Remember me
▼ Content

Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?



Page 1 of 3123>
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?31-08-2019 16:59
sceptic777
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
I have been listening to a number of scientists who are commenting on the climate change debate. One of them is Prof. Piers Corbyn who says that CO2 is not the problem. I have also found a graph that represents the relationship between resultant temperature increase and ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. It shows that after the CO2 concentration passes about 100ppm the warming effect of further CO2 gives a progressively decreasing effect of warming of the atmosphere. After CO2 passes 400ppm the warming effect is almost unmeasurable.
This graph is in a Climate change book that I have and it is repeated on a number of PDF's that I have. Is it accepted as a true depiction of the relationship between CO2 and temperature rise, and what is its origin?
This is the curves approximate shape.

T
E x
M x
P x
E x
R x
A x
T x
U x
R x
E x
x
x
x x x
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
ppm CO2
31-08-2019 18:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
sceptic777 wrote: It shows that after the CO2 concentration passes about 100ppm the warming effect of further CO2 gives a progressively decreasing effect of warming of the atmosphere. After CO2 passes 400ppm the warming effect is almost unmeasurable.

CO2 doesn't have any ability to alter the average global temperature.

Greenhouse Effect cannot be unambiguously defined without violating physics, which is why you never see it defined in any unambiguous manner.

CO2 does, however, benefit plants. Let's pump some more of it into the atmosphere.


.


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
31-08-2019 22:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
sceptic777 wrote:
...after the CO2 concentration passes about 100ppm the warming effect of further CO2 gives a progressively decreasing effect of warming of the atmosphere.


I think your asci art depiction of the graph didn't come out. So what's the theory behind it do you know? We should find a link.
31-08-2019 22:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
CO2 doesn't have any ability to alter the average global temperature.
.


Bold claim. How do you know that? Done some lab work after someone told you about it?
01-09-2019 01:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CO2 doesn't have any ability to alter the average global temperature.
.


Bold claim. How do you know that? Done some lab work after someone told you about it?



The 1st law of thermodynamics.

Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. CO2 does not add any additional energy.


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
01-09-2019 01:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CO2 doesn't have any ability to alter the average global temperature.
.


Bold claim. How do you know that? Done some lab work after someone told you about it?



The 1st law of thermodynamics.

Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. CO2 does not add any additional energy.


You're answering a different question there.

Define "average global temperature"
01-09-2019 02:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:Define "average global temperature"

I clearly defined it twice for you. Feel free to read what I wrote.

.


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
01-09-2019 06:25
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
I don't really believe there is anywhere near enough CO2, to have any measurable effect, ever. It's only about 0.04% of the total atmosphere. In order for that little of anything to have a noticeable effect, it would need to create a tremendous amount of energy, which obviously isn't possible. If CO2 did posses any sort of super-heating property, it would have been exploited a long time ago. A lot of the stuff we burn, is to use the heat, to perform some sort of work. Would we need to burn less fuel, if CO2 could make it more efficient? Everything about 'Global Warming', looks to me like CO2 was chosen before hand, and all the work done, was to try and explain why we must reduce it, meaning reduce using fossil fuels. We release a great deal of CO2 from fermentation too, and a few other industrial processes that don't get much, if any attention, like roasting coffee beans, and cheese making. Cattle are greenhouse gas factories, as are most herbivores. They belch CO2, and flatulence CH4, just part their digestive system.

CO2 is commonly augmented in commercial greenhouse, as the plants grow faster, strong, healthier. It's a considerable improvement, for a very small expense. They raise the level of CO2 to 1200-2000 ppm, which still might be less than what plants could actually use. OSHA says 5000 ppm is relatively safe, for short period work, 10 minutes or so. CO2 is harmless, just heavier, harder to get enough oxygen, without good circulation. 2000 ppm, you could work all day in, with no ill effects. 400 ppm isn't much of anything, considering how large the planet actual is, and the volume of our atmosphere. It's really a difficult think for people to have any perspective on the size.

