Remember me
▼ Content

Let's Get Back On Track


Let's Get Back On Track20-09-2016 14:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: You view any disagreement as a personal insult.

Quite frankly, it's your condescending, insulting bulverism. The problem really is on your end. Go back and read the initial posts. In every case it's you initiating the insults. You insist on taking the discussion down into the muck.

As long as you are insisting the discussion be at the mudslinging level then no one else really has a say. It's not like you'll stay focused on science. The moment Stefan-Boltzmann comes into play, you duck back into your little mud fort and start slinging.

But we can turn that around. Let's ditch the personal insults and get back on track.

Here, I'll post Stefan-Boltzmann one more time so we can focus on it wrt "greenhouse effect" since this answers all our relevant questions, whether we like those answers or not:

* [a.1] Energy Stream = [ Emissivity * StfBltz ] * Temperature^4

* [a.2] Absorption = Radiance * Emissivity

Of course we also keep in mind

* [b.1] FORM_CHANGE (E-initial) = E-result => E-initial = E-result; 1st LoT
* [b.2] Assuming no chemical reaction and no compression of volume, Temperature (E-initial, t) < Temperature (E-result, t+1) => E-initial < E-result; Definition of Temperature


The "greenhouse effect" model, according to jwoodward48 states, and correct me if I am mistaken:

* [ghe.assumption.1] Given two quantities of "greenhouse gas" GHG-initial, GHG-final, GHG-initial < GHG-final
* [ghe.assumption.2] Given a body B' and constant emissivity "emiss," with constant energy source E'
* [ghe.jwoodward] Temperature (B', GHG-initial, t) < Temperature (B', GHG-final, t+1)

Per [ghe.jwoodward] and [b.2], GHG-final @ t+1 has more energy than GHG-initial @ t.

So the $1,000,000 question is: From where does this additional energy come?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-09-2016 15:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
First, your very first post to me after I joined was arsehole-ish. My first post was expressing relief that GW-deniers are still at least as rational as is necessary to not be a flat-Earthist or a Moon-landing-denier. You've done nothing but assert that Planck's Law applies to everything and make bulverisms. Don't even claim that you haven't. "The climate lemmings and warmizombies are wrong because they're stupid religious people who want to take over America." Sound familiar?!

But anyway, consider Venus. Why is it so hot? Your logic and assumptions together make the nonsensical claim that Venus isn't warm. This discrepancy between your claims and observation thus disproves your logic, the way you're using a law, or both.

Why are you assuming that SB will work on a heterogeneous body with different temperatures?

The energy that is not dissipated to space stays on Earth, hearing it up. Once you take out the ridiculous claim that SB determines the energy leaving a system, rather than a body (Earth's surface), this statement does not violate anything.
20-09-2016 16:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:Don't even claim that you haven't.

I will claim that I haven't. I responded in like kind after trying to discuss science with you.

jwoodward48 wrote: You've done nothing but assert that Planck's Law applies to everything and make bulverisms.

You took this out of my signature. I have only discussed Stefan-Boltzmann with you. Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann can be derived from Planck's but that's not what I used to decimate your "greenhouse effect." I always kept it in the realm of classical physics.

From my sig-block? I'm flattered. Well, thanks for reading it. If you'd ever like to discuss any of the quotes in my sig, each one comes with an interesting anecdote. Warmizombies say the silliest things. It's the climate lemmings like Tim the Plumber who are just nasty.

jwoodward48 wrote: "The climate lemmings and warmizombies are wrong because they're stupid religious people who want to take over America." Sound familiar?!

Not quite. It's the warmizombies, not the climate lemmings, who want to redistribute the world's wealth and destroy the world's economy out of hatred for humanity and out of a desperate need for global fairness by everyone being equally impoverished.

The climate lemmings live in opposition to the warmizombies and only want to left in peace to worship the "Climate" goddess.

jwoodward48 wrote: But anyway, consider Venus. Why is it so hot?

