgot to read the rest of the answer. RQAA.

Oh this unfindable answer game is your favorite ITN/IBD! The nonexistent "previous post" that supposedly had an answer. Let's see ITN, here is the rest of your answer above:

Into the Night wrote:
It can be absorbed.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't create energy out of nothing.

Into the Night wrote:
I already provided them. You ignore and deny them.
RQAA.


Nope, don't see anything there.

"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
05-11-2019 18:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...some previous posts that contained all the answers...

Wow! ALL the answers. Such a golden easter egg hidden somewhere. Oh if only someone would link to it!

Already did. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You forgot to read the rest of the answer. RQAA.

Oh this unfindable answer game is your favorite ITN/IBD! The nonexistent "previous post" that supposedly had an answer. Let's see ITN, here is the rest of your answer above:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
It can be absorbed.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't create energy out of nothing.

Into the Night wrote:
I already provided them. You ignore and deny them.
RQAA.


Nope, don't see anything there.

RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate In general...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate change is costing Hydro-Québec millions, director-general says123-04-2019 19:49
▲ 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