Personally, I'd rather see CO2 levels rise to 1 or 2%, higher would likely be a problem, since it's outdoors, air circulating. Stronger, faster growing plants, would do a lot for providing food and cleaner air.
01-09-2019 11:23
sceptic777
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Thanks guys. I don't know why the graph didn't show correctly. It was supposed to illustrate how the CO2 does trap heat in the atmosphere but makes only any real difference up to about 80ppm. After that it diminishes rapidly so that any CO2 that we humans contribute after the present value of 400 ppm is so small as to be unmeasurable. This graph is presented in a book called "Taxing Air" by Bob Carter & John Spooner. It also appears in a .pdf file called "A Cool look at Global Warming"(Sydney Legacy June 2011). I tend to think that the data for this graph may have come from laboratory experiments.

I've also tried to find out how much of a greenhouse gas Methane is and have found wildly differing amounts. Anything from 4 times to 10 times the rate of CO2. Every time someone asks a Climate "Expert" about how such a tiny amounts of CO2 or Methane could cause such a big change in climate, the answer never explains exactly how it does it! They just say "The public doesn't understand the science".
In Australia here they want us to stop using coal for the power grid but we only contribute 1.3% to global CO2 so even if we stopped completely we would not change the climate change situation at all.(assuming that CO2 is a greenhouse gas). My trust in scientific consensus has taken a big hit!!
01-09-2019 18:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CO2 doesn't have any ability to alter the average global temperature.
.


Bold claim. How do you know that? Done some lab work after someone told you about it?


* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't heat a warmer surface with a colder gas.
* You can't reduce entropy in any system.
* You can't trap or slow heat.
* You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

These theories of science exist. They have not been falsified. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics still apply. The Stefan-Boltzmann law still applies. You can't just discard them.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2019 18:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CO2 doesn't have any ability to alter the average global temperature.
.


Bold claim. How do you know that? Done some lab work after someone told you about it?



The 1st law of thermodynamics.

Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. CO2 does not add any additional energy.


You're answering a different question there.

Define "average global temperature"

WRONG. He answered your question.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2019 19:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
sceptic777 wrote:
Thanks guys. I don't know why the graph didn't show correctly. It was supposed to illustrate how the CO2 does trap heat in the atmosphere but makes only any real difference up to about 80ppm.

It is not possible to trap heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. You cannot trap it. You cannot trap thermal energy either. There is always heat. You cannot trap light. CO2 has no ability to trap anything. Any energy that CO2 receives from light that is absorbed is in turn radiated or conducted away. Absorption does not warm the Earth. It's simply another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere. The effect of CO2, or any other gas or vapor, is ZERO.
sceptic777 wrote:
After that it diminishes rapidly so that any CO2 that we humans contribute after the present value of 400 ppm is so small as to be unmeasurable.

ZERO.
sceptic777 wrote:
This graph is presented in a book called "Taxing Air" by Bob Carter & John Spooner. It also appears in a .pdf file called "A Cool look at Global Warming"(Sydney Legacy June 2011). I tend to think that the data for this graph may have come from laboratory experiments.

It is completely manufactured data. It's been repeated in many books, including several schoolbooks.
* It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today.
* Proxies do not indicate the temperature of the Earth. Indeed, they do not indicate anything.
sceptic777 wrote:
I've also tried to find out how much of a greenhouse gas Methane is

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The effect of Methane is also ZERO.
sceptic777 wrote:
and have found wildly differing amounts.

ZERO.
sceptic777 wrote:
Anything from 4 times to 10 times the rate of CO2.

10 time zero is zero.
sceptic777 wrote:
Every time someone asks a Climate "Expert" about how such a tiny amounts of CO2 or Methane could cause such a big change in climate, the answer never explains exactly how it does it! They just say "The public doesn't understand the science".

There is no science to understand. 'Climate change' is not defined. It's a buzzword. That's why they can never describe it.
sceptic777 wrote:
In Australia here they want us to stop using coal for the power grid but we only contribute 1.3% to global CO2 so even if we stopped completely we would not change the climate change situation at all.(assuming that CO2 is a greenhouse gas).

