Remember me
▼ Content

In general...



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
06-10-2019 07:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
Harry C wrote:
I now just want to understand the energy mass balance.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I know what you mean. I don't think you mean the simple truth that neither energy nor mass can be created or destroyed.

If you mean how is it that a planet can get hotter at ground level when the sun isn't sending any more energy than it used to? Does this mean energy is being created? No not at all.

"temperature" is not a measure of the amount of thermal energy coming and going, it is a measure of the amount of thermal energy present. An atmosphere acts as a maze of tiny bodies that radiance and thermal energy must ping pong through on their way in and out and it results in more thermal energy being present. Every planet has a higher ground level temperature than it should (given it's distance from the sun) corresponding to how much of an atmosphere it has.

The easiest proof being Venus vs. Mercury: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

What do ITN/IBD say about that? You can probably guess: Nothing. They claim:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate.
...you have no valid dataset from which to draw any conclusions...

So guess what? No debate on Venus/Mercury at all.... Debate killers

Harry C wrote:
I've read the the thread on calamity math. You guys are over my head on some of that minutae.
So not my work at all! I'm trying to understand it too. That's what SEEMED to be the "popular" theory on how the Earth's temperature plays out. I'm not a scientist but I think the general concepts seem accessible. Tell me what you think of the person in a room text book example:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Harry C wrote:...what is attributed to Popper is not exactly the same but substantially true. To wit:
...theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific...
So that full quote describes what a "Scientific Theory" is and is not, it is not the definition of "Science". This portion is key. NOTHING get's to be called established in some fashion where it is above questioning.

Not only have entirely fabricated theories been presented here as being "settled science" they've been claimed as being above the need for any proof or demonstration.

I also don't think it makes sense to call Popper an economist simply because that was his degree in college. He was a scientist. And don't forget him, especially here.

"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
06-10-2019 09:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I now just want to understand the energy mass balance.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I know what you mean. I don't think you mean the simple truth that neither energy nor mass can be created or destroyed.

If you mean how is it that a planet can get hotter at ground level when the sun isn't sending any more energy than it used to? Does this mean energy is being created? No not at all.
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You can't decrease entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics).
tmiddles wrote:
"temperature" is not a measure of the amount of thermal energy coming and going, it is a measure of the amount of thermal energy present. An atmosphere acts as a maze of tiny bodies that radiance and thermal energy must ping pong through on their way in and out and it results in more thermal energy being present.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).
tmiddles wrote:
Every planet has a higher ground level temperature than it should (given it's distance from the sun) corresponding to how much of an atmosphere it has.

Argument from randU fallacy. You don't know what the temperature should be. The emissivity is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
The easiest proof being Venus vs. Mercury: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

Contrived data is not a proof. The emissivity of both Venus and Mercury are unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
What do ITN/IBD say about that? You can probably guess: Nothing. They claim:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote: I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate.
...you have no valid dataset from which to draw any conclusions...

So guess what? No debate on Venus/Mercury at all.... Debate killers

You have no data to debate.
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I've read the the thread on calamity math. You guys are over my head on some of that minutae.
So not my work at all! I'm trying to understand it too.

Lie. You are here to preach. You distort what people say. You take things out of context. You ask questions that have already been answered repeatedly. You have NO intention of attempting to learn anything.
tmiddles wrote:
That's what SEEMED to be the "popular" theory on how the Earth's temperature plays out. I'm not a scientist but I think the general concepts seem accessible. Tell me what you think of the person in a room text book example:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Contrived data. Equation taken out of context.
* You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics).


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2019 09:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Tell me what you think of the person in a room text book example:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Contrived data. Equation taken out of context.
* You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics).
This example from a text book is simple. You and IBD have never had an answer for it. You are a FRAUD.

"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
06-10-2019 16:13
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Tell me what you think of the person in a room text book example:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Contrived data. Equation taken out of context.
* You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics).
This example from a text book is simple. You and IBD have never had an answer for it. You are a FRAUD.

"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



Both itn & mini-itn will tell you that science is a set of falsifiable theories of which their logic is not falsifiable. ergo, they are right and you are not.
Edited on 06-10-2019 16:28
06-10-2019 17:26
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(49)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I now just want to understand the energy mass balance.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I know what you mean. I don't think you mean the simple truth that neither energy nor mass can be created or destroyed.

If you mean how is it that a planet can get hotter at ground level when the sun isn't sending any more energy than it used to? Does this mean energy is being created? No not at all.

"temperature" is not a measure of the amount of thermal energy coming and going, it is a measure of the amount of thermal energy present. An atmosphere acts as a maze of tiny bodies that radiance and thermal energy must ping pong through on their way in and out and it results in more thermal energy being present. Every planet has a higher ground level temperature than it should (given it's distance from the sun) corresponding to how much of an atmosphere it has.

The easiest proof being Venus vs. Mercury: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

What do ITN/IBD say about that? You can probably guess: Nothing. They claim:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate.
...you have no valid dataset from which to draw any conclusions...

So guess what? No debate on Venus/Mercury at all.... Debate killers

Harry C wrote:
I've read the the thread on calamity math. You guys are over my head on some of that minutae.
So not my work at all! I'm trying to understand it too. That's what SEEMED to be the "popular" theory on how the Earth's temperature plays out. I'm not a scientist but I think the general concepts seem accessible. Tell me what you think of the person in a room text book example:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Harry C wrote:...what is attributed to Popper is not exactly the same but substantially true. To wit:
...theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific...
So that full quote describes what a "Scientific Theory" is and is not, it is not the definition of "Science". This portion is key. NOTHING get's to be called established in some fashion where it is above questioning.

Not only have entirely fabricated theories been presented here as being "settled science" they've been claimed as being above the need for any proof or demonstration.

I also don't think it makes sense to call Popper an economist simply because that was his degree in college. He was a scientist. And don't forget him, especially here.

"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


As to the clarification on energy mass balance. There are points that must be universally true. One of those is what I will call energy equilibrium. What comes in either goes out or is used (again lay terms).

With all due respect. What I know about what I seek is that it will be based upon direct impact to accepted truths. I came here to find a pivot point in the science - where generally accepted science and climate models diverge. What I'm worn out on is anecdotal or correlative evidence. I really don't want to go there because the truth set becomes unnecessarily diluted. I'm already weak scientifically and don't want to seize upon something that requires me to understand the change in some unknown dependent variables to achieve the outcome.

