Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There? > Page 4

Page 4 of 5

01-02-2016 22:38
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: 1) The raw data are indeed published and available for download for anyone to carry out their own analysis: We need to talk about this. There was no raw data presented. Please post a direct link (please not a link to a page that has other links that require me to hunt and guess at what you are talking about) to what you claim is the valid, sufficient and accurate raw temperature data so you and I can discuss it. Thanks Oops, sorry, that was the precipitation data. My apologies. The temperature data are available for download at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ The README file tells you what the different datasets represent. The raw data is in the QCU files. Why not download it and perform your own analysis? Edited on 01-02-2016 22:39
01-02-2016 22:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21613)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote:Weighting to account for a non-even distribution is not fabrication. It is a perfectly normal part of data analysis, as I've already explained. It is perfectly valid if you: 1) first publish all the raw data 2) then explain your proposed weighting calculations and why, and 3) then publish the weighted/modified data as well. If you omit either step 1 or 2 then your weighted data really is just fabrication/fudging. Surface Detail wrote: The independent groups listed at the reference, using different analysis techniques and different subsets of the data, have all obtained very similar results. I have already explained how different fudgings are required on different datasets in order to force the same predetermined conclusions. All three steps are required 1) The raw data are indeed published and available for download for anyone to carry out their own analysis: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/ 2) The source code used by GISS to derive its global temperature reconstruction is available for anyone to download and compile here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/ The rationale for the adjustments and weightings applied to temperature data is set out in numerous scientific papers and is summarised here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html Frankly, it's hard to imagine how they could be much more transparent. Notably by their absence are any analyses by sceptic groups that give global temperatures significantly different from those derived by GISS. Even the BEST analysis, performed by scientists with doubts about the methods used by GISS, gave pretty much the same results. The temperature data tell one, unmistakable story: that the Earth's temperature is rising rapidly. I find no raw data here. I find tiny pieces. I find sheepish admissions in the various READMEs of the lack of data everywhere or data over any length of time they are presenting their conclusions. The link you provided is incorrect. It only shows the minimal amount of precip data (already preprocessed) they've gathered and not temperatures at all. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-02-2016 22:45
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: The link you provided is incorrect. It only shows the minimal amount of precip data (already preprocessed) they've gathered and not temperatures at all. Yes, sorry about that. My mistake. The temperature data is here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
01-02-2016 23:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21613)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: The link you provided is incorrect. It only shows the minimal amount of precip data (already preprocessed) they've gathered and not temperatures at all. Yes, sorry about that. My mistake. The temperature data is here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ What there is. It's pretty minimal. There is also a wide variation in the number of stations reporting in a year, from as little as 20 stations in some years to as many as 6000. How do you justify this as raw data? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-02-2016 23:49
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: The link you provided is incorrect. It only shows the minimal amount of precip data (already preprocessed) they've gathered and not temperatures at all. Yes, sorry about that. My mistake. The temperature data is here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ What there is. It's pretty minimal. There is also a wide variation in the number of stations reporting in a year, from as little as 20 stations in some years to as many as 6000. How do you justify this as raw data? There are 463,573 sets of 12 data values there. Hardly minimal. On average, there must be at least 3,000 stations reporting for each year. Which years do you reckon have as few as 20 stations reporting? The very early ones?

02-02-2016 03:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21613)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: The link you provided is incorrect. It only shows the minimal amount of precip data (already preprocessed) they've gathered and not temperatures at all. Yes, sorry about that. My mistake. The temperature data is here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ What there is. It's pretty minimal. There is also a wide variation in the number of stations reporting in a year, from as little as 20 stations in some years to as many as 6000. How do you justify this as raw data? There are 463,573 sets of 12 data values there. Hardly minimal. On average, there must be at least 3,000 stations reporting for each year. Which years do you reckon have as few as 20 stations reporting? The very early ones? In general, yeah. Do you think 3000 stations scattered across the land is anywhere close enough to produce a valid average? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-02-2016 14:49