Like other nations, the Marxists want to shut your industry down. They want justify taking those industries so they can operate them 'better' (which is to say in cooperation with the Church of Global Warming).
sceptic777 wrote:
My trust in scientific consensus has taken a big hit!!

Good. Science doesn't use consensus at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory is ever proven. It will always remain a theory until it is falsified.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2019 02:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CO2 doesn't have any ability to alter the average global temperature.
Bold claim. How do you know that? Done some lab work after someone told you about it?
* You can't.... ... The Stefan-Boltzmann law still applies. You can't just discard them.

More platitudes

You have never had anything else on this board. Never once a real example. Also you don't know how to apply the Stefan-Boltzman law or the laws of thermodynamics as evidenced here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room
So you wouldn't know.
02-09-2019 03:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:More platitudes

Science doesn't stop being science when it becomes inconvenient for your religion.

Yes, I get it, science bothers you and you wish it would just go away. Referring to science as "platitudes" tells us just how desperate you are for science to be a subjective claim that you can dismiss.

I have good news. You are free to keep on denying science as you have been doing. The right of the people to deny and dismiss science shall not be infringed.


.


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
02-09-2019 04:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:Referring to science as "platitudes" tells us just how desperate you are for science to be a subjective claim that you can dismiss

People have pretended that they were the holders of the real science since the first old fart explained that the sun crossed the sky on the back of a turtle, wowing all those around the camp fire with his false knowledge.

You and ITN have a crazy theory not found in any book, not supported by any scientist and easily disproven: that a warmer body can't absorb radiation from a cooler body, that this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You can call it science if you want. But you have been DEBUNKED!!
02-09-2019 07:25
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1477)
tmiddles wrote:
You can call it science if you want. But you have been DEBUNKED!!


Still waiting for that repeatable example of cooler flowing backwards to warmer.

No? Until then "net thermal radiation" is DEBUNKED.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Edited on 02-09-2019 07:26
02-09-2019 07:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
GasGuzzler wrote:repeatable example

Do you know what that is GasGuzzler? Because IBD does not. Ever seen one on this board you'd say qualifies? IBD, ITN and you sure never posted anything that could fit that description I'm aware of.

Also quick question: Am I right in assuming that you also believe every textbook on thermodynamics has this wrong?

It seem Harvey does as well as IBD and ITN. I do have to say that level of conspiracy theory does surprise me.
Edited on 02-09-2019 08:27
02-09-2019 16:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
GasGuzzler wrote:Still waiting for that repeatable example of cooler flowing backwards to warmer.

No? Until then "net thermal radiation" is DEBUNKED.

GasGuzzler, don't hold your breath. No such examples will be forthcoming. tmiddles clings to a misunderstanding that represents the last hope for his faith. I'd prefer we all be happy in the world but tmiddles is really pushing this issue as though he wants his hopes dashed.

The bottom line is that he did not bother to read the material he is referencing and I don't think he plans to, just as he has no plans to listen to you, to me, ... or to anyone presenting science.

tmiddles wrote:Do you know what that is GasGuzzler? Because IBD does not. Ever seen one on this board you'd say qualifies? IBD, ITN and you sure never posted anything that could fit that description I'm aware of.

tmiddles, there's a very good reason no one has ever posted any examples of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this forum. Do you know what that reason is? Hint: it's the same reason preventing you from ever posting one.


.


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
02-09-2019 16:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
The bottom line is that he did not bother to read the material he is referencing ...there's a very good reason no one has ever posted any examples of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body

Guess what everyone! IBD has something he could quote of link to but it'll remain a mystery! Oh I wonder what it is!

And don't pretend I was asking for an example of radiative heat transfer. I would like an example of ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE INFORAMTION/EXPERIMENTATION/DATA on any subject at all!!

You never ever have!

All you do is claim things are not qualified or true. So lame.
02-09-2019 16:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:And don't pretend I was asking for an example of radiative heat transfer. I would like an example of ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE INFORAMTION/EXPERIMENTATION/DATA on any subject at all!!