Proximity to the sun. Stefan-Boltzmann answers your question.

jwoodward48 wrote: Your logic and assumptions together make the nonsensical claim that Venus isn't warm.

Please prove that with the statements provided. Your assertion is simply not true.

jwoodward48 wrote: Why are you assuming that SB will work on a heterogeneous body with different temperatures?

Because every body has an average temperature, even if no one knows what it is. The existence of multiple points of varying temperatures is not precluded.

jwoodward48 wrote: The energy that is not dissipated to space stays on Earth, hearing it up.

Once again Stefan-Boltzmann answers our question, i.e. what you are describing does not happen.

jwoodward48 wrote: Once you take out the ridiculous claim that SB determines the energy leaving a system, rather than a body (Earth's surface), this statement does not violate anything.

You lost me here with your multiple negatives and lack of clarity.

Would you mind expressing this point in a clear, straightforward manner, possibly referencing the relevant lines in the OP?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-09-2016 18:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Don't even claim that you haven't.

I will claim that I haven't. I responded in like kind after trying to discuss science with you.


Go back. Read my first post. Read your response. I did not insult you. You insulted me first.

jwoodward48 wrote: You've done nothing but assert that Planck's Law applies to everything and make bulverisms.

You took this out of my signature. I have only discussed Stefan-Boltzmann with you. Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann can be derived from Planck's but that's not what I used to decimate your "greenhouse effect." I always kept it in the realm of classical physics.

From my sig-block? I'm flattered. Well, thanks for reading it. If you'd ever like to discuss any of the quotes in my sig, each one comes with an interesting anecdote. Warmizombies say the silliest things. It's the climate lemmings like Tim the Plumber who are just nasty.


Fine, maybe it's been Into that insists that Planck's Law applies to everything, and you're only talking about Stefan-Boltzmann. Replace "Planck" with "SB" and my statement still stands.

jwoodward48 wrote: "The climate lemmings and warmizombies are wrong because they're stupid religious people who want to take over America." Sound familiar?!

Not quite. It's the warmizombies, not the climate lemmings, who want to redistribute the world's wealth and destroy the world's economy out of hatred for humanity and out of a desperate need for global fairness by everyone being equally impoverished.

The climate lemmings live in opposition to the warmizombies and only want to left in peace to worship the "Climate" goddess.


So all warmizombies are EVIL MARXIST LIBERALS, and all climate lemmings are Gaiaist? Seems plausible.[/sarcasm]

jwoodward48 wrote: But anyway, consider Venus. Why is it so hot?

Proximity to the sun. Stefan-Boltzmann answers your question.


what

just simply what

Venus's average surface temperature is 767K. Mercury's average surface temperature is 440K. Explain that.

jwoodward48 wrote: Your logic and assumptions together make the nonsensical claim that Venus isn't warm.

Please prove that with the statements provided. Your assertion is simply not true.


Sure. Since you assumed nothing specific to Earth, the same conclusion that you drew on Earth should apply to Venus. Venus is further away from the Sun than Mercury. Therefore, since, according to your theory, atmosphere does not affect temperature, Venus should be colder than Mercury on average. It is not.

Your theory has been falsified. You need to either throw it out, adjust it, or show a flaw in my logic.

(The size of each planet should not matter significantly, as the surface area is proportional to r^2, as does the amount of sunlight absorbed (imagine a disk instead of a sphere).)

jwoodward48 wrote: Why are you assuming that SB will work on a heterogeneous body with different temperatures?

Because every body has an average temperature, even if no one knows what it is. The existence of multiple points of varying temperatures is not precluded.


Stefan-Boltzmann applies only to black bodies (and with a modification, to gray bodies). The Earth is neither.

Also, "the Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be literally applied to Earth because there is no single physical radiating surface to which to apply it."

jwoodward48 wrote: The energy that is not dissipated to space stays on Earth, hearing it up.

Once again Stefan-Boltzmann answers our question, i.e. what you are describing does not happen.