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: The link you provided is incorrect. It only shows the minimal amount of precip data (already preprocessed) they've gathered and not temperatures at all. Yes, sorry about that. My mistake. The temperature data is here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ What there is. It's pretty minimal. There is also a wide variation in the number of stations reporting in a year, from as little as 20 stations in some years to as many as 6000. How do you justify this as raw data? There are 463,573 sets of 12 data values there. Hardly minimal. On average, there must be at least 3,000 stations reporting for each year. Which years do you reckon have as few as 20 stations reporting? The very early ones? In general, yeah. Do you think 3000 stations scattered across the land is anywhere close enough to produce a valid average? It's not a question of valid or invalid; it's a question of accuracy. The more stations you have, the more accurate your global temperature reconstruction will be. A decent statistician will be able to calculate the degree of error associated with a particular number of stations. Personally, I see no obvious reason to doubt the error margins calculated by GISS and others: +/- 0.05 C for recent data and +/- 0.1 C for earlier data. Do your calculations indicate otherwise? Edit: Oops, I gave the total error range rather than the +/- value (which is of course half the total range) Edited on 02-02-2016 15:03
02-02-2016 15:00
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Surface Detail wrote:It's not a question of valid or invalid; it's a question of accuracy. The more stations you have, the more accurate your global temperature reconstruction will be. A decent statistician will be able to calculate the degree of error associated with a particular number of stations. Personally, I see no obvious reason to doubt the error margins calculated by GISS and others: +/- 0.1 C for recent data and +/- 0.2 C for earlier data. Do your calculations indicate otherwise? Into the Dark wrote: I'm so sorry Surface Detail. I was wrong. I just realised I had been using my favorite bus time table data, not temperature data. I've been averaging bus time table data from all over the world since I was a little kid. I'm learning how to use an exponential smoothing algorithm in Excel on the bus time table data to get some really useful information. I might even get it published! Edited on 02-02-2016 15:17
02-02-2016 18:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14439)	Surface Detail wrote: It's not a question of valid or invalid; it's a question of accuracy. The more stations you have, the more accurate your global temperature reconstruction will be. Let's jump to the heart of the matter. Given an accurate temperature reading at point P on the earth's surface, what can I say about: 1) the temperature at point A which is 20 kilometers directly north? 2) the temperature at point B which is 20 kilometers directly south? 3) the temperature at point C which is 20 kilometers directly east? 4) the temperature at point D which is 20 kilometers directly west? Given an accurate humidity reading at point P on the earth's surface, what can I say about: 1) the humidity at point A which is 20 kilometers directly north? 2) the humidity at point B which is 20 kilometers directly south? 3) the humidity at point C which is 20 kilometers directly east? 4) the humidity at point D which is 20 kilometers directly west? Given an accurate assessment of cloud cover at point P on the earth's surface, what can I say about: 1) the cloud cover at point A which is 20 kilometers directly north? Does this affect the estimated temperature at A? 2) the cloud cover at point B which is 20 kilometers directly south? Does this affect the estimated temperature at B? 3) the cloud cover at point C which is 20 kilometers directly east? Does this affect the estimated temperature at C? 4) the cloud cover at point D which is 20 kilometers directly west? Does this affect the estimated temperature at D? Once you answer the above we can address the limitations of "decent statisticians." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
02-02-2016 19:34
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: It's not a question of valid or invalid; it's a question of accuracy. The more stations you have, the more accurate your global temperature reconstruction will be. Let's jump to the heart of the matter. Given an accurate temperature reading at point P on the earth's surface, what can I say about: 1) the temperature at point A which is 20 kilometers directly north? 2) the temperature at point B which is 20 kilometers directly south? 3) the temperature at point C which is 20 kilometers directly east? 4) the temperature at point D which is 20 kilometers directly west? Given an accurate humidity reading at point P on the earth's surface, what can I say about: 1) the humidity at point A which is 20 kilometers directly north? 2) the humidity at point B which is 20 kilometers directly south? 3) the humidity at point C which is 20 kilometers directly east? 4) the humidity at point D which is 20 kilometers directly west? Given an accurate assessment of cloud cover at point P on the earth's surface, what can I say about: 1) the cloud cover at point A which is 20 kilometers directly north? Does this affect the estimated temperature at A? 2) the cloud cover at point B which is 20 kilometers directly south? Does this affect the estimated temperature at B? 3) the cloud cover at point C which is 20 kilometers directly east? Does this affect the estimated temperature at C? 4) the cloud cover at point D which is 20 kilometers directly west? Does this affect the estimated temperature at D? Once you answer the above we can address the limitations of "decent statisticians." As usual, you miss the point completely. We're not interested in absolute temperatures (which are indeed difficult to define); we're interested in temperature changes over time. That's why climatologists talk about temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. Regarding your question, we can't say anything about the absolute temperatures at A, B, C and D since they could be located at different altitudes or in different microclimates. However, we can be reasonably confident that if the average temperature at P has risen by 1 C over the last 100 years, then it has likely also risen by a similar amount at A, B, C and D during this time.