1. You are getting overly defensive to science
2. I don't care what you believe. I'm happy if you're happy.
3. Instead of something I consider reliable, I'd rather reference something that you consider reliable, e.g. the material you posted, Wikipedia, etc... Notice that they all contain the Stefan-Boltzmann law as it has been explained to you. Notice that the "net flow" version in those references only applies when there is another body of higher temperature radiating into the body in question, as in prior to equilibrium.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2019 16:38
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1477)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:repeatable example

Do you know what that is GasGuzzler? Because IBD does not. Ever seen one on this board you'd say qualifies? IBD, ITN and you sure never posted anything that could fit that description I'm aware of.


What you are not recognizing is that you have accused me all mankind of the crime of destroying the Earth, and you are asking me to pay for that crime.

Burden of proof is on YOU. Even Al Gore recognized this...."The science is settled".


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
02-09-2019 19:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CO2 doesn't have any ability to alter the average global temperature.
Bold claim. How do you know that? Done some lab work after someone told you about it?
* You can't.... ... The Stefan-Boltzmann law still applies. You can't just discard them.

More platitudes

You have never had anything else on this board. Never once a real example. Also you don't know how to apply the Stefan-Boltzman law or the laws of thermodynamics as evidenced here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room
So you wouldn't know.


You question was answered using your randU values. You're a liar. You're a repetitive liar at that.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2019 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:repeatable example

Do you know what that is GasGuzzler? Because IBD does not. Ever seen one on this board you'd say qualifies? IBD, ITN and you sure never posted anything that could fit that description I'm aware of.

Also quick question: Am I right in assuming that you also believe every textbook on thermodynamics has this wrong?

It seem Harvey does as well as IBD and ITN. I do have to say that level of conspiracy theory does surprise me.


Lies. Compositional error fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. False authority fallacy. Argument of ignorance fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2019 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The bottom line is that he did not bother to read the material he is referencing ...there's a very good reason no one has ever posted any examples of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body

Guess what everyone! IBD has something he could quote of link to but it'll remain a mystery! Oh I wonder what it is!

And don't pretend I was asking for an example of radiative heat transfer. I would like an example of ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE INFORAMTION/EXPERIMENTATION/DATA on any subject at all!!

1st law of thermodynamics.
2nd law of thermodynamics.
Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
You never ever have!

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
All you do is claim things are not qualified or true. So lame.

Lie.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2019 23:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
3. Instead of something I consider reliable, I'd rather reference

You kick the ball forward all you like nutso. You consider nothing reliable for good reason. It keeps the option of disqualifying anything and everything available to you.

How many years on this board? And nothing has ever once made the grade!

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Never once a real example.

You question was answered using your randU values.

Once again pretending you just don't have time to quote your non-existent answer.

GasGuzzler wrote:
What you are not recognizing is that you have accused me all mankind of the crime of destroying the Earth,

When did I do that??? I accused you of not freezing to death.

What's ironic is that you guys must really believe science will prove you wrong or else you wouldn't try to prevent science from being clarified here.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:an example of ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE INFORAMTION/EXPERIMENTATION/DATA on any subject at all!!

1st law of thermodynamics.
2nd law of thermodynamics.
Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Not platitudes real examples. Apply the SB Law to anything I dare you.
03-09-2019 04:28
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Would you say that a person that stalk another, from place to place, is sane and rational? You've hijacked most every thread, with this one issue, regardless of the topic that started it. Is that sane or rational? I'm not a follower of Stefan-Boltzmann, usually steer clear of those discussions, you make it difficult. I think you both are miss using it, trying to squeeze a little more function out of it, than it was ever intended. What usually happens to a screwdriver, you use for other functions, besides fasteners? It bends, or breaks. Basically, your arguments are over who broke the tool.
03-09-2019 11:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
HarveyH55 wrote:
You've hijacked most every thread, with this one issue, regardless of the topic that started it.

ITN and IBD have an issue with everything they say. They have never once put anything real on the table. That applies to every topic.