How does Stefan-Boltzmann say that the resultant radiation cannot be partially radiated back to Earth?

jwoodward48 wrote: Once you take out the ridiculous claim that SB determines the energy leaving a system, rather than a body (Earth's surface), this statement does not violate anything.

You lost me here with your multiple negatives and lack of clarity.

Would you mind expressing this point in a clear, straightforward manner, possibly referencing the relevant lines in the OP?


Your argument, like a Jenga tower with only one block at the bottom, falls down if SB does not apply to Earth. All expressions of the law that I have found specify that it only applies to black bodies, which the Earth is not. You need to prove that your use of SB is correct.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
20-09-2016 21:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:Fine, maybe it's been Into that insists that Planck's Law applies to everything, and you're only talking about Stefan-Boltzmann. Replace "Planck" with "SB" and my statement still stands.

Look, Planck's law is the complete answer to radiation and it does, in fact, apply everywhere to all things. Planck's however is quantum mechanics. If you are going to discuss photons, as you were discussing with Into the Night, then you need to pull out the full Planck's law and discuss from the quantum mechanics perspective.

Stefan-Boltzmann is a higher-level classical physics model that fully addresses the concepts you treat in your version of "greenhouse effect." Your errors are high-level and do not require a deep dive into quanta to identify.

You violate the 1st LoT while insisting you don't. You insist temperature increases (which implies there is additional energy) but then insist there is no additional energy, i.e. a brazen contradiction. Your claim that "greenhouse gas" CAUSES this increase in energy (i.e. temperature increase) is a direct violation of the 1st LoT.

Your attempt to explain how there is no additional energy is really moot since in the end you nonetheless insist temperature has increased which means the amount of energy has increased. There's no way around this. This is what temperature means.

So when you are asked "How do you account for the additional energy required for 'greenhouse effect' to increase temperature, you can never get out of the starting gate. You devote your effort to explaining how there is no additional energy, which only proves that temperature does not increase. Whether you look at it as the definition of temperature or if you lay out Stefan-Boltzmann, if there is no additional energy then the temperature cannot increase.

So keep on trying to explain how temperature can increase without additional energy but don't be surprised when every single version gets flagged for an obvious and egregious violation of basic physics. The amount of accompanying mockery is dependent upon the amount of bulverism you include in your violation of physics.

jwoodward48 wrote: So all warmizombies are EVIL MARXIST LIBERALS, and all climate lemmings are Gaiaist? Seems plausible.

This is fairly accurate.

Warmizombies see humanity as bad, as deserving of an eternity of destroyed global economy so that everyone is flat broke. They see mankind as raping "Climate," the holy earth spirit, which in turn is causing bad things (extreme weather increases, Global Warming, oceans rising, etc..) to happen all over the globe (that aren't really happening, but they allow themselves into being deluded that they actually see these things happening)... all of which can only result in a cataclysmic punishment of mankind for his carbon sins. Humanity must REPENT NOW by wearing sackcloth, by ceasing to burn petroleum products and by uniting in tearing down the global economy before the "tipping point" is reached. My gawd, it might already be too late!

Climate lemmings (skeptics), on the other hand, worship the almighty "Climate" goddess and they are terribly offended by the warmizombies' sacrilegious implication that humans have the power to rape the omnipotent/untouchable "Climate." As such, there is no imminent catastrophical danger to humanity. There is no increase in "extreme weather." There is no "threat" from human activities. "It's not even possible." "Climate" is a beneficial goddess that seeks only to cradle the earth in some moderate "greenhouse warming" for humanity's comfort and to add some additional CO2 for the earth's plants to thrive.

These are the two principal denominations of the "Climate" family of faiths, like the Shia and the Sunni.


jwoodward48 wrote:what

just simply what

Venus's average surface temperature is 767K. Mercury's average surface temperature is 440K. Explain that.