02-02-2016 20:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14439)	Surface Detail wrote: As usual, you miss the point completely. Of course I do. Surface Detail wrote: We're not interested in absolute temperatures (which are indeed difficult to define); we're interested in temperature changes over time. Please add these two questions to the list: * What temperature changes do not happen over time. * How do you know how much a temperate has changed if you do not have the absolute temperature values? Surface Detail wrote: That's why climatologists talk about temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures. ...or they know they are running a scam and want to convolute the misinformation as much as possible so that hopefully no one catches on. Also, in science, "anomaly" doesn't mean "difference". "Delta" is used for "change/difference." "Anomaly" is an extreme measurement that doesn't fit in with normal/expected behavior. The clowns who began creating Global Warming charts for the gullible knew that they didn't need to use correct terms because they never had any intention of adhering to physics in the first place and they knew their target audience was too scientifically illiterate to question. Surface Detail wrote: Regarding your question, we can't say anything about the absolute temperatures at A, B, C and D since they could be located at different altitudes or in different microclimates. Exactly (except for the part about "microclimates"...what the hell is "climate" and "microclimate" anyway?) This means that you have a HUGE margin of error on your hands even if you have evenly-spaced thermometers taking synchronized readings at 40km apart. You would have just as much difficulty accurately calculating the "average global surface temperature" with 318,800 synchronized, 100% accurate thermometers evenly spaced over the surface of the planet as you would accurately guessing the temperature 20km north of an accurate temperature reading. Your margin of error would be too large for your final result to be useful. With that in mind, one would have to be extremely gullible to believe someone claiming to have the kind of precision needed to declare that the earth's "average global temperature" has increased by 0.3degC over the last ten years, for example. Surface Detail wrote: However, we can be reasonably confident that if the average temperature at P has risen by 1 C over the last 100 years, then it has likely also risen by a similar amount at A, B, C and D during this time. Not at all. Huge mistake. This goes back to the confidence in calculation. Let's say I dig up some documentation of a researcher who used an uber-accurate thermometer to measure the temperature of a particular geographic point in Boston at noon on 2 February, 1916, and that his reading was 47degF. I decide to take my own uber-accurate thermometer today to that same geographic point at noon and I find that the temperature, exactly one century later, is 48degF. I claim that you cannot confidently conclude that a point 20km north will be 1degF warmer than it was a century ago. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
02-02-2016 21:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21613)	Ceist wrote: Surface Detail wrote:It's not a question of valid or invalid; it's a question of accuracy. The more stations you have, the more accurate your global temperature reconstruction will be. A decent statistician will be able to calculate the degree of error associated with a particular number of stations. Personally, I see no obvious reason to doubt the error margins calculated by GISS and others: +/- 0.1 C for recent data and +/- 0.2 C for earlier data. Do your calculations indicate otherwise? Into the Dark wrote: I'm so sorry Surface Detail. I was wrong. I just realised I had been using my favorite bus time table data, not temperature data. I've been averaging bus time table data from all over the world since I was a little kid. I'm learning how to use an exponential smoothing algorithm in Excel on the bus time table data to get some really useful information. I might even get it published! Ceist wrote: Please forgive me for misquoting you Into the Night. I don't know what came over me. I was so dedicated to trying to insult you I don't know what came over me. I will never put words in your mouth again or misquote you ever again. I am such a jerk. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 02-02-2016 21:39
02-02-2016 22:47
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: However, we can be reasonably confident that if the average temperature at P has risen by 1 C over the last 100 years, then it has likely also risen by a similar amount at A, B, C and D during this time. Not at all. Huge mistake. This goes back to the confidence in calculation. Let's say I dig up some documentation of a researcher who used an uber-accurate thermometer to measure the temperature of a particular geographic point in Boston at noon on 2 February, 1916, and that his reading was 47degF. I decide to take my own uber-accurate thermometer today to that same geographic point at noon and I find that the temperature, exactly one century later, is 48degF. I claim that you cannot confidently conclude that a point 20km north will be 1degF warmer than it was a century ago. Don't be silly. It would make no sense whatsoever to compare single readings from one particular day. We are interested in the trends over many years. This graph, for example, shows the annual average temperatures measured at Manchester Airport in the UK from 1950 to 2004: There's a pretty obvious upward trend there. That might not mean much by itself, but when you consider that the vast majority of stations throughout the world show similar trends, it becomes obvious that the world as a whole must be warming. The probability is microscopic that all those thermometers just happen to be in warming areas but that the world as a whole isn't warming.