The one issue of:
tmiddles wrote:I would like an example of ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE INFORAMTION/EXPERIMENTATION/DATA on any subject at all!!

Applies to everything.

How is it possible to say anything Harvey when no information is reliable enough?

You still haven't really said that you would trust a textbooks on physics. Would you?

You just tuned out the fact that these guys have been lying to everyone.
03-09-2019 14:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote: ITN and IBD have an issue with everything they say.

Frankly, I've never had an issue with anything I've said.

tmiddles wrote: They have never once put anything real on the table.

Is it a nice table? I can't recall anything unreal that I have put anywhere, only real things have I "put." I'm sure I have put some real things on tables. Fruit, for example.

tmiddles wrote:That applies to every topic.

I certainly haven't put every topic on a table, but some of those topics aren't real.

tmiddles wrote:The one issue of:
tmiddles wrote:I would like an example of ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE INFORAMTION/EXPERIMENTATION/DATA on any subject at all!!

Applies to everything.

So it's like ... science? It doesn't seem rather falsifiable.

tmiddles wrote:How is it possible to say anything Harvey when no information is reliable enough?

@HarveyH55 ... tmiddles poses an interesting philosophical question. I'm guessing that it is a trick question. I suppose that the answer is "pick your greatest/most desperate hope and claim that it is 'what we know'."

tmiddles wrote:You still haven't really said that you would trust a textbooks on physics. Would you?

Someone tell tmiddles that a text is an inanimate object. A better question is whether the author is honest, whether the data within is valid, etc.. tmiddles is poised to refer to any wamizombie church literature as a "textbook."

tmiddles wrote:You just tuned out the fact that these guys have been lying to everyone.

Except that it is you who is the liar on this board.

.


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
03-09-2019 15:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:You still haven't really said that you would trust a textbooks on physics. Would you?

Someone tell tmiddles that a text is an inanimate object. A better question is whether the author is honest, whether the data within is valid, etc.. tmiddles is poised to refer to any wamizombie church literature as a "textbook.

All you have to do is cite one text that's not (but you can't).

Think about it: IBD and ITN can't name a single text on thermodynamics that isn't "wamizombie church literature" that totally contradicts them

I mean was the " wamizombie church literature" a thing 50 years ago? How about 75? Wouldn't there be at least one textbook?

IBD has gone so far as to refuse to admit he even learned form a book
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law...
Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. ...

Just hangin with science peeps, learning in the oral tradition Physics is so known for.

You can't provide a single reference, do a single experiment, or solve a singe problem . In 5 years.
03-09-2019 16:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:All you have to do is cite one text that's not (but you can't).

Remind me why I have to do this?

tmiddles wrote: Think about it: IBD and ITN can't name a single text on thermodynamics that isn't "wamizombie church literature" that totally contradicts them

Actually I can.

tmiddles wrote:I mean was the " wamizombie church literature" a thing 50 years ago?

Nope.

tmiddles wrote: IBD has gone so far as to refuse to admit he even learned form a book

I learned from a book.

tmiddles wrote: You can't provide a single reference, do a single experiment, or solve a singe problem . In 5 years.

Because IBDaMann is an avatar in anonymous online fora. You apparently don't grasp that whole concept.

.


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
03-09-2019 17:04
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1477)
GasGuzzler wrote:
What you are not recognizing is that you have accused me all mankind of the crime of destroying the Earth,

tmiddles wrote:When did I do that??? I accused you of not freezing to death.


You really think I'm that stupid?

Your bogus "heat flows backwards net thermal radiation" concoction is an attempt at showing "global warming" by CO2. Therefore every man woman and child is guilty by breathing.

Show me heat flowing backwards on any material other than a variable eating living breathing working sweating independent thermostat controlled system like the human body and I will pay attention. In the meantime, I need to go practice my evil capitalism habit. Bye bye.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
03-09-2019 17:17
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
You've hijacked most every thread, with this one issue, regardless of the topic that started it.