How in depth do you wish to go? Do you realize that you just shifted goalposts from a "body's average temperature" to the temperature of a particular body at "a point at the bottom of its atmosphere"? Do you understand how one is not the other?


jwoodward48 wrote: The Earth is neither.

Yes it is. Here is where I need to point out that you have reached the limit of your understanding. I suggest reading a bit more (from an authoritative source, NOT from Wikipedia). I'll stand by for any questions you might have.

jwoodward48 wrote: Also, "the Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be literally applied to Earth because there is no single physical radiating surface to which to apply it."

False. "literally applied"?

Read up.

jwoodward48 wrote: How does Stefan-Boltzmann say that the resultant radiation cannot be partially radiated back to Earth?

Notice that atmosphere is not a factor. Notice that all absorbed radiation radiates away. Yes, you are describing something that just doesn't happen. I'm sorry.

jwoodward48 wrote:Your argument, like a Jenga tower with only one block at the bottom, falls down if SB does not apply to Earth.

Stefan-Boltzmann is science. It applies to all bodies. Its applicability is not a subjective matter of negotiation.

jwoodward48 wrote:All expressions of the law that I have found specify that it only applies to black bodies, which the Earth is not. You need to prove that your use of SB is correct.

Nope. What you just did was attempt to shift your burden of proof. That is a standard fallacy, and I prefer Into the Night be the one pointing out the fallacies.

I am not required to explain science. You are the one making the affirmative assertion (i.e. "greenhouse effect") and I am pointing to Stefan-Boltzmann, the 1st LoT and the definition of temperature as showing your claim is false. I laid out the proof for your convenience in the OP and you have not addressed it. The full burden of proof rests with you to show all three are incorrect lest your assertion of "greenhouse effect" be summarily dismissed.

If you accept all three (and you would be wise to do so) then you only need to account for the additional energy your model requires for "greenhouse effect" to increase temperature.

I'm happy to help.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 00:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:Fine, maybe it's been Into that insists that Planck's Law applies to everything, and you're only talking about Stefan-Boltzmann. Replace "Planck" with "SB" and my statement still stands.

Look, Planck's law is the complete answer to radiation and it does, in fact, apply everywhere to all things. Planck's however is quantum mechanics. If you are going to discuss photons, as you were discussing with Into the Night, then you need to pull out the full Planck's law and discuss from the quantum mechanics perspective.

Stefan-Boltzmann is a higher-level classical physics model that fully addresses the concepts you treat in your version of "greenhouse effect." Your errors are high-level and do not require a deep dive into quanta to identify.

You violate the 1st LoT while insisting you don't. You insist temperature increases (which implies there is additional energy) but then insist there is no additional energy, i.e. a brazen contradiction. Your claim that "greenhouse gas" CAUSES this increase in energy (i.e. temperature increase) is a direct violation of the 1st LoT.

Your attempt to explain how there is no additional energy is really moot since in the end you nonetheless insist temperature has increased which means the amount of energy has increased. There's no way around this. This is what temperature means.

So when you are asked "How do you account for the additional energy required for 'greenhouse effect' to increase temperature, you can never get out of the starting gate. You devote your effort to explaining how there is no additional energy, which only proves that temperature does not increase. Whether you look at it as the definition of temperature or if you lay out Stefan-Boltzmann, if there is no additional energy then the temperature cannot increase.

So keep on trying to explain how temperature can increase without additional energy but don't be surprised when every single version gets flagged for an obvious and egregious violation of basic physics. The amount of accompanying mockery is dependent upon the amount of bulverism you include in your violation of physics.


Ahh, I see. Okay. That's why you think I'm being unscientific.

The temperature of Earth has increased. This corresponds to an increase in the amount of thermal energy within the Earth system. So no, I'm not denying that the amount of energy has increased. But as per the 1st Law, this energy has to be 'taken' from somewhere in the sense that it would have gone somewhere else if GHG did not exist. This somewhere is space.

jwoodward48 wrote: So all warmizombies are EVIL MARXIST LIBERALS, and all climate lemmings are Gaiaist? Seems plausible.