All of the anecdotal and correlative data I see as "noise" and I don't mean to be rude or unnecessarily dismissive. What I see in the noise are possible attempts to distort or otherwise alter the truth set. (My apologies to those who object to my word choice of truth.)

This is important. Since I have been here I have become increasingly uneasy with Climate Science and the audacity of people to think they know enough about it to consider the science of that flimsy model "settled". 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 mislead.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
06-10-2019 18:50
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I now just want to understand the energy mass balance.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I know what you mean. I don't think you mean the simple truth that neither energy nor mass can be created or destroyed.

If you mean how is it that a planet can get hotter at ground level when the sun isn't sending any more energy than it used to? Does this mean energy is being created? No not at all.

"temperature" is not a measure of the amount of thermal energy coming and going, it is a measure of the amount of thermal energy present. An atmosphere acts as a maze of tiny bodies that radiance and thermal energy must ping pong through on their way in and out and it results in more thermal energy being present. Every planet has a higher ground level temperature than it should (given it's distance from the sun) corresponding to how much of an atmosphere it has.

The easiest proof being Venus vs. Mercury: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

What do ITN/IBD say about that? You can probably guess: Nothing. They claim:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate.
...you have no valid dataset from which to draw any conclusions...

So guess what? No debate on Venus/Mercury at all.... Debate killers

Harry C wrote:
I've read the the thread on calamity math. You guys are over my head on some of that minutae.
So not my work at all! I'm trying to understand it too. That's what SEEMED to be the "popular" theory on how the Earth's temperature plays out. I'm not a scientist but I think the general concepts seem accessible. Tell me what you think of the person in a room text book example:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Harry C wrote:...what is attributed to Popper is not exactly the same but substantially true. To wit:
...theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific...
So that full quote describes what a "Scientific Theory" is and is not, it is not the definition of "Science". This portion is key. NOTHING get's to be called established in some fashion where it is above questioning.

Not only have entirely fabricated theories been presented here as being "settled science" they've been claimed as being above the need for any proof or demonstration.

I also don't think it makes sense to call Popper an economist simply because that was his degree in college. He was a scientist. And don't forget him, especially here.

"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


As to the clarification on energy mass balance. There are points that must be universally true. One of those is what I will call energy equilibrium. What comes in either goes out or is used (again lay terms).

With all due respect. What I know about what I seek is that it will be based upon direct impact to accepted truths. I came here to find a pivot point in the science - where generally accepted science and climate models diverge. What I'm worn out on is anecdotal or correlative evidence. I really don't want to go there because the truth set becomes unnecessarily diluted. I'm already weak scientifically and don't want to seize upon something that requires me to understand the change in some unknown dependent variables to achieve the outcome.

All of the anecdotal and correlative data I see as "noise" and I don't mean to be rude or unnecessarily dismissive. What I see in the noise are possible attempts to distort or otherwise alter the truth set. (My apologies to those who object to my word choice of truth.)

This is important. Since I have been here I have become increasingly uneasy with Climate Science and the audacity of people to think they know enough about it to consider the science of that flimsy model "settled". 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 mislead.



To understand CO2's influence in our atmosphere, scientists and engineers would need to let the sun shine through 1 cubic meter of atmospheric gases. At the bottom would be a solar panel.
If the levels of CO2 and O2 are changed, then empirical scientific evidence would exist. No scientists or engineers have done real time research to determine the "k" value (w/m^2) of the gases in our atmosphere. This is as those gases are found in our atmosphere.
That would create a baseline. Then other cubes could have varying levels of CO2, O2 and water vapor. Until this is done, we have models which use different logarithms without using any real data sets.
With CO2, it is causing our oceans to become acidic. That's something else that needs to be considered.
And since real time evaluation has yet to be done, there is a debate. I hope this helps.
As for the solar panels, their efficiency can be verified so how much solar radiation that they reflect would be known.
Edited on 06-10-2019 18:56
06-10-2019 18:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1207)
What is about climatology that makes people with nothing approaching a clue think they are experts on the subject? The properties of the various gasses are known, known so well that we can look for evidence of them in the atmospheres of planets orbiting stars light-years away.

What do you expect to learn 'debating' random people on the internet that you could not learn from a good book?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
06-10-2019 19:11
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
spot wrote:
What is about climatology that makes people with nothing approaching a clue think they are experts on the subject? The properties of the various gasses are known, known so well that we can look for evidence of them in the atmospheres of planets orbiting stars light-years away.

What do you expect to learn 'debating' random people on the internet that you could not learn from a good book?



Different perspectives. With gases on other planets, gases emit different patterns of light (refraction). With the experiment that I mentioned, if solar radiation slows when levels of certain gases are increased, then warming should be observed unless that heat is conserved as heat content. Things we should know but don't.
06-10-2019 19:14
MrMarvelousandtheUnicorn
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Hydro electric dams cause climate change. And wind farms cause flooding.
06-10-2019 20:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1207)
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
What is about climatology that makes people with nothing approaching a clue think they are experts on the subject? The properties of the various gasses are known, known so well that we can look for evidence of them in the atmospheres of planets orbiting stars light-years away.

What do you expect to learn 'debating' random people on the internet that you could not learn from a good book?



Different perspectives. With gases on other planets, gases emit different patterns of light (refraction). With the experiment that I mentioned, if solar radiation slows when levels of certain gases are increased, then warming should be observed unless that heat is conserved as heat content. Things we should know but don't.


The same gasses in different places are different? interesting

What makes you think nobody has done an experiment of that nature.

Do you know about John Tyndall?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 06-10-2019 20:21
06-10-2019 20:38
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I now just want to understand the energy mass balance.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I know what you mean. I don't think you mean the simple truth that neither energy nor mass can be created or destroyed.

If you mean how is it that a planet can get hotter at ground level when the sun isn't sending any more energy than it used to? Does this mean energy is being created? No not at all.

"temperature" is not a measure of the amount of thermal energy coming and going, it is a measure of the amount of thermal energy present. An atmosphere acts as a maze of tiny bodies that radiance and thermal energy must ping pong through on their way in and out and it results in more thermal energy being present. Every planet has a higher ground level temperature than it should (given it's distance from the sun) corresponding to how much of an atmosphere it has.