ITN and IBD have an issue with everything they say. They have never once put anything real on the table. That applies to every topic.

The one issue of:
tmiddles wrote:I would like an example of ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE INFORAMTION/EXPERIMENTATION/DATA on any subject at all!!

Applies to everything.

How is it possible to say anything Harvey when no information is reliable enough?

You still haven't really said that you would trust a textbooks on physics. Would you?

You just tuned out the fact that these guys have been lying to everyone.


I could have sworn I address your textbook question, more than once... I had half a year of Physics in high, more than 40 years ago. That was the only Physic textbook I've ever had. 40 years ago, I would trust them, without question. The education system has degraded considerably over the year, politics... It's not just learn informational stuff, things you can use, but there is an opinion side to everything these days. Some of the stuff the teach kids these days... One book doesn't qualify me to trust or distrust any other Physics book, other than the one I barely remember.

Think this might help you understand the forum a little better, maybe tolerate it better too. From the title, it should be obvious, that it's debate themed, but most people don't understand how debate works, or really have much interest in learning. I figured out much of it, had a vague understanding of how it work, but learn quite a bit seeing it in action. It's sort of a game, like chess. There are rules, tactics, strategies, a certain structure to game play. The goal, is to change the opinion of your opponent, or destroy their opinion. You can't admit to mistakes, or not knowing something, sign of weakness, it's like losing a battle, or a piece on the chessboard. You're still in the game, but on the defensive. I won't go into all the little things I picked up. I have this thing for recognizing patterns, and figuring out how all the pieces work together. Guess the trick of surviving on this site, is not to get drawn into a debate, unless you have the skills and experience to hold your own. I don't, and it doesn't bother me to admit it, or admit when I'm wrong about something, or don't know everything. I just post my thoughts and opinions, it's not important if everyone agrees. I do believe I come up with some reasonably decent ideas occasionally though, maybe some of them get shared beyond this forum.
03-09-2019 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
3. Instead of something I consider reliable, I'd rather reference

You kick the ball forward all you like nutso. You consider nothing reliable for good reason. It keeps the option of disqualifying anything and everything available to you.

He doesn't use manufactured data. Neither do I.

tmiddles wrote:
How many years on this board? And nothing has ever once made the grade!

He has made a much higher grade than you ever have!
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Never once a real example.

You question was answered using your randU values.

Once again pretending you just don't have time to quote your non-existent answer.

Lie. Your question was answered using your randU value.
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What you are not recognizing is that you have accused me all mankind of the crime of destroying the Earth,

When did I do that???
I accused you of not freezing to death.

What's ironic is that you guys must really believe science will prove you wrong or else you wouldn't try to prevent science from being clarified here.

You are simply denying science. You have no interest in learning science.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:an example of ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE INFORAMTION/EXPERIMENTATION/DATA on any subject at all!!

1st law of thermodynamics.
2nd law of thermodynamics.
Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Not platitudes real examples.

These theories are real examples of science.
tmiddles wrote:
Apply the SB Law to anything I dare you.

Already did, using your randU values.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
You've hijacked most every thread, with this one issue, regardless of the topic that started it.

ITN and IBD have an issue with everything they say. They have never once put anything real on the table. That applies to every topic.

The one issue of:
tmiddles wrote:I would like an example of ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE INFORAMTION/EXPERIMENTATION/DATA on any subject at all!!

Applies to everything.

How is it possible to say anything Harvey when no information is reliable enough?

You still haven't really said that you would trust a textbooks on physics. Would you?

You just tuned out the fact that these guys have been lying to everyone.


I could have sworn I address your textbook question, more than once... I had half a year of Physics in high, more than 40 years ago. That was the only Physic textbook I've ever had. 40 years ago, I would trust them, without question. The education system has degraded considerably over the year, politics... It's not just learn informational stuff, things you can use, but there is an opinion side to everything these days. Some of the stuff the teach kids these days... One book doesn't qualify me to trust or distrust any other Physics book, other than the one I barely remember.