This is fairly accurate.

Warmizombies see humanity as bad, as deserving of an eternity of destroyed global economy so that everyone is flat broke. They see mankind as raping "Climate," the holy earth spirit, which in turn is causing bad things (extreme weather increases, Global Warming, oceans rising, etc..) to happen all over the globe (that aren't really happening, but they allow themselves into being deluded that they actually see these things happening)... all of which can only result in a cataclysmic punishment of mankind for his carbon sins. Humanity must REPENT NOW by wearing sackcloth, by ceasing to burn petroleum products and by uniting in tearing down the global economy before the "tipping point" is reached. My gawd, it might already be too late!

Climate lemmings (skeptics), on the other hand, worship the almighty "Climate" goddess and they are terribly offended by the warmizombies' sacrilegious implication that humans have the power to rape the omnipotent/untouchable "Climate." As such, there is no imminent catastrophical danger to humanity. There is no increase in "extreme weather." There is no "threat" from human activities. "It's not even possible." "Climate" is a beneficial goddess that seeks only to cradle the earth in some moderate "greenhouse warming" for humanity's comfort and to add some additional CO2 for the earth's plants to thrive.

These are the two principal denominations of the "Climate" family of faiths, like the Shia and the Sunni.


I am attempting a revolutionary new technique for conflict resolution - ignore insults. It's already working on my side. I feel calmer now that the above paragraph doesn't exist.

jwoodward48 wrote:what

just simply what

Venus's average surface temperature is 767K. Mercury's average surface temperature is 440K. Explain that.

How in depth do you wish to go? Do you realize that you just shifted goalposts from a "body's average temperature" to the temperature of a particular body at "a point at the bottom of its atmosphere"? Do you understand how one is not the other?


In GW, the layer of the atmosphere that we are most concerned about is the bottom layer. This is the layer that heats such things as ice and oceans, this is the layer that contains weather, this is the layer that directly affects our daily lives. I have never shifted the goalposts.

I wish to consider, as before, the surface temperature. If you want to talk about other layers, that works with me, but GW's effect that is most important to us as human beings is the surface temperature. This is the effect that is studied the most. I'd prefer not to talk about the thermosphere or whatnot - I don't see how they matter quite as much as the bottom layer.

jwoodward48 wrote: The Earth is neither.

Yes it is. Here is where I need to point out that you have reached the limit of your understanding. I suggest reading a bit more (from an authoritative source, NOT from Wikipedia). I'll stand by for any questions you might have.


Tell me: is the presence of emission lines in exoplanets supposed to be another EVIL LIBERAL HOAX?

jwoodward48 wrote: Also, "the Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be literally applied to Earth because there is no single physical radiating surface to which to apply it."

False. "literally applied"?

Read up.


It was a quote that largely represented my thoughts. As I am no plagiarist, I used quotes; as I do not mess with quotes (unlike you), I did not alter any part of it. I presume he meant a naïve application.

Also, if this is false, which radiating body are you considering to be the "one true body"? The surface's radiation is affected and redirected by the atmosphere.

jwoodward48 wrote: How does Stefan-Boltzmann say that the resultant radiation cannot be partially radiated back to Earth?

Notice that atmosphere is not a factor. Notice that all absorbed radiation radiates away. Yes, you are describing something that just doesn't happen. I'm sorry.


So the radiation from an excited particle somehow... knows not to go back down to Earth?

jwoodward48 wrote:Your argument, like a Jenga tower with only one block at the bottom, falls down if SB does not apply to Earth.

Stefan-Boltzmann is science. It applies to all bodies. Its applicability is not a subjective matter of negotiation.


Yeah, it is, since you are disagreeing with everybody. Diffuse gases do not obey S-B - the presence of emission and absorbance spectra, beyond which no emittance or absorbance is found, in diffuse gases disproves you.

jwoodward48 wrote:All expressions of the law that I have found specify that it only applies to black bodies, which the Earth is not. You need to prove that your use of SB is correct.