03-02-2016 07:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21613)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: However, we can be reasonably confident that if the average temperature at P has risen by 1 C over the last 100 years, then it has likely also risen by a similar amount at A, B, C and D during this time. Not at all. Huge mistake. This goes back to the confidence in calculation. Let's say I dig up some documentation of a researcher who used an uber-accurate thermometer to measure the temperature of a particular geographic point in Boston at noon on 2 February, 1916, and that his reading was 47degF. I decide to take my own uber-accurate thermometer today to that same geographic point at noon and I find that the temperature, exactly one century later, is 48degF. I claim that you cannot confidently conclude that a point 20km north will be 1degF warmer than it was a century ago. Don't be silly. It would make no sense whatsoever to compare single readings from one particular day. We are interested in the trends over many years. This graph, for example, shows the annual average temperatures measured at Manchester Airport in the UK from 1950 to 2004: There's a pretty obvious upward trend there. That might not mean much by itself, but when you consider that the vast majority of stations throughout the world show similar trends, it becomes obvious that the world as a whole must be warming. The probability is microscopic that all those thermometers just happen to be in warming areas but that the world as a whole isn't warming. What is the difference between one measurement and N measurements? What is the difference between X sample points and Y sample points assuming Y is larger than X? How do you know N is 'high enough'? How do you know the difference between X and Y is 'large enough'? Gut feel? For a 2nd question, how do you the difference between X and Y is nothing more than just another version of N? (all measurements taken in the same general place.) How uniformly spread must the sample points be to be considered a useful sample set? Gut feel? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 03-02-2016 07:27
03-02-2016 09:01
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Into the Night wrote: Ceist wrote: Surface Detail wrote:It's not a question of valid or invalid; it's a question of accuracy. The more stations you have, the more accurate your global temperature reconstruction will be. A decent statistician will be able to calculate the degree of error associated with a particular number of stations. Personally, I see no obvious reason to doubt the error margins calculated by GISS and others: +/- 0.1 C for recent data and +/- 0.2 C for earlier data. Do your calculations indicate otherwise? Into the Dark wrote: I'm so sorry Surface Detail. I was wrong. I just realised I had been using my favorite bus time table data, not temperature data. I've been averaging bus time table data from all over the world since I was a little kid. I'm learning how to use an exponential smoothing algorithm in Excel on the bus time table data to get some really useful information. I might even get it published! Ceist wrote: Please forgive me for misquoting you Into the Night. I don't know what came over me. I was so dedicated to trying to insult you I don't know what came over me. I will never put words in your mouth again or misquote you ever again. I am such a jerk. LOL! Well I knew Into the Night doesn't understand physics, but apparently he doesn't even know his own username. He also doesn't understand parody. Edited on 03-02-2016 09:02

03-02-2016 20:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21613)	Ceist wrote: He also doesn't understand parody. What's the matter? That one get a little to close to you? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-02-2016 20:56
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Into the Night wrote: Ceist wrote: He also doesn't understand parody. What's the matter? That one get a little to close to you? into the night once again misses the mark by a million miles.
04-02-2016 00:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14439)	Surface Detail wrote: Don't be silly. It would make no sense whatsoever to compare single readings from one particular day. I am glad you decided to go there. Science stands in opposition to your assertion, and thus your following conclusions. If I depart point A at noon to travel on a circular and winding 50-mile path, returning to point A at 13:00, with my speed constantly varying, how many additional measurements are required to accurately calculate my average speed? Similarly, in the Boston example I provided, how many additional measurements do you claim are required to ascertain how much the temperature has increased at that location over that 100 years? There is nothing in science that says "trends" or any other considerations are somehow required to perform those calculations. I am free to just calculate them. Global Warming dogma might specify that unnecessary "trends" are somehow sacred, but they're not important to me. If you think I should grant them greater import then you need to explain that. Surface Detail wrote: .We are interested in the trends over many years. At the moment we're not, and we're certainly not interested in fabricating "trends" out of random weather events and claiming that they are divine "signs" from Global Warming. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
08-02-2016 20:59
Earthling★☆☆☆☆ (107)	IBdaMann wrote:1. Greenhouse Gases Create Heat (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (1st LoT). You should have learned by now that GHGs cannot create heat, they slow down its rate of escape to space. No LOT is broken. "We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-02-2016 21:00
Earthling★☆☆☆☆ (107)	Into the Night wrote: Again, well summarized, IBdaMann. You have grouped these links beautifully. Smacks of old boys peer review. "We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-02-2016 21:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21613)	Earthling wrote: IBdaMann wrote:1. Greenhouse Gases Create Heat (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (1st LoT). You should have learned by now that GHGs cannot create heat, they slow down its rate of escape to space. No LOT is broken. Nothing slows down anything. Thermal energy moves outward at a slower pace than electromagnetic energy, but that only means electromagnetic energy is simply occurring at a frequency slightly toward the visible band than before. It is atmospheric mass that moderates our temperatures (without increasing the mean). It keeps temperatures from swinging too high or too low. 'Slowing' down energy to space creates an increase of temperature difference between the surface and upper air, thus reducing entropy. This violates the 2nd LOT. To add thermal energy at the surface without increasing the source (the sun) means you necessarily must provide that energy from carbon dioxide, which is not undergoing any kind of chemical reaction. This violates the 1st LOT. Any heat caused by CO2 absorption is simply part of the thermal energy moving outward with the rest. A very small part, due to the rarity of the gas. Stating the LOT is not broken is just denial. It is denying well established physical laws we use every day. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-02-2016 22:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14439)	Earthling wrote: they slow down its rate of escape to space. Exactly how do you imagine they supposedly do this? You should have learned by now that the only people who assert this are those who are embarrassingly conflating thermal radiation with thermal convection/conduction. Earthling wrote: No LOT is broken. ...but Planck's Law is. You can't have radiance decrease while temperature is increasing. Sorry, you just can't. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
08-02-2016 23:21
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Earthling wrote: IBdaMann wrote:1. Greenhouse Gases Create Heat (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (1st LoT). You should have learned by now that GHGs cannot create heat, they slow down its rate of escape to space. No LOT is broken. IBdaMann keeps making this claim, but has thus far been unable to point out where energy is being created. All the figures seem too add up in this diagram, for example: It's hard see how it'd add up without the thermal back radiation from greenhouse gases.