The easiest proof being Venus vs. Mercury: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

What do ITN/IBD say about that? You can probably guess: Nothing. They claim:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate.
...you have no valid dataset from which to draw any conclusions...

So guess what? No debate on Venus/Mercury at all.... Debate killers

Harry C wrote:
I've read the the thread on calamity math. You guys are over my head on some of that minutae.
So not my work at all! I'm trying to understand it too. That's what SEEMED to be the "popular" theory on how the Earth's temperature plays out. I'm not a scientist but I think the general concepts seem accessible. Tell me what you think of the person in a room text book example:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Harry C wrote:...what is attributed to Popper is not exactly the same but substantially true. To wit:
...theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific...
So that full quote describes what a "Scientific Theory" is and is not, it is not the definition of "Science". This portion is key. NOTHING get's to be called established in some fashion where it is above questioning.

Not only have entirely fabricated theories been presented here as being "settled science" they've been claimed as being above the need for any proof or demonstration.

I also don't think it makes sense to call Popper an economist simply because that was his degree in college. He was a scientist. And don't forget him, especially here.

"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


As to the clarification on energy mass balance. There are points that must be universally true. One of those is what I will call energy equilibrium. What comes in either goes out or is used (again lay terms).

With all due respect. What I know about what I seek is that it will be based upon direct impact to accepted truths. I came here to find a pivot point in the science - where generally accepted science and climate models diverge. What I'm worn out on is anecdotal or correlative evidence. I really don't want to go there because the truth set becomes unnecessarily diluted. I'm already weak scientifically and don't want to seize upon something that requires me to understand the change in some unknown dependent variables to achieve the outcome.

All of the anecdotal and correlative data I see as "noise" and I don't mean to be rude or unnecessarily dismissive. What I see in the noise are possible attempts to distort or otherwise alter the truth set. (My apologies to those who object to my word choice of truth.)

This is important. Since I have been here I have become increasingly uneasy with Climate Science and the audacity of people to think they know enough about it to consider the science of that flimsy model "settled". 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 mislead.


Truth/facts, have more to do with you perception/beliefs. You are unlikely to find much truth on a debate forum website. Here, we have a few people, who enjoy debating/arguing, just for fun. They might not be entirely right, on all things, or even know what they are arguing. Just entertainment for them. I'm sure there are some here, that believe what they type is true and accurate, based on their perception of the sources of the information. Other people can only share what the perceive to be true, you either accept it as true, or keep looking, to see if others have the same experience. Even then, that group may all be drawing of the same, unreliable source. Truth is really what you experience for yourself. What other people tell you is true, may not be entirely compete or correct. Some people intentional wish to deceive.
06-10-2019 21:15
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(49)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Truth/facts, have more to do with you perception/beliefs. You are unlikely to find much truth on a debate forum website. Here, we have a few people, who enjoy debating/arguing, just for fun. They might not be entirely right, on all things, or even know what they are arguing. Just entertainment for them. I'm sure there are some here, that believe what they type is true and accurate, basedndin on their perception of the sources of the information. Other people can only share what the perceive to be true, you either accept it as true, or keep looking, to see if othershave the same experience. Even then, that group may all be drawing of the same, unreliable source. Truth is really what you experience for yourself. What other people tell you is true, may not be entirely compete or correct. Some people intentional wish to deceive.


I understand and my presence here is not the entirety of my efforts. I'm trying to use it as one of a few sounding boards that *may* be a tie breaker to valid other facts and evidence that I do want to process. I don't have the access to speak to the people I'd like to speak to.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
06-10-2019 21:44
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
Harry C wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Truth/facts, have more to do with you perception/beliefs. You are unlikely to find much truth on a debate forum website. Here, we have a few people, who enjoy debating/arguing, just for fun. They might not be entirely right, on all things, or even know what they are arguing. Just entertainment for them. I'm sure there are some here, that believe what they type is true and accurate, basedndin on their perception of the sources of the information. Other people can only share what the perceive to be true, you either accept it as true, or keep looking, to see if othershave the same experience. Even then, that group may all be drawing of the same, unreliable source. Truth is really what you experience for yourself. What other people tell you is true, may not be entirely compete or correct. Some people intentional wish to deceive.


I understand and my presence here is not the entirety of my efforts. I'm trying to use it as one of a few sounding boards that *may* be a tie breaker to valid other facts and evidence that I do want to process. I don't have the access to speak to the people I'd like to speak to.


Good way to look at it. You'll also find interesting things, worth looking into further. It's hard to find stuff with Google anymore, the results are biased toward a certain political position. I've tried a couple others, but not really great either. One was mostly advertisement oriented, but not sure if that's just for unregistered users. I don't sign-up for stuff, if I can avoid it, cut's down on spam.
06-10-2019 22:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Tell me what you think of the person in a room text book example:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Contrived data. Equation taken out of context.
* You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics).
This example from a text book is simple.

No, it's contrived data. It is also taken out of context. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
You and IBD have never had an answer for it. You are a FRAUD.

Lie.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2019 22:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Tell me what you think of the person in a room text book example:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Contrived data. Equation taken out of context.
* You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics).
This example from a text book is simple. You and IBD have never had an answer for it. You are a FRAUD.




Both itn & mini-itn will tell you that science is a set of falsifiable theories of which their logic is not falsifiable. ergo, they are right and you are not.


False equivalence fallacy. Lie. RDCF. YALSA.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2019 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Harry C wrote:
As to the clarification on energy mass balance. There are points that must be universally true. One of those is what I will call energy equilibrium. What comes in either goes out or is used (again lay terms).

Quite right.
Harry C wrote:
With all due respect. What I know about what I seek is that it will be based upon direct impact to accepted truths. I came here to find a pivot point in the science - where generally accepted science and climate models diverge. What I'm worn out on is anecdotal or correlative evidence. I really don't want to go there because the truth set becomes unnecessarily diluted. I'm already weak scientifically and don't want to seize upon something that requires me to understand the change in some unknown dependent variables to achieve the outcome.

I have already told him this. He repetitiously asks the same questions, even though they've been answered (the RQAA), and he repetitiously uses undefined and contrived 'models' to prove the Stefan-Boltzmann law and 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are wrong, and thus calls me and IBdaMann frauds for using them (the RDCF, or repetitious distortions and contextomy fallacies).
Harry C wrote:
All of the anecdotal and correlative data I see as "noise" and I don't mean to be rude or unnecessarily dismissive. What I see in the noise are possible attempts to distort or otherwise alter the truth set. (My apologies to those who object to my word choice of truth.)