Nope. What you just did was attempt to shift your burden of proof. That is a standard fallacy, and I prefer Into the Night be the one pointing out the fallacies.


Shift the... burden of proof to the person going against mainstream science, thousands of studies, and several independent organizations. Yes. You have the burden of proof. Hot potato!

I am not required to explain science. You are the one making the affirmative assertion (i.e. "greenhouse effect") and I am pointing to Stefan-Boltzmann, the 1st LoT and the definition of temperature as showing your claim is false. I laid out the proof for your convenience in the OP and you have not addressed it. The full burden of proof rests with you to show all three are incorrect lest your assertion of "greenhouse effect" be summarily dismissed.


Your logic is fine, your assumptions are not. I have addressed your proof.

"All three"? Only one needs to be false for your argument to tumble.

If you accept all three (and you would be wise to do so) then you only need to account for the additional energy your model requires for "greenhouse effect" to increase temperature.

I'm happy to help.


1. S-B does not apply to diffuse gases.
2. The additional energy in the Earth system does exist. It comes from the Sun, as does most energy here. "Slowing down" the escape of energy, while not doing the same to the intake, will require the temperature going up in order to comply with LoT 1.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
21-09-2016 00:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:The temperature of Earth has increased.

You don't know this. You believe this. The extent to which you unquestioningly believe does not translate to knowledge.

jwoodward48 wrote:In GW, the layer of the atmosphere that we are most concerned about is the bottom layer.

Christians, on the other hand, are concerned more with the moral fabric layer.

jwoodward48 wrote:Yeah, it is, since you are disagreeing with everybody.

You are disagreeing with scientists.. You are denying the body of science. You are still the one making the affirmative assumption. The burden of proof still rests with you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 00:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:The temperature of Earth has increased.

You don't know this. You believe this. The extent to which you unquestioningly believe does not translate to knowledge.

jwoodward48 wrote:In GW, the layer of the atmosphere that we are most concerned about is the bottom layer.

Christians, on the other hand, are concerned more with the moral fabric layer.

jwoodward48 wrote:Yeah, it is, since you are disagreeing with everybody.

You are disagreeing with scientists.. You are denying the body of science. You are still the one making the affirmative assumption. The burden of proof still rests with you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 01:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The temperature of Earth has increased.

You don't know this. You believe this. The extent to which you unquestioningly believe does not translate to knowledge.


I was stating my side. You are strawmanning. I am stating what I actually think.

jwoodward48 wrote:In GW, the layer of the atmosphere that we are most concerned about is the bottom layer.

Christians, on the other hand, are concerned more with the moral fabric layer.


ignoring

jwoodward48 wrote:Yeah, it is, since you are disagreeing with everybody.

You are disagreeing with scientists.. You are denying the body of science. You are still the one making the affirmative assumption. The burden of proof still rests with you.


No, the burden of proof rests with you. You are denying an entire branch of science. What am I denying? Your misuse of SB?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
21-09-2016 01:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:The temperature of Earth has increased.

You don't know this. You believe this. The extent to which you unquestioningly believe does not translate to knowledge.


I was stating my side. You are strawmanning. I am stating what I actually think.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What do you think a belief IS dude???


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 02:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Something that is not based on data, unlike science.
21-09-2016 15:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:Something that is not based on data, unlike science.


Here's Newton's model of gravity:

g [ M1 * M2 ] / d^2

Does it stand on its own or is it based on data? (hint: I don't see any data in there)


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 15:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes, Newton's Law of Gravity is based on data and observation. It describes the data observed when Newton was alive. Since then, we have been able to get more data, such as a more precise measurement of Mercury's orbit, that showed a discrepancy between the model and the real world. It has been thrown out as the model of gravity, though it is a special case of the new.

Wait... you said model. That's not a model. That's a law.
21-09-2016 16:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, Newton's Law of Gravity is based on data and observation.