09-02-2016 02:37
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (143)	Surface Detail wrote: Earthling wrote: IBdaMann wrote:1. Greenhouse Gases Create Heat (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (1st LoT). You should have learned by now that GHGs cannot create heat, they slow down its rate of escape to space. No LOT is broken. IBdaMann keeps making this claim, but has thus far been unable to point out where energy is being created. I am starting to think that IBdaMann is correct. Above I said that greenhouse gases are merely slowing the rate at which the Earth cools and are not creating any additional energy and the space blanket analogy seemed logical to me until it occured to me that the body's internal metabolic rate is temperature-dependent and as temperature increases metabolism also increases. Therefore a person's internal body temperature would increase if their surrounding temperature increased. This of course would not apply to a non-living body incapable of internal regulation. Putting a space blanket on a heater generating 100 Watts I doubt would make any difference to its energy-output. It would be interesting to know if there have been any experiments with a body increasing its temperature with its own radiation. I think it was wrong of me to say that the greenhouse effect slows the rate of cooling. According to the theory, the atmospheric greenhouse is generating around 150 W/m2 of energy which we are told is increasing Earth's temperature by 33K from 255K to its average temperature of 288K. Would slowing the rate at which a body cools increase its temperature? I would think not, as no new energy has been created. If you put your oven on at 230C will the temperature ever exceed 230C if you shut the oven door and prevent heat-loss? The oven as a whole might become warmer, but the energy radiating from the rods (i.e. surface) will be the same. In the diagram above, it seems back-radiation from greenhouse gases is 342 W/m2 which is twice as high as the commonly cited 150 W/m2. That must be Trenberth's Global Energy Budget. In his diagram the surface is absorbing around 161 W/m2 of solar radiation and greenhouse gases are back-radiating 342 W/m2. That seems remarkable to me. It is understood that when a molecule absorbs radiation it converts some of that energy to kinetic energy and emits some energy in all directions. Therefore if greenhouse gases are emitting 342 W/m2 down to the surface, then why are they not emitting 342 W/m2 out to space? Remember, greenhouse gases emit radiation in all directions. Hence if they are sending 342 W/m2 down to the surface they must also be be sending 342 W/m2 out to space. And more importantly, how are they emitting 342 W/m when they are only absorbing around 161 W/m2 from the surface? I think I am coming around to IBdaMann's and Night Garden's way of thinking. I will accept the principle of the greenhouse effect provisonally for argument's sake though because I may be overlooking something of course. Edited on 09-02-2016 03:03
09-02-2016 03:46
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	One Punch Man wrote: .....Therefore a person's internal body temperature would increase if their surrounding temperature increased..... This is the first part of your post you've gotten wrong. People and other mammals (and birds too) maintain a constant body temperature. "Warm blooded" Endothermic. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endotherm ) We adjust metabolic our rate up and down to maintain constant body temperature, sweating for evaporative cooling if needed, shivering to warm up if needed. If ambient temperature gets too far out of line for too long, hypo or hyper thermia maybe. Keep looking at and thinking about the diagram that Surface Detail posted.
09-02-2016 04:29
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	One Punch Man wrote: And more importantly, how are they emitting 342 W/m when they are only absorbing around 161 W/m2 from the surface? I think I am coming around to IBdaMann's and Night Garden's way of thinking. I will accept the principle of the greenhouse effect provisonally for argument's sake though because I may be overlooking something of course. I'd suggest a visit to your local optician before you make any rash decisions. The 161 W/m2 figure is the amount of solar energy that the surface of the Earth is absorbing, not the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface.
09-02-2016 04:33
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	And when is IBdaMann going to point out where the sums don't add up? After all, he's the one who keeps claiming that the greenhouse theory violates the 1st LoT. I expect we'll see him the Eastern United States starts work tomorrow.
09-02-2016 04:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14439)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann keeps making this claim, but has thus far been unable to point out where energy is being created. You have resorted to misstating the error of your own argument. You start by claiming a model in which temperature increases simply by the addition of a gas/substance. At that point you are asserting that your substance is creating energy, and you are happy with that model until someone points out that, as stated, your model violates the 1st LoT by creating energy. At that point you realize you can't be blatantly violating the 1st LoT so brazenly, so you change your assertion to a different violation of physics, i.e. that earth's radiance decreases while its temperature increases, and you double down on this violation because it is less likely to be easily understood by laymen reading your posts, . So, more accurate wording would be that your version of "greenhouse effect" violates the 1st LoT by creating energy up until you change it to have something other than temperature be the driver for radiance and have earth's temperature increase while its radiance is decreasing. The one thing you remain unable to do is to express your "greenhouse effect" in a manner that adheres to the laws of nature. Surface Detail wrote: All the figures seem too add up in this diagram ... Seem to? This chart seems intentionally convoluted but it seems to me that the numbers don't add up. Help me out here. It appears that there are 240 Wm^2 being absorbed and 239 Wm^2 radiating away. Am I mistaken? If not then this is an irreconcilable error and the chart is summarily dismissed. Surface Detail wrote: It's hard see how it'd add up without the thermal back radiation from greenhouse gases. That's what those of your religion say. Christians attribute the functions of nature to God's providence. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
09-02-2016 04:54
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann, do you actually understand what the first law of thermodynamics is?