This is exactly what he is doing. He is a fundamentalist in the Church of Global Warming, and must deny theories of science to support his beliefs.
Harry C wrote:
This is important. Since I have been here I have become increasingly uneasy with Climate Science and the audacity of people to think they know enough about it to consider the science of that flimsy model "settled".

Science is never settled. It's always changing, always moving. New theories are constantly though up by people, and theories are constantly being falsified. No theory is ever proven True. Any theory of science can be falsified at any time, even the theories of thermodynamics.
Harry C wrote:
I can't let go of my belief that there are other very significant factors that influence global weather.

There is actually no such thing as 'global weather'. Weather is just a combination of wind speed and direction, precipitation (if any), cloud cover, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure; all quantifiable values.
Harry C wrote:
However all I want to understand is the effect of CO2 on temperature. I want to remain open minded but am wary of being mislead.

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 (and the conservation of energy law).

1st law of thermodynamics: U(t+1) = U(t) - W where U is energy, t is time, and W is work.

Since CO2 is generally colder than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm that surface. The 2nd law of thermodynamics clearly states the direction of heat. For heat to flow from cold to hot means a reduction of entropy, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where e is entropy and t is time. Entropy just always increase or stay the same in any system. It can never decrease in any system.

Since temperature is proportional to radiance, which means radiance MUST increase with temperature, trapping infrared light necessarily reduces radiance while using that light to warm the Earth is in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4 where r is radiance in watts per square meter, C is a constant of nature (5.76 * 10^-8), e is emissivity, expressed as a percentage, of the ability of a surface to emit, and t is temperature in deg K.

C is a constant of nature. e is a measured constant. r is proportional to T, NEVER inversely proportional. If temperature goes up, radiance MUST go up with it, not down. If radiance goes down, temperature MUST go down with it.

Heat is simply the flow of thermal energy. It is not the thermal energy itself. It is like a current in a river. It is not the water itself. It cannot be slowed or trapped. Only increased or decreased. Standing water has zero current. Thermal equilibrium has zero heat.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2019 23:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I now just want to understand the energy mass balance.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I know what you mean. I don't think you mean the simple truth that neither energy nor mass can be created or destroyed.

If you mean how is it that a planet can get hotter at ground level when the sun isn't sending any more energy than it used to? Does this mean energy is being created? No not at all.

"temperature" is not a measure of the amount of thermal energy coming and going, it is a measure of the amount of thermal energy present. An atmosphere acts as a maze of tiny bodies that radiance and thermal energy must ping pong through on their way in and out and it results in more thermal energy being present. Every planet has a higher ground level temperature than it should (given it's distance from the sun) corresponding to how much of an atmosphere it has.

The easiest proof being Venus vs. Mercury: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

What do ITN/IBD say about that? You can probably guess: Nothing. They claim:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate.
...you have no valid dataset from which to draw any conclusions...

So guess what? No debate on Venus/Mercury at all.... Debate killers

Harry C wrote:
I've read the the thread on calamity math. You guys are over my head on some of that minutae.
So not my work at all! I'm trying to understand it too. That's what SEEMED to be the "popular" theory on how the Earth's temperature plays out. I'm not a scientist but I think the general concepts seem accessible. Tell me what you think of the person in a room text book example:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Harry C wrote:...what is attributed to Popper is not exactly the same but substantially true. To wit:
...theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific...
So that full quote describes what a "Scientific Theory" is and is not, it is not the definition of "Science". This portion is key. NOTHING get's to be called established in some fashion where it is above questioning.

Not only have entirely fabricated theories been presented here as being "settled science" they've been claimed as being above the need for any proof or demonstration.

I also don't think it makes sense to call Popper an economist simply because that was his degree in college. He was a scientist. And don't forget him, especially here.

"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


As to the clarification on energy mass balance. There are points that must be universally true. One of those is what I will call energy equilibrium. What comes in either goes out or is used (again lay terms).

With all due respect. What I know about what I seek is that it will be based upon direct impact to accepted truths. I came here to find a pivot point in the science - where generally accepted science and climate models diverge. What I'm worn out on is anecdotal or correlative evidence. I really don't want to go there because the truth set becomes unnecessarily diluted. I'm already weak scientifically and don't want to seize upon something that requires me to understand the change in some unknown dependent variables to achieve the outcome.

All of the anecdotal and correlative data I see as "noise" and I don't mean to be rude or unnecessarily dismissive. What I see in the noise are possible attempts to distort or otherwise alter the truth set. (My apologies to those who object to my word choice of truth.)

This is important. Since I have been here I have become increasingly uneasy with Climate Science and the audacity of people to think they know enough about it to consider the science of that flimsy model "settled". 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 mislead.



To understand CO2's influence in our atmosphere, scientists and engineers would need to let the sun shine through 1 cubic meter of atmospheric gases. At the bottom would be a solar panel.

Measuring what? Void argument.
James___ wrote:
If the levels of CO2 and O2 are changed, then empirical scientific evidence would exist. No scientists or engineers have done real time research to determine the "k" value (w/m^2) of the gases in our atmosphere. This is as those gases are found in our atmosphere.

Buzzword fallacy.
James___ wrote:
That would create a baseline.

Of what? Void argument fallacy.
James___ wrote:
Then other cubes could have varying levels of CO2, O2 and water vapor. Until this is done, we have models which use different logarithms without using any real data sets.

Void argument fallacy. You have not declared a model or what you are measuring, or how any of what you are measuring has to do with temperature.
James___ wrote:
With CO2, it is causing our oceans to become acidic. That's something else that needs to be considered.

Ocean water is alkaline, not acid.
James___ wrote:
And since real time evaluation has yet to be done, there is a debate. I hope this helps.

Evaluation of what?
James___ wrote:
As for the solar panels, their efficiency can be verified so how much solar radiation that they reflect would be known.

So that tells you the emissivity of a solar panel. So what?


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2019 23:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
MrMarvelousandtheUnicorn wrote:
Hydro electric dams cause climate change. And wind farms cause flooding.


Define 'climate change'.
What do you consider 'flooding'? Irrigation?