Think this might help you understand the forum a little better, maybe tolerate it better too. From the title, it should be obvious, that it's debate themed, but most people don't understand how debate works, or really have much interest in learning. I figured out much of it, had a vague understanding of how it work, but learn quite a bit seeing it in action. It's sort of a game, like chess. There are rules, tactics, strategies, a certain structure to game play. The goal, is to change the opinion of your opponent, or destroy their opinion. You can't admit to mistakes, or not knowing something, sign of weakness, it's like losing a battle, or a piece on the chessboard. You're still in the game, but on the defensive. I won't go into all the little things I picked up. I have this thing for recognizing patterns, and figuring out how all the pieces work together. Guess the trick of surviving on this site, is not to get drawn into a debate, unless you have the skills and experience to hold your own. I don't, and it doesn't bother me to admit it, or admit when I'm wrong about something, or don't know everything. I just post my thoughts and opinions, it's not important if everyone agrees. I do believe I come up with some reasonably decent ideas occasionally though, maybe some of them get shared beyond this forum.


The Church of Global Warming scripture started appearing in physics textbooks around the early 80's. Before that the Church of Green scripture started appearing in textbooks around the early to mid 70's. Much of that was echos from the text 'Silent Spring', a book about a 'scientific study' that turned out to be a scam.

Science textbooks and biology textbooks have referred to tomatoes being a vegetable since the 40's (it's a fruit).

Most engineering textbooks still use the Bohr model of the atom, which science no longer uses.

So, yes. You could safely say that every single school textbook on science and physics is wrong somewhere.

Fortunately, there is a better way to learn. One only needs to realize the science is not a textbook. It is not even scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. These theories can come from anywhere, from studying polar bears in the Arctic to watching an episode of Sponge Bob on TV. A theory is just an explanatory argument. They all begin as circular arguments.

It is the tests that try to destroy a theory that are important. The theory itself is it's own supporting evidence. Science uses no other supporting evidence. No theory is ever proven True. It CAN be proven False, however.

It is these tests to try to show a theory to be False and the theory nevertheless survives that make a theory a scientific theory. As long as the theory survives tests designed to destroy it, the theory will remain a theory of science.

tmiddles has claimed he has falsified the theory behind the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He is doing so by using equation for differential radiance as if it were net absorption. He does not understand that radiance is not absorption.

He therefore has falsified nothing. He is simply trying to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics because it is in the way of his religious beliefs.

Why does this work as a definition of science? This is the power of philosophy, which has long looked at the question of what differentiates science from religion. It is not 'head games', and it is not something restricted to 'holy men' either in academia or elsewhere. Philosophy is actually pretty simple. You only need to produce your own argument (not someone else's), using your own reasoning and predicates (not someone else's).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-09-2019 21:12
04-09-2019 05:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Think about it: IBD and ITN can't name a single text on thermodynamics that isn't "wamizombie church literature" that totally contradicts them
Actually I can.

And the ball stays hidden. LAME!

GasGuzzler wrote:
Show me heat flowing backwards on any material other than a variable eating living breathing working sweating independent thermostat controlled system like the human body and I will pay attention.

Are you sincere? I will take the time to do that if you are. I took the time to very clearly layout a lot already and you seem to dismiss it without reading it at all. So let me know.

Also whether or not you are intending to you are distorting the issue by saying "heat flowing backwards". Heat is by definition the net flow of thermal energy. I have been showing that radiance flows "backwards" and thermal energy in the form of radiance, that a warmer body absorbs radiance from a cooler body. The net flow is always from hotter to colder. ITN and IBD try to sneak in "heat flow" but I figure they know what they're trying to pull.

HarveyH55 wrote:That was the only Physic textbook I've ever had. 40 years ago, I would trust them, without question....understand the forum a little better, ...It's sort of a game, like chess. There are rules, tactics, strategies, a certain structure to game play. The goal, is to change the opinion of your opponent, or destroy their opinion.

So the thermodynamic texts of 40 years ago will show the same thing. IBD and ITN won't agree to those being "uncorrupted" because they know they'll be proven wrong yet again.