09-02-2016 05:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14439)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann, do you actually understand what the first law of thermodynamics is? I like your coy approach. Just go ahead an explain how you believe I don't understand it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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

09-02-2016 05:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14439)	One Punch Man wrote: Above I said that greenhouse gases are merely slowing the rate at which the Earth cools This does not happen. It cannot happen. Temperature drives the rate of emission, not the other way around. This means that if temperature increases then rate of emission increases. It would be a violation of physics, and an ignorance of "cause-effect" to say that the earth's rate of emission is decreased and therefore the earth's temperature increases. Anyone who claims that some substance, e.g. "greenhouse gas" has the magic power to control the rate of emission of something else is preaching religion. Temperature alone governs rate of thermal emission. One Punch Man wrote: ..and the space blanket analogy seemed logical to me until The space blanket analogy is intended for the gullible and the scientifically illiterate. It depends on the listener not understanding the difference between thermal convection/conduction and thermal radiation. Show me someone who buys into the space blanket analogy and I'll show you someone who doesn't understand the difference between the two and who requires an extensive explanation of some fundamentals. One Punch Man wrote: it occured to me that the body's internal metabolic rate is temperature-dependent and as temperature increases metabolism also increases. You simply picked a poor example. In this case the body is the heat source. Try using the analogy of a rock in sunlight. If you spray it with CO2 (at normal air temperature) the rock isn't going to get any warmer. If you spray it with air that has no "greenhouse gas" the rock won't get cooler. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
09-02-2016 14:37
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (143)	Surface Detail wrote: One Punch Man wrote: And more importantly, how are they emitting 342 W/m when they are only absorbing around 161 W/m2 from the surface? I think I am coming around to IBdaMann's and Night Garden's way of thinking. I will accept the principle of the greenhouse effect provisonally for argument's sake though because I may be overlooking something of course. I'd suggest a visit to your local optician before you make any rash decisions. The 161 W/m2 figure is the amount of solar energy that the surface of the Earth is absorbing, not the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface. You don't have to worry about my vision. I trust you understand that the radiation emitted by the atmospheric greenhouse originally has to come from the surface. The greenhouse theory is based on the idea of radiation recycling, whereby a certain fraction of the outgoing radiation from the Earth's surface is captured by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and then recycled back to the surface. The issue that I am having trouble understanding is how the atmospheric greenhouse is producing a continuous stream of back-radiation of 342 W/m2 when the surface is continuously receiving only 161 W/m2. The greenhouse gases are amplifying the energy from the surface and re-cycling more energy than what is available. Furthermore like all other matter in the universe the atmosphere is radiating the heat-energy that it contains in all directions, which means that some of its heat-energy will radiate back to the surface and some will go upwards out into space. Why are the greenhouse gases in the diagram above preferentially emitting radiation back down to the surface and not also out into space? Edited on 09-02-2016 15:18
09-02-2016 14:45
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (143)	still learning wrote: One Punch Man wrote: .....Therefore a person's internal body temperature would increase if their surrounding temperature increased..... This is the first part of your post you've gotten wrong. People and other mammals (and birds too) maintain a constant body temperature. "Warm blooded" Endothermic. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endotherm ) We adjust metabolic our rate up and down to maintain constant body temperature, sweating for evaporative cooling if needed, shivering to warm up if needed. If ambient temperature gets too far out of line for too long, hypo or hyper thermia maybe. Keep looking at and thinking about the diagram that Surface Detail posted. Here is a short description of a study I came across that would support my above comment: "Research shows that higher core body temperatures appear to increase metabolism. A review published in 2009 in Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association reports that an increase in body temperature is associated with a higher metabolic rate, and higher body temperatures do speed up metabolism. Authors of this review suggest that for each degree Celsius your body temperature rises, your metabolism increases by 10 to 13 percent -- which means you'd expend an extra 100 to 130 calories per day if you normally eat 2,000 calories daily because body temperature accounts for 50 percent of your energy expenditure". Of course I suspect that this relationship is only applicable over a specific range of temperatures, and perhaps breaks down past 37C. But generally, it does appear that the higher your surrounding temperature then the faster your metabolism will be, and thus the more heat your body will produce. http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/how-does-body-temperature-affect-metabolism.html
09-02-2016 15:20
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	One Punch Man wrote: You don't have to worry about my vision. I trust you understand that the radiation emitted by the atmospheric greenhouse originally has to come from the surface. The greenhouse theory is the physical principle of radiation recycling, whereby a certain fraction of the outgoing radiation from the Earth's surface is captured by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and then recycled back to the surface. The issue that I am having trouble understanding is how the atmospheric greenhouse is producing a continuous stream of back-radiation of 342 W/m2 when the surface is continuously receiving only 161 W/m2. The greenhouse gases are amplifying the energy from the surface and re-cycling more energy than what is available. Oh, for heaven's sake, it's not that difficult. Just follow the arrows. In addition to the 161 W/m2 of solar radiation, the surface is also receiving 342 W/m2 of IR radiation from the atmosphere, making 503 W/m2 in total. Furthermore like all other matter in the universe the atmosphere is radiating the heat-energy that it contains in all directions, which means that some of its heat-energy will radiate back to the surface and some will go upwards out into space. Why are the greenhouse gases in the diagram above preferentially emitting radiation back down to the surface and not also out into space? It's because the atmosphere isn't all at the same temperature. It's hotter at the bottom (apart from the very tenuous thermosphere), so it tends to radiate more energy downwards than upwards.