What data? What data do I need to have in order to use Newton's model?


jwoodward48 wrote: Wait... you said model. That's not a model. That's a law.

This is what happens when you unquestioningly regurgitate non-authoritative sources like Wikipedia.

Newton's model of gravity is certainly a model. How did you miss it? I just posted it for you.

It's a law as well. I'm guessing you don't understand why.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 16:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You do not need the data in order to apply it, but you would not be using it if it had not been proven as reliable. This is science - methodically distinguishing true from false. This is falsifiability. If observation doesn't matter, then falsifiability doesn't matter.

How is it a model? What is your definition of model anyway?
21-09-2016 16:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
What data do I need to have in order to use Newton's model?

You need to know the value of G (that's big G, as in the gravitational constant) for a start.
21-09-2016 16:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: You do not need the data in order to apply it,

Then it is not BASED on any data.

jwoodward48 wrote: ...but you would not be using it if it had not been proven as reliable.

It has never been proven. No science is ever proven to be true. In science, things can only be proven false. That's the job of the scientific method.

jwoodward48 wrote: This is science

You don't know what science is. You are not allowed to accept what science is because it threatens some pillar of your religion.

jwoodward48 wrote: - methodically distinguishing true from false. This is falsifiability. If observation doesn't matter, then falsifiability doesn't matter.

Remind me, who said "observation doesn't matter"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 16:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: You do not need the data in order to apply it,

Then it is not BASED on any data.


As used in science, I think that it is important to realize that, in spite of the differences (see below), these terms [theories and laws] share some things in common. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so.


Source

Semantics.

Base: to have as the foundation for (something); use as a point from which (something) can develop


Data is the foundation of science. Data is used to test models, theories, laws, everything. Observation is what distinguishes science from religion - science can be tested.

jwoodward48 wrote: ...but you would not be using it if it had not been proven as reliable.

It has never been proven. No science is ever proven to be true. In science, things can only be proven false. That's the job of the scientific method.


Proven reliable, as in "all data within this set of circumstances follows this law". Law are true within a particular granularity and set of circumstances. I also meant "prove" as in "subject to a testing process".

jwoodward48 wrote: This is science

You don't know what science is. You are not allowed to accept what science is because it threatens some pillar of your religion.


I do know what science is. Until you start giving sources, for all I know, you pulled this directly out of your arse.

jwoodward48 wrote: - methodically distinguishing true from false. This is falsifiability. If observation doesn't matter, then falsifiability doesn't matter.

Remind me, who said "observation doesn't matter"?


Into did, but you guys have always been a denial bloc.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
21-09-2016 16:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Some Internet research has convinced me that the Laws of Emission are at least very accurate, if not entirely true, when dealing with the Earth's surface. It has also supported my statement that gases do not emit black body radiation, though.

So with this in mind, the following.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that for a body, j* = epsilon * sigma * T^4, where j* is the total energy radiated from the body per surface area per time, epsilon is the emissivity of the body, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.670373*10^(-8) Wkm^(-2)K^(-4)), and T is the temperature of the body. Applying this to the Earth's surface, we get:

emissivity = 0.98 (very close to 1, anyway)
T = 289.8 K (on average, rough)

j* = 0.98 * 5.670373*10^(-8) Wm^(-2)K^(-4) * (289.8 K)^4
j* = 392 W/m^2

So according to S-B, the energy coming from the Earth's surface is 392 W/m^2. I agree with this.

But then look at how much energy is entering the system (removing reflected light to simplify). The energy hitting a disk of Earth's radius, oriented such that all radiation from the Sun hits it perpendicularly, and placed at a distance of 1 AU from the Sun, will absorb 1367 W/m^2 of solar radiation. The area of that disk is pi*r^2, where r is the radius of the Earth, and the surface area of the Earth is 4*pi*r^2. The latter is clearly four times as much as the first, so to figure out how much energy is hitting every square meter per unit time on average, we divide the 1367 W/m^2 by four. We get a value of 342 W/m^2.