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2019 00:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I trust that the measurements taken by the Russians through the atmosphere down to the surface of Venus are accurate.
...you have no valid dataset from which to draw any conclusions...

So guess what? No debate on Venus/Mercury at all.... Debate killers

So guess what? This is yet another thing that nobody knows but you claim you nonetheless know ... like you are omniscient.

So, you see yourself as God and when you speak, no one had better disagree ... and you will ignore any differing views because you naturally know everything ... due to your obedient faith in Global Warming.

Why didn't you just let all know up front so that we could worship you and your omniscient awesomeness?


.


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
07-10-2019 00:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
tmiddles wrote:This example from a text book is simple. You and IBD have never had an answer for it.

Oh, this example? ... the one for which you killed the discussion dead in its tracks?

Oh, yeah, I remember this one. You strangely refused to continue discussing it. You refused to answer any questions. You refused to provide a requested example. You just shut it down like you were hitting the master switch.

I have been meaning to ask you if you wer ever going to re-engage, seeing as how you halted the entire conversation while the ball was in your court.

.


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
07-10-2019 01:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
Harry C wrote:As to the clarification on energy mass balance. There are points that must be universally true.


... such as the laws of thermodynamics? OK.

Harry C wrote: One of those is what I will call energy equilibrium. What comes in either goes out or is used (again lay terms).

This one is referred to as the 1st law of thermodynamics or "the law of conservation of energy."

Energy (intital) = Energy (final)

Initial Potential = Final Potential + Work Accomplished

So far you are on solid ground.

Harry C wrote: I came here to find a pivot point in the science - where generally accepted science and climate models diverge.

Well I guess you just found it. Generally accepted science claims that you can't violate generally accepted science. Warmizombie models, on the other hand, fight tooth and nail to rationalize how generally accepted science doesn't apply to earth.

Generally accepted science says that energy can never be created or destroyed. Warmizombies put all their eggs in the anti-1st law basket. They have to insist that magickal "greenhouse gases" create a special sequence of energy form changes, usually in the infrared electromagnetic bands, that creates new energy that increases temperature.

... and now you have your answer.

Oh, by the way, there is no such thing as climate science. There is no science that gets to violate science. "Climate religion" is the appropriate term.


.


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
07-10-2019 01:23
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
What is about climatology that makes people with nothing approaching a clue think they are experts on the subject? The properties of the various gasses are known, known so well that we can look for evidence of them in the atmospheres of planets orbiting stars light-years away.

What do you expect to learn 'debating' random people on the internet that you could not learn from a good book?



Different perspectives. With gases on other planets, gases emit different patterns of light (refraction). With the experiment that I mentioned, if solar radiation slows when levels of certain gases are increased, then warming should be observed unless that heat is conserved as heat content. Things we should know but don't.


The same gasses in different places are different? interesting

What makes you think nobody has done an experiment of that nature.

Do you know about John Tyndall?


It's not gases in different places but how much CO2 or H2O in ppm. I've searched the net quite a bit and haven't seen anything like it. It's too basic of an experiment.
There's this, CO2 doesn't account for it.
https://news.osu.edu/current-melting-of-greenlands-ice-mimics-1920s-1940s-event/
07-10-2019 01:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
James___ wrote: To understand CO2's influence in our atmosphere, scientists and engineers would need to let the sun shine through 1 cubic meter of atmospheric gases. At the bottom would be a solar panel.


James__, I'll help you out.

You get an "A" for effort. You have contrived a test that would generate accurate data on how much of some electromagnetic wavelengths of solar radiation is absorbed by different mixtures of "atmosphere."

Unfortunately, your test will not help anyone draw any conclusions of any value, owing to the fact that you have no falsifiable model to test. You are gathering data ... nay, trivia ... just for fun. You have not derived any hypotheses from any falsifiable model.

Ergo, what is the point of your test? ... to satisfy an idle curiosity about differing absorption between differing gas mixtures of some electromagnetic radiation?

James___ wrote: No scientists or engineers have done real time research to determine the "k" value (w/m^2) of the gases in our atmosphere.

... because no one can ... because our atmosphere is not uniform. CO2 is not evenly distributed and because of its mass will have tendencies to lower altitudes, i.e. can be expected to differ merely per a small change in elevation, and of course there are volcanoes. Water vapor varies greatly as well. Humidity is a standard weather metric which ranges from 1% to 100% ... of course when there isn't any precipitation. Of course there is more bovine methanation around dairy farms.

What you seek is not possible.

James___ wrote: This is as those gases are found in our atmosphere. That would create a baseline.

Unfortunately, no, it would not.

You can still do all this and gather data. You could create quite a dataset.

Your insurmountable problem, however, is that you are not testing any aspect of any falsifiable model. There will be no drawable conclusions from your data, no matter how accurate and how complete.

James___ wrote: With CO2, it is causing our oceans to become acidic.

... or did you mean to write that natural evaporation causes our ocean to become more alkaline?

... or did you meant to write that natural geological processes cause our ocean to become more alkaline? ... which is why it has always been alkaline, right? ... which is why the ocean has never acidified, right?

There is no "ocean acidification." You have allowed yourself to be duped by Marxist hype.


.


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
07-10-2019 02:18
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: To understand CO2's influence in our atmosphere, scientists and engineers would need to let the sun shine through 1 cubic meter of atmospheric gases. At the bottom would be a solar panel.


James__, I'll help you out.

You get an "A" for effort. You have contrived a test that would generate accurate data on how much of some electromagnetic wavelengths of solar radiation is absorbed by different mixtures of "atmosphere."

Unfortunately, your test will not help anyone draw any conclusions of any value, owing to the fact that you have no falsifiable model to test. You are gathering data ... nay, trivia ... just for fun. You have not derived any hypotheses from any falsifiable model.

Ergo, what is the point of your test? ... to satisfy an idle curiosity about differing absorption between differing gas mixtures of some electromagnetic radiation?

James___ wrote: No scientists or engineers have done real time research to determine the "k" value (w/m^2) of the gases in our atmosphere.

... because no one can ... because our atmosphere is not uniform. CO2 is not evenly distributed and because of its mass will have tendencies to lower altitudes, i.e. can be expected to differ merely per a small change in elevation, and of course there are volcanoes. Water vapor varies greatly as well. Humidity is a standard weather metric which ranges from 1% to 100% ... of course when there isn't any precipitation. Of course there is more bovine methanation around dairy farms.