09-02-2016 15:51
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (143)	Surface Detail wrote:Oh, for heaven's sake, it's not that difficult. Just follow the arrows. In addition to the 161 W/m2 of solar radiation, the surface is also receiving 342 W/m2 of IR radiation from the atmosphere, making 503 W/m2 in total. I'm afraid the confusion is your own and I can agree only that you have not understood anything of what I have said. The standard warmist explanation is that CO2 warms the Earth's surface by absorbing some of the resulting heat-radiation emanating up from the surface and re-radiating it back down again to warm the surface further. Without greenhouse gases the surface would be radiating at 161 W/m2 according to Tremberth (in fact less than 161 W/m2 because Trenberth assumes that evapotranspiration cools by 80 W/m2). The greenhouse gases are absorbing 161 W/m2 and are re-emitting 342 W/m2 back to the surface. However the 1st law of thermodynamics appears to have been violated because a body cannot emit more radiation than it absorbs. Sorry, but this is absolute. Surface Detail wrote:It's because the atmosphere isn't all at the same temperature. It's hotter at the bottom (apart from the very tenuous thermosphere), so it tends to radiate more energy downwards than upwards. I don't think that would make any difference. For every two photons of energy that the surface emits and which get absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere, one will end up going off into space and the other will end up going back down to the surface because Up and Down are basically the only two directions that photons can move in that will take them out of the atmosphere. Surface Detail wrote:so it tends to radiate more energy downwards than upwards. The radiation that greenhouse gases are emitting are 100% back down to the surface and no radiation by greenhouse gases (according to the diagram) is being emitted out space. This is not merely preferential. It is exclusively one-way. Edited on 09-02-2016 16:04
09-02-2016 15:52
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (143)	That probably should read: "It does appear that the higher your surrounding temperature and thus the higher your body temperature, then the faster your metabolism will be, and therefore the more heat your body should produce". Edited on 09-02-2016 16:05
09-02-2016 16:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14439)	One Punch Man wrote: The issue that I am having trouble understanding is how the atmospheric greenhouse is producing a continuous stream of back-radiation of 342 W/m2 when the surface is continuously receiving only 161 W/m2. That would be a blatant violation of the 1st LoT. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It cannot be "amplified." One Punch Man wrote: Why are the greenhouse gases in the diagram above preferentially emitting radiation back down to the surface and not also out into space? Very astute observation. The short answer is that "greenhouse effect" models are terribly oversimplified and omit the vast bulk of what is occurring with EM in the atmosphere, preferring to only mention those items that provide the desired narrative. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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
09-02-2016 16:54
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (143)	Surface Detail wrote: One Punch Man wrote: You don't have to worry about my vision. I trust you understand that the radiation emitted by the atmospheric greenhouse originally has to come from the surface. The greenhouse theory is the physical principle of radiation recycling, whereby a certain fraction of the outgoing radiation from the Earth's surface is captured by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and then recycled back to the surface. The issue that I am having trouble understanding is how the atmospheric greenhouse is producing a continuous stream of back-radiation of 342 W/m2 when the surface is continuously receiving only 161 W/m2. The greenhouse gases are amplifying the energy from the surface and re-cycling more energy than what is available. Oh, for heaven's sake, it's not that difficult. Just follow the arrows. In addition to the 161 W/m2 of solar radiation, the surface is also receiving 342 W/m2 of IR radiation from the atmosphere, making 503 W/m2 in total. Furthermore like all other matter in the universe the atmosphere is radiating the heat-energy that it contains in all directions, which means that some of its heat-energy will radiate back to the surface and some will go upwards out into space. Why are the greenhouse gases in the diagram above preferentially emitting radiation back down to the surface and not also out into space? It's because the atmosphere isn't all at the same temperature. It's hotter at the bottom (apart from the very tenuous thermosphere), so it tends to radiate more energy downwards than upwards. I would like to point out Surface Detail that the commonly-accepted radiative forcing by the total atmospheric greenhouse amounts to about 150 W/m2. That is the difference between the Earth's effective temperature and it's average surface temperature. The Earth's effective temperature is assumed to be around 255k which corresponds to 240 W/m2. In this situation the greenhouse gases would be emitting less than what they are absorbing from the surface, instead of more as Trenberth's diagram indicates. Google 'Greenhouse effect 150 W/m2' and you will come across thousands of pages stating that the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases amounts to 150 W/m2, which is essentially half of what Trenberth argues. I am not saying that I subscribe to the idea that greenhouse gases are back-radiating 150 W/m2, but that appears to be the general consensus.