I agree that debate is a great way to get at the truth and like in a court room having two adversarial parties pulling at things is very useful.

I consider it incredibly fruitful so far. I'm understanding a lot about the groups of people in the wider world through the debate here. It's scary and depressing sometimes but I don't want to remain unaware.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Not platitudes real examples.

These theories are real examples of science.

They are examples of theories. Try applying them or simply acknowledging that they were applied in real life.

Into the Night wrote:It is the tests that try to destroy a theory that are important. The theory itself is it's own supporting evidence. Science uses no other supporting evidence. No theory is ever proven True. It CAN be proven False, however.

It is these tests to try to show a theory to be False and the theory nevertheless survives that make a theory a scientific theory.

Can you provide an example of a "Test" of theory you consider legitimate? Something specific (not randU, or otherwise disqualified that is).
04-09-2019 07:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:It is the tests that try to destroy a theory that are important. The theory itself is it's own supporting evidence. Science uses no other supporting evidence. No theory is ever proven True. It CAN be proven False, however.

It is these tests to try to show a theory to be False and the theory nevertheless survives that make a theory a scientific theory.

Can you provide an example of a "Test" of theory you consider legitimate? Something specific (not randU, or otherwise disqualified that is).


Any test that tests the theory itself. The test must be available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce specific result.

For example:
At one time it was considered a theory of science that the universe revolved around a stationary Earth. That theory was falsified by Galileo when he observed moons going around Jupiter. If Jupiter was the center of its moons, then Earth cannot be the center of everything. Thus, the theory was utterly destroyed by Galileo.

Another theory, a solarcentric theory had been around for some time. It was also a theory of science. It had survived several tests to try to prove it false. Eventually, one test falsified the theory. The theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is falsified. That was done by Einstein, Newton, and Kepler.

Yet another theory, that light passed through a medium of some kind (if light was a wave, something had to be waving), was also a theory of science. An experiment to measure this medium utterly failed, and with it, the theory was also falsified. That experiment was the Michaelson-Morley experiment. A new theory was developed by Einstein, called the Theory of Special Relativity that discusses time-space distortion.

Theories come and go. Some just stick around seemingly forever, but could be falsified at any time. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has not yet been falsified. No example has been found where entropy will decrease, or where heat flows from cold to hot.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-09-2019 07:52
04-09-2019 09:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:That experiment was the Michaelson-Morley experiment.




Holy smokes! A real example!

Well well. Excellent.

So we have Galileo observing that the moons of Saturn orbit the planet. Dismissing the Earth center theory as handily as a satellite photo dismisses the flat earth theory.

So I wonder if IBD also agrees that the Michaelson-Morley experiment is legit? It was a real experiment, with a margin of error being a constant issue, plenty of unknowns, and very valuable and important to the development of our understanding. We "got somewhere" with that work because people didn't dismiss it.

Thanks for actually putting some stuff on the table to look at !
04-09-2019 09:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:So I wonder if IBD also agrees that the Michaelson-Morley experiment is legit?

Why do you sit there wondering? Are you demonstrating to the forum that you are too lazy to look up the answer? ... or are you simply admitting to this board that you don't want to bother, knowing that you will feel compelled to ignore what you read?

.


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
04-09-2019 09:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So I wonder if IBD also agrees that the Michaelson-Morley experiment is legit?
you are too lazy to look up the answer?

I just searched and today was the first time "Michaelson-Morley" was posted on this forum. So you didn't agree it was a legit experiment on here unless you had another name for it.

So? Are you going to agree that experiment is legit or not?
Edited on 04-09-2019 09:37
04-09-2019 09:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So I wonder if IBD also agrees that the Michaelson-Morley experiment is legit?
you are too lazy to look up the answer?

I just searched and today was the first time "Michaelson-Morley" was posted on this forum.

I have nonetheless answered that question dozens of times on this forum.

I know that you are capable of research.


.


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
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N24020-11-2019 11:11
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control814-11-2019 23:28
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74208-11-2019 19:42
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
▲ 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