Remember me
▼ Content

Nils-Axel Mörner



Page 6 of 10<<<45678>>>
10-05-2020 14:42
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
Nice theory but it does not work in reality and fortunately more organisations are getting more vocal on shutting down this lunacy which is actually scaring dumb people that do not have the ability to see the truth.The average temperature of the Earth can not be measured and I have just researched the Satellites that are supposed to be able to do this and 1 they can not and 2 the one that is claimed to be able to do it was launched in 2004 so not that long ago.The actual on ground temp records have been convieniently fudged and even then it shows things were warmer in 1930
10-05-2020 14:48
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
"I genuinely have the fear that climate change is going to kill me and all my family, I'm not even kidding it's all I have thought about for the last 9 months every second of the day. It's making my sick to my stomach, I'm not eating or sleeping and I'm getting panic attacks daily. It's currently 1 am and I can't sleep as I'm petrified." – Young adult in the UK

Letter from a worried young adult in the UK
10-05-2020 14:54
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
I have just spent 9 months trying to find one shred of actual evidence of AGW/CC and have found nothing at all except theories.The science is not settled and I fail to understand why Warmazombies lead with this
10-05-2020 15:28
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
duncan61 wrote:
JackFou am I correct in assuming that increasing CO2 can somehow change the weather if so please allow for a saturation level and for CO2 going up in the atmosphere if it is cabable of reflecting energy back to Earth it is not a one for one deal.Doubling the CO2 does not double its alleged effect and its all theory not actually demonstratably real time events.Example a claim is made half the Ice at the poles has already melted yet the sea has not gone up at all anywhere so I say melt the lot and see what actually happens not that human activity has the ability to change anything.The world is a big place not a jar in a lab


Earth is indeed not an experiment in a jar but the laws of physics are still the same. If the physics is true in a lab it will also be true outside of the lab.

The "saturation" that you're talking about is included in the simple fact that it takes a doubling of CO2 to increase the temperature by a fixed amount. This means going from 100 ppm to 200 ppm has the same effect as going from 400 ppm as 800 ppm. You need to add more and more CO2 to get the same result.

duncan61 wrote:
Nice theory but it does not work in reality and fortunately more organisations are getting more vocal on shutting down this lunacy which is actually scaring dumb people that do not have the ability to see the truth.The average temperature of the Earth can not be measured and I have just researched the Satellites that are supposed to be able to do this and 1 they can not and 2 the one that is claimed to be able to do it was launched in 2004 so not that long ago.The actual on ground temp records have been convieniently fudged and even then it shows things were warmer in 1930


The average temperature of earth is indeed difficult to measure. It may be so difficult that it is in fact impossible. We can only hope to approximate it as good as we can. In fact, any "real" measurement will only ever be an approximation of some kind of true value. When you measure the length of a stick with a measuring tape, you don't know the "true" value down to the single atom. You approximate it to an accuracy that is sufficient for your purpose.

When it comes to the average temperature, we don't even care so much about the exact value but rather about how the value changes over time. So if we used the same method and the same instruments to measure the same thing for a long period, we will still see whether the measurement results trend upwards or downwards or stay steady. (Of course this won't stop us from trying to determine the average temperature as accurately as we can anyway)

Again, reality is unfortunately extremely complex. So instruments don't necessarily respond perfectly linearly across the whole measurement range, measurement stations may break and have to be removed or replaced, the environment around stations may change, causing heat island effects to change over time, new instruments may have a systematically lower or higher reading than older instruments and so on.
So you have to be really, really, really careful about interpreting the data and you have to make all sorts of corrections to ensure that you're not measuring the wrong thing. Making those corrections isn't "fudging the data". It's actually being careful and doing good science.
If you know that your measurement has a systematic error and you *don't* correct for it, *that's* when you're actually doing shoddy science.

To give you an example, in the past we used to measure water temperature of the oceans by throwing a bucket over board, lifting it back up and sticking a thermometer in the water. Depending on how well or poorly you do this, the water might warm up ever so slightly while you bring the bucket back up. You have to account for this.
But it gets worse.
Eventually, as technology progressed and we weren't mostly traveling the oceans by sailboat anymore, we started measuring the temperature in the intake of the cooling water for the engines. This is convenient but because engines run hot, measuring near the engine room causes a systematic overestimation of the temperature. So if you didn't account for this, you'd find that around the time when we switched from buckets to engines, the temperature of the oceans jumped by a few degrees. That is of course nonsense. The "raw" datasets aren't compatible.
So what can we do if we want to look at long-term trends anyway? Is all hope lost? Do we just throw our hands in the air and give up? Of course not.
To fix this you have to determine how large the overestimation of the new temperature measurement is compared to the old temperature measurements and then adjust the datasets accordingly to get one continuous dataset.