10-02-2016 02:03
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	One Punch Man wrote: still learning wrote: One Punch Man wrote: .....Therefore a person's internal body temperature would increase if their surrounding temperature increased..... This is the first part of your post you've gotten wrong. People and other mammals (and birds too) maintain a constant body temperature. "Warm blooded" Endothermic. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endotherm ) We adjust metabolic our rate up and down to maintain constant body temperature, sweating for evaporative cooling if needed, shivering to warm up if needed. If ambient temperature gets too far out of line for too long, hypo or hyper thermia maybe. Keep looking at and thinking about the diagram that Surface Detail posted. Here is a short description of a study I came across that would support my above comment: "Research shows that higher core body temperatures appear to increase metabolism. A review published in 2009 in Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association reports that an increase in body temperature is associated with a higher metabolic rate, and higher body temperatures do speed up metabolism. Authors of this review suggest that for each degree Celsius your body temperature rises, your metabolism increases by 10 to 13 percent -- which means you'd expend an extra 100 to 130 calories per day if you normally eat 2,000 calories daily because body temperature accounts for 50 percent of your energy expenditure". Of course I suspect that this relationship is only applicable over a specific range of temperatures, and perhaps breaks down past 37C. But generally, it does appear that the higher your surrounding temperature then the faster your metabolism will be, and thus the more heat your body will produce. http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/how-does-body-temperature-affect-metabolism.html I don't see how the study you found supports your view that when surrounding temperatures increase, a person's metabolic rate would increase. It says that as core body temperatures increase, metabolic rate increases. No argument there. It doesn't say that metabolic rate increases as ambient temperature increases. Quoting from the fitday article you linked to, "While a warmer body temperature does tend to increase metabolism, cooler air temperatures may also boost metabolism. According to the National Institutes of Health, men exposed to cooler air temperatures showed increases in brown body fat and higher metabolisms in a 2014 study published in Diabetes. A study published in 2014 in Plos One also found that energy expenditure is higher during exposure to cold temperatures, and cold exposure significantly increases metabolism in mice." Warmer body temperature then: The fitday article references the Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association which does indeed say that increased temperature does result in increased metabolism, but in the context of a fever though. (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744512/ the fever bit from a 1921 article in JAMA, Du Bois EF. The basal metabolism in fever. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1921;77(5):352–5. ) It is true that chemical reactions, including biochemical reactions, tend to proceed faster at higher temperatures. A plant or "cold blooded" animal tends to metabolize faster as ambient temperature rises and decrease as temperature drops. Humans and other mammals (birds too), "endotherms," most of the time maintain a pretty constant body temperature even as surrounding temperatures vary. The ordinary daily core body temperature variation of an individual human is less than 1.5 degrees C (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_temperature ) Fever does elevate core body temperature. Animals that hibernate will drop core body temperature a lot. The "setpoint" core body temperature of humans does vary some from individual to individual, a degree or so. Maintaining that more or less constant body temperature requires more energy as ambient temperature decreases, other conditions being unchanged. Metabolic rate for humans and other endotherms tends to increase as ambient temperatures decrease.
10-02-2016 12:04
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (143)	still learning wrote: Maintaining that more or less constant body temperature requires more energy as ambient temperature decreases, other conditions being unchanged. Metabolic rate for humans and other endotherms tends to increase as ambient temperatures decrease. That's true. I can understand that. This is probably something I'd need to investigate further. However if "chemical and biochemical reactions proceed faster" at a higher temperature then would the faster rate of these reactions not increase the body's internal temperature, resulting in increased heat output? (Which of course is something a non-living body cannot do). I think what IBdMann said about a space blanket warming by preventing convection is what determines the higher temperature of the body rather than back-radiation). I was thinking that the space blanket was reflective because it was designed to back-radiate energy from the body and warm the body, although the reflectiveness is probably to protect a person by reflecting sun-light away. It would be interesting to know if there have been any experiments to see if a body can increase its own temperature by having its own radiation directed back to it. I would think intuitively that it wasn't possible, but what do I know. Edited on 10-02-2016 12:18

Page 4 of 5

Join the debate Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	145	24-04-2024 02:48
'Greenhouse' Effect?	49	30-11-2023 06:45
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"	291	05-11-2023 22:46
Climate change - effects, impact and solutions	34	17-08-2023 08:19
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity	102	05-06-2023 13:19