But wait! We need to account for all of the solar energy that is reflected. This comes to about one-third of the energy hitting the Earth, including reflection from the atmosphere and reflection from the surface, giving us a value of 242 W/m^2. Now reduce that by the energy absorbed by the atmosphere (77.1), and we get 163.3 W/m^2 of solar radiation hitting the Earth.

How do you explain this?

=======

Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong, but your hypothesis here is that the composition of an atmosphere will affect neither the overall global average atmospheric temperature (bottom-most layer) nor the emission spectra from the top of the atmosphere. How do you deal with these?

1. Venus

Venus is warmer than Mercury, despite being further away from the Sun. (Size doesn't matter. I can give some more equations if necessary.) How do you explain that, except with Venus's thick atmosphere?

2. Exoplanet absorbance spectra observations

When looking at other planets outside of the Solar System, we can measure the spectrum of light being emitted from them. This does not always obey Planck's Law - there are sometimes dips in emission from the expected spectrum, which indicates that gases in the atmosphere absorbed part of the radiation of that wavelength. Wouldn't a decrease in emission of energy result in an increase in energy and thus temperature?
21-09-2016 17:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:But wait! We need to account for all of the solar energy that is reflected. This comes to about one-third of the energy hitting the Earth, including reflection from the atmosphere and reflection from the surface,

Let me know when you want me to correct your error.

jwoodward48 wrote: Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong,

OK. You list an emissivity of 0.98 and an albedo of "about one third."

There's your error.

jwoodward48 wrote: the overall global average atmospheric temperature (bottom-most layer)

Stop! This is your standard goalpost shift, not mine. The overall average global temperature is not the bottom-most layer of the atmosphere.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 18:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
For the last time, the lowest layer of the atmosphere is the most relevant temperature? Are we going to consider the temperature of the magma? How about the thermosphere? Do those melt the ice? No! I never shifted any goalposts. Those were the temperatures under consideration all along.
21-09-2016 20:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Something that is not based on data, unlike science.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What do you think DATA is, dude?


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 20:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
More importantly what did you mean by reamed? what was on your mind when you typed that? Is this the right forum for you?
21-09-2016 20:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
More importantly what did you mean by reamed? what was on your mind when you typed that? Is this the right forum for you?
21-09-2016 20:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
For the last time, the lowest layer of the atmosphere is the most relevant temperature? Are we going to consider the temperature of the magma? How about the thermosphere? Do those melt the ice? No! I never shifted any goalposts. Those were the temperatures under consideration all along.


Uh....you did. You are comparing two different things under different circumstances and calling them the same. This is a false equivalence accomplished by moving the goalposts of one object of comparison.

What melts the ice is not the issue here. Choosing an arbitrary 'relevant' temperature is the fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 21:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What two things am I falsely calling equivalent?
21-09-2016 23:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
What two things am I falsely calling equivalent?


DON'T play innocent with me. You have already been told multiple times.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 23:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
When have I ever discussed any temperature besides the near-surface atmospheric temperature?
22-09-2016 00:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
When have I ever discussed any temperature besides the near-surface atmospheric temperature?


When you tried to apply S-B to a planet's energy.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 00:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...hmm, that's a good point. I see how that could use clarification. Thanks for finally telling me.

But I don't see a false equivalency. The lower atmosphere will be heated by conduction with the surface. Therefore, as the latter heats up, so will the former.




Join the debate Let's Get Back On Track:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Hottest day on record (going back to 1880s) in Paris6730-07-2019 00:02
Wind, solar, storage and back-up system designer1605-07-2019 05:18
Global warming back to medieval warm period will increase Russia population 4 fold128-05-2019 19:30
World 'nowhere near on track' to avoid warming beyond 1.5C target8309-11-2018 20:11
the CO2 and H2O back radiation greenhouse theory is wrong and violates the laws of phyics627-09-2016 00:12
▲ 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