What you seek is not possible.

James___ wrote: This is as those gases are found in our atmosphere. That would create a baseline.

Unfortunately, no, it would not.

You can still do all this and gather data. You could create quite a dataset.

Your insurmountable problem, however, is that you are not testing any aspect of any falsifiable model. There will be no drawable conclusions from your data, no matter how accurate and how complete.

James___ wrote: With CO2, it is causing our oceans to become acidic.

... or did you mean to write that natural evaporation causes our ocean to become more alkaline?

... or did you meant to write that natural geological processes cause our ocean to become more alkaline? ... which is why it has always been alkaline, right? ... which is why the ocean has never acidified, right?

There is no "ocean acidification." You have allowed yourself to be duped by Marxist hype.


.



I happen to like Marxism. It's like posting with isn't and is not.


https://youtu.be/O_fmUYyWSyE
07-10-2019 02:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
spot wrote: What is about climatology that makes people with nothing approaching a clue think they are experts on the subject?

What is it about the Global Warming faith that makes clueless, scientifically illiterate moron worshipers think they are scientific geniuses just for regurgitating the WACKY dogma?

It would appear that the Global Warming congregation is comprised of people who know they are complete idiots and who are DESPERATE to be smart ... or to at least feel like they are smart. They are DESPERATE to tell the smart people of the world "You are WRONG! I am RIGHT! *I* am sooooo THMAAAART and *YOU* are sooooo THHHHTOOOOPID!"

This probably explains why Global Warming worshipers all suck at economics ... because they are idiots ... and gullible iditiots at that ... iditios that will fall hook, line and sinker for any fanatical Marxist religion that refers to itself as "Settled Science."

Do you have any ideas what about Global Warming appeals to the completely brain-dead?

.


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
07-10-2019 03:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
James___ wrote:I happen to like Marxism. It's like posting with isn't and is not.

... then you'll love this.


.


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
07-10-2019 03:29
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:I happen to like Marxism. It's like posting with isn't and is not.

... then you'll love this.


.



That is so funny, loved it!!!!!
As a kid had to pluck chicken for dinner and green beans and corn for dinner. And for snacks we had to pick grapes off the vine.
I lived with my grandmother in Kentucky, USA. Of course we had fresh meat and vegetables.
What was funny was watching my brother Eddie use the rototiller. He was 9 and it's handles might've been higher than his shoulders. It bucked like Hell but he got'er Don


And when I lived with my grandmother in Norway, I'd go out with my dad in a row boat to drop nets. In the evening we'd go pull them up. I was 4. It's sad though. None of my brothers ever went out with me and my father

Edited on 07-10-2019 03:41
07-10-2019 04:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
James___ wrote:And when I lived with my grandmother in Norway, I'd go out with my dad in a row boat to drop nets. In the evening we'd go pull them up. I was 4. It's sad though. None of my brothers ever went out with me and my father

... and you got to spend time with your dad!

Did you catch much?


.


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
07-10-2019 05:02
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:And when I lived with my grandmother in Norway, I'd go out with my dad in a row boat to drop nets. In the evening we'd go pull them up. I was 4. It's sad though. None of my brothers ever went out with me and my father

... and you got to spend time with your dad!

Did you catch much?


.



We did. He even banked a fire a few times to cook a fish in.
That's something modern living misses sometimes, taking the time to do something besides work and shop.
If you need an idea, look at how many people like to grow some of their own food.
07-10-2019 05:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
James___ wrote: We did. He even banked a fire a few times to cook a fish in. That's something modern living misses sometimes, taking the time to do something besides work and shop.

You were lucky. Quality time like that with a parent occurs far less than it should. it's so important for children at that age to get to spend time doing things together with parents. The specific activity is not really that important ... but if you get to cook fish you caught then it's a lot better.


.


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
07-10-2019 05:37
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(49)
[quote=Into The Night]There is actually no such thing as 'global weather'. Weather is just a combination of wind speed and direction, precipitation (if any), cloud cover, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure; all quantifiable values.[/quote]

I understand what you're saying. It was again my lazy, non scientific verbiage that tripped me up. Let's try this.
The science of Climate Change has discovered the majority of the independent variables required to predict the dependent weather variables at any time and any point on the earth in the future.

I wrote that paragraph about 10 different ways and see what you mean about defining Climate Change. What does it do that doesn't require pieces of itself to function. Just the timing alone is impossible. And if you knew, you would be king of the world or an evil villain!


I know, the language is still not precise enough.

[quote=Into The Night]Since CO2 is not a source of energy, it does not add additional energy to Earth.[/quote]
A light bulb moment realizing the difference between energy and temperature change.
07-10-2019 05:44
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: We did. He even banked a fire a few times to cook a fish in. That's something modern living misses sometimes, taking the time to do something besides work and shop.

You were lucky. Quality time like that with a parent occurs far less than it should. it's so important for children at that age to get to spend time doing things together with parents. The specific activity is not really that important ... but if you get to cook fish you caught then it's a lot better.


.


Why sometimes things aren't about money. Enough sh1t going on in the world.
07-10-2019 05:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
[quote]Harry C wrote:
The science of Climate Change has discovered the majority of the independent variables required to predict the dependent weather variables at any time and any point on the earth in the future.

There is no science of Climate Change. There are only anti-science beliefs that run counter to physics.

Of course we understand the dependent variables of weather. What is needed is an unambiguous definition of "Climate".

[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


.


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
07-10-2019 06:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
James___ wrote:
Both itn & mini-itn ...their logic is not falsifiable.
Good point! Actually it's been falsified over and over but the imagination is a powerful thing!

Harry C wrote:....on energy mass balance... What comes in either goes out or is used (again lay terms).
OK got you. For Thermal Energy this is sometimes call the "Heat Budget" (I personally find financial analogies to be very helpful). So in my post (not my work) : co2-calamity-math you see that 100 units is used and you have 100 units coming in and 100 going out. A balanced equation is a fixture of chemistry, finance, you name it. It's just so you know you're not missing something in your (in this case) hypothesis.

Harry C wrote:
I came here to find a pivot point in the science - where generally accepted science and climate models diverge. What I'm worn out on is anecdotal or correlative evidence.
Too bad man that's life. The temperature of a part of a planet (ground level to 2 meters above in our case) is influenced by a lot of stuff. As far as I can tell we aren't able to "easily" break it all down. This is true of most stuff. One day we may have a much better handle on it but we don't today. If you talked to a doctor 200 years ago who was really sure that "germs" caused illness they'd have a tough time satisfying your same desire for certainty but they were still right. Finding the the truth can be a challenge. Detecting BS is often much easier. Part of the process here for me is to clear away the debris and look at what we have so far.

For the me the sum up is: This is a very complex issue scientifically and the proposed plans of action are extremely inconvenient and expensive. The stakes if there is a problem, which is certainly plausible at this point, are even more expensive. So here we are.

Harry C wrote:
What I see in the noise are possible attempts to distort or otherwise alter the truth set.
Truth set? Hmmm. Don't have one of those. We know people have bias and are pushing an agenda on both sides. Personally I find all of the temperature data to be unconvincing. It is admittedly influenced by a number of factors with CO2 being a minor player even in research focused on it. I found Dr. Pat Frank to be pretty convincing on our not having the measurement accuracy to talk about 1 degree: Dr. Pat Frank. Sadly Verner and I are the only skeptics on the board so this was never even discussed (verner not being around till recently).

I do believe the CO2 ppm data is accurate and that we've had a steep increase and that, looking back just 100 years and then forward 500 years, it seems likely we would continue to increase it even more dramatically. So it needs to be taken seriously.

Harry C wrote:the audacity of people to think they know enough about it to consider the science of that flimsy model "settled".
I agree completely. It is FAR from settled but even if it were close we should be just as aggressive about questioning it. The stakes are extremely high. Also the prognosis for a rational and fact based public policy are pretty low if you look at similar issues like nuclear power and genetically engineered food.

I really do believe that getting not only at the fact but at a way of being able to understand and explain them is worthwhile for us regular folks.

James___ wrote: To understand CO2's influence in our atmosphere, scientists and engineers would need to let the sun shine through 1 cubic meter of atmospheric gases
Sorry James apparently the budget for public education only allows for 2liter soda bottles: Hotter Co2

spot wrote:
What do you expect to learn 'debating' random people on the internet that you could not learn from a good book?
Clarity is worth fighting for I'd say! And this issue isn't settled science anyway. Most of all it's important to call BS in this Trump era where it flows like big brown rivers everywhere. Sanity matters! Let's fight for it!

spot wrote:
Do you know about John Tyndall?
Always good to bring up! Modern day version of the same experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

HarveyH55 wrote:Truth/facts, have more to do with you perception/beliefs.
No they don't. What people say about them maybe. There is a reality there and nothing we SAY changes it. What's wonderful about science is it's an activity that allows us to discover that truth in spite of what we want it to be.

Into the Night wrote: (tmiddles)... repetitiously uses undefined and contrived 'models' to prove the Stefan-Boltzmann law and 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are wrong,...
I simply picked up a textbook and posted a problem from it. I DID look online (I googled!) not for global warming but for fundamental thermodynamics you and IBD claimed were wrong. I found 12 references that debunk you. You two presented nothing. You've been lying to this board for 5 years.

Harry C and anyone reading this. Let's be crystal clear. This is a lie invented by these clowns and you won't find it supported anywhere:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object
This little nugget of PURE BS was invented to try to claim that a greenhouse effect is impossible. It's dishonest, lame and weird.

Into the Night wrote:
Only the Sun provides Earth's energy. Using CO2 to raise the temperature violates the 1st law of
thermodynamics (and the conservation of energy law).
Here ITN is claiming it's not possible for an atmosphere to result in an increase average ground level temperature. He won't explain why the Moon has a lower temp or why Venus has a crazy high temp. He will say we know nothing about anything so we can't talk about it.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Venus/Mercury
yet another thing that nobody knows but you claim you nonetheless know
I know that Venus has a hotter ground level than Mercury, yes. So does everyone else that doesn't think the Russians, Japanese and American space programs conspired to falsify the data for no reason at all.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:This example from a text book is simple. You and IBD have never had an answer for it.

Oh, this example? ... the one for which you killed the discussion .
The topic is there with your failure to engage with it at all. So IBD what happens to the radiance from the room your in right now when it reaches your skin?


"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
Edited on 07-10-2019 06:32
07-10-2019 07:11
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
@tmiddles, there's a basic flaw in the video that you linked. It's something people haven't caught on to yet. What % of solar radiation is in the UV absorption spectrum of CO2?
And that energy interacts with 0.04% of our atmosphere. How does that translate into w/m^2 which is what translates into temperature? I've never found anything on that specific rate of conversion.
With me, I have a bad habit of looking at what's not being said.
07-10-2019 07:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
James___ wrote:
@tmiddles, there's a basic flaw in the video that you linked. ...What % of solar radiation is in the UV absorption spectrum of CO2?...

Are you talking about the soda bottles in the HS classroom? A flaw? Yeah I think it's fair to say that doesn't model the atmosphere of Earth too well!

What I don't get it is why someone can't spend more that $40 on an experiment that works (Bill Nye famously presenting one that didn't).
07-10-2019 08:04
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
@tmiddles, there's a basic flaw in the video that you linked. ...What % of solar radiation is in the UV absorption spectrum of CO2?...

Are you talking about the soda bottles in the HS classroom? A flaw? Yeah I think it's fair to say that doesn't model the atmosphere of Earth too well!

What I don't get it is why someone can't spend more that $40 on an experiment that works (Bill Nye famously presenting one that didn't).


This is what I'm talking about. Their graphs are wrong. Solar radiation is 1366 w/m^2. The problem is that they say 100% of that makes it into our atmosphere.
They show what they registered. And what they cannot account for is considered to be in our atmosphere.
And with the outgoing, what they do not observe being radiated, they create a budget credit for it.
They ignore the insular effects of both the mesopause and the tropopause. Vacuum as in really cold layers slows the rate of heat transfer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/#!po=7.85714

I think something else is going on and what we did to our atmosphere might've hurried things along just a little bit. I do like their graph. The temperature peaked and will it continue dropping?

http://berkeleyearth.org/2018-temperatures/


BTW, I've broken down a global temperature graph since the 1880's. In using 30 years as a minimum period of time, there is no relationship between CO2 levels and global warming. Their graphs just don't show it.
Does it matter that from 1880 - 1910 that it cooled? Yet from 1910 - 1945 it warmed by 0.6° C. with the same increase in CO2.
And from 1978 - 2008 it warned by about 0.6° C. with CO2 levels increasing by 5 times as much. Their own graphs disagree with what they say.
Edited on 07-10-2019 08:50
07-10-2019 09:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1545)
James___ wrote:...I've broken down a global temperature graph since the 1880's. In using 30 years as a minimum period of time, there is no relationship between CO2 levels and global warming.
OK so I didn't really follow the first part of your post but as for CO2 and Temp correlating I'd say this:

I agree with Pat Franks that we can't say we know within fractions of a degree what the temperature has been going back to the 1800s

That doesn't prevent us from judging those advocating for AGW using those charts to question their confidence.

I don't believe they are just making up numbers but that there is massive overconfidence. Attacking overconfidence is an important step. So using the charts that are thrown around it IS clear there is no correlation evident between CO2 and Temperature (as presented) in the near term.

It seems there are two possibilities:
1- CO2 is not causing a global warming
2- It is but the effect is delayed.

So we have short predictions:
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394
But OOPS we don't see temp following CO2 after 10 years at all.


And it looks like 30 years is the standard:
Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

They make in important point: "The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2 emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of the industrial revolution."

It does make sense you'd have a cummulative effect. The math I had on CO2 had it accounting for: "CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063)."

So CO2 doubling to 800 ppm would bring about 1.8 degrees of warming.

Basically you're talking about a very small change, 10 years delayed, it's just not going to show a SPIKE in temperature due to a SPIKE in CO2.

"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
Edited on 07-10-2019 09:50
07-10-2019 17:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
tmiddles wrote: This is a very complex issue scientifically

Nope. It's a very simple scientific matter that you convolute for religious reasons.

tmiddles wrote: The stakes if there is a problem, which is certainly plausible at this point, ...

... as if the completely undefined is "certainly plausible."

tmiddles wrote: Sadly Verner and I are the only skeptics on the board ...

... "skeptics" of science ... which is a polite way of saying "science deniers."

tmiddles wrote: I do believe the CO2 ppm data is accurate

... a belief rooted in religious dogma, not in any valid dataset.

tmiddles wrote: The stakes are extremely high.

Any reasonable person would find it absurd to label the completely undefined and unsupported as "extremely high stakes."

tmiddles wrote: I really do believe that getting not only at the fact but at a way of being able to understand and explain them is worthwhile for us regular folks.

... except that you believe "we already know" what you are pretending to want to find out ... to the extent that you feel your conclusions about the completely undefined are absolutely justified.

Just like a religion.

tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Truth/facts, have more to do with you perception/beliefs.
What's wonderful about science is it's an activity that allows us to discover that truth in spite of what we want it to be.

You are still calling your WACKY religion "science." Science doesn't confirm anything as TRUE, religions do that in their respective dogmas.

tmiddles wrote: I simply picked up a textbook and posted a problem from it.

Yes, you used a non-repeatable illustration to draw false larger conclusions ... and then you quickly shut down the discussion when scrutiny was applied.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Only the Sun provides Earth's energy. Using CO2 to raise the temperature violates the 1st law of thermodynamics (and the conservation of energy law).
Here ITN is claiming it's not possible for an atmosphere to result in an increase average ground level temperature.

... and Into the Night is correct, ... and you are confused and frustrated at your inability to understand the laws of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote: He won't explain why the Moon has a lower temp or why Venus has a crazy high temp.

Actually, the moon has a much higher daytime surface temperature that makes a mockery of your denial of reality and of your insistence that the earth's atmosphere heats the earth's surface to a higher temperature than it would be without the atmosphere. The earth's oceans do not boil away in the daytime. Your refusal to explain this awesomely powerful atmospheric refrigeration blows a canyon-sized hole through your religious dogma.

You refuse to explain yet your excuse it to strangely blame Into the Night for not explaining it. It's your insistence, not his, that the earth's surface is necessarily of a higher temperature than that of the moon ... and you are once again utterly denying reality.

tmiddles wrote: So IBD what happens to the radiance from the room your in right now when it reaches your skin?

I was so hoping to tell you that what happens is exactly what your repeatable example shows ... which presumably was going to support your point ... but then you quickly shut down the discussion before providing me that repeatable example.

Are you saying that you now have one that you are going to share and that we should re-engage the conversation?


.


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
07-10-2019 17:53
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:...I've broken down a global temperature graph since the 1880's. In using 30 years as a minimum period of time, there is no relationship between CO2 levels and global warming.
OK so I didn't really follow the first part of your post but as for CO2 and Temp correlating I'd say this:

I agree with Pat Franks that we can't say we know within fractions of a degree what the temperature has been going back to the 1800s

That doesn't prevent us from judging those advocating for AGW using those charts to question their confidence.

I don't believe they are just making up numbers but that there is massive overconfidence. Attacking overconfidence is an important step. So using the charts that are thrown around it IS clear there is no correlation evident between CO2 and Temperature (as presented) in the near term.

It seems there are two possibilities:
1- CO2 is not causing a global warming
2- It is but the effect is delayed.

So we have short predictions:
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394
But OOPS we don't see temp following CO2 after 10 years at all.


And it looks like 30 years is the standard:
Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

They make in important point: "The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2 emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of the industrial revolution."

It does make sense you'd have a cummulative effect. The math I had on CO2 had it accounting for: "CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063)."

So CO2 doubling to 800 ppm would bring about 1.8 degrees of warming.

Basically you're talking about a very small change, 10 years delayed, it's just not going to show a SPIKE in temperature due to a SPIKE in CO2.

"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 have the faith. Scientists can understand what the weather was like to a high degree because of record keeping by ship's captains and people who lived in the area. This can help to understand core samples in the oceans and on land because they would have a base line to go by.
That's how science is supposed to be done. With CO2, cooling and no temperature change should have some type of noticeable relationship with elevated CO2 levels but don't. Kind of why I spend my time considering other possibilities where certain relationships could be made known.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1afjB3m6y57bwNq78

And this graph of ozone depletion pretty much agrees with warming for it's time frame. But that's just a coincidence, right?

https://images.app.goo.gl/JSdBo7r717iqrqLq8
Edited on 07-10-2019 18:25
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





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