Now a lot of people seem to think that AGW is just a hoax for achieving political goals. And I will not deny that there are certainly a lot of players, especially in politics and the media, who do wish to personally profit from this. However, that doesn't mean that the science is wrong, it just means that politics sucks and the media suck.
If you think it's all just a political conspiracy, let me ask you this: Who is conspiring against who?
Scientific agencies and institutes from all around the world are in agreement that AGW is real. It doesn't matter if you ask scientists from China, Russia, the US, Europe, South America...
So if scientists from many different nations with entirely different (geo)political goals are agreeing then who is conspiring against who and for what purpose?

What about the scientists themselves? Do they have a vested interest in faking global warming? Why would they? You might say that their funding depends on it but then again, who was paying climate scientists before global warming became a big concern?
Are the scientists just doing it for the fame and attention? I can assure you, if you could scientifically disprove global warming, you'd be famous over night.
See, the scientific consensus didn't happen just fall from the sky. 100 years ago most scientists actually *didn't* believe that greenhouse gases could cause global warming. However, more and more careful experiments, better instruments and a better understanding of physics showed that they were wrong and over time that's how we got the overwhelming consensus that we have now.

If anyone has a vested interest in being dishonest about AGW, I'd say it's the opponents of AGW. Fossil fuel industries for example are fearing for their profits and a lot of AGW denial is funded by them. We know for example for a fact that exxon mobil knew already in the 80s about global warming due to CO2. Their own researchers had concluded it's true. Yet the company decided to spend millions upon millions on lobbying to prevent legislation that would cut into their profits.
Edited on 10-05-2020 16:03
10-05-2020 15:38
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
tmiddles wrote:
Now just as the IRS can prove criminal income based on a bank account balance (where did the money come from Mr. Capone?) we can prove that thermal energy is gained from an objects cooler surroundings. Because where id it come from otherwise? (IBD might think it's witches, he keeps dodging this)

Why? Because there is no way to explain the following:

A human body loses ~700 watts from radiance alone:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W
Metabolism of a normal diet is +100 watts.
So +624 watts come from where?


IBD is never going to answer this because he cannot. According to his description of energy transfer, this would be impossible.
10-05-2020 15:58
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
I have just read an article on sea ice in Hudson Bay and apparently there is more ice than last year and it is thicker than usual.The ice in Arctic can be -45 and in Antartic as low as -75. The claim is the Earth is a degree or so warmer.I fail to see how that can melt ice compared to direct sunlight the ice would just be -44 -43.it would still be ice.
10-05-2020 16:08
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
duncan61 wrote:
I have just read an article on sea ice in Hudson Bay and apparently there is more ice than last year and it is thicker than usual.The ice in Arctic can be -45 and in Antartic as low as -75. The claim is the Earth is a degree or so warmer.I fail to see how that can melt ice compared to direct sunlight the ice would just be -44 -43.it would still be ice.


You fall into your own trap, somewhat. Earth is big. Just because there is more ice somewhere doesn't mean that there is more ice everywhere. And just because there is more ice now than there was last year doesn't mean that over the long term ice isn't becoming less.

Regarding the temperature of the ice, the ice melts at the surface, not in the centre. If you take a cube of ice from your freezer it may very well be -10°C or so. The surface starts melting and turns into water. The centre is still -10°C.
If there's warmer water or warmer air around the ice or if the sun shines on the ice, the surface can still melt even if deeper layer of ice are still way below 0°C.
Edited on 10-05-2020 16:37
10-05-2020 16:20
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: Why would the person who collected the data and the time it was collected be relevant?

A real scientist would know that there are always questions that arise about the data, about the collection and about the notes/comments made thereof, and these questions cannot be directed to anyone other than the official POC for the collection.

In cases where the "collector" is an automatic sensor, the owning organization designates a POC to field questions about the data.

.


That's why every published paper has a corresponding author and their contact details with it.
If you have questions about the data, you can shoot them a mail.

I still don't see how the identity of the person taking the measurement or the time of measurement would influence the laws of physics.
Edited on 10-05-2020 16:38
10-05-2020 18:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7466)
JackFou wrote: I still don't see how the identity of the person taking the measurement or the time of measurement would influence the laws of physics.

Now you are being dishonest. You have your answer.

.


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
10-05-2020 19:05
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:
I still don't see how the identity of the person taking the measurement or the time of measurement would influence the laws of physics.


Now you are being dishonest. You have your answer.


Only if you agree that the answer is this: neither the identity of the person taking the measurement nor the time of measurement are relevant to the validity of the laws of physics.

I'd still like your answer for this question btw:
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you show repeatable increases in temperature of the warmest object due to thermal energy flow (as opposed to molecular excitation, for example) then yes, absolutely. I'm not asking for much ... or do you admit that I am in fact asking for the impossible?


Any conditions on how I can measure temperature? Like do I have to use a a mercury thermometer? A thermocouple? An infrared thermometer? Or can I use any method I chose?


Let's say I want to measure heat flowing from a hotter molecule molecule to a colder one -- which method/instrument would you find acceptable for me to demonstrate that?
Edited on 10-05-2020 19:09
10-05-2020 21:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7466)
JackFou wrote: Only if you agree that the answer is this: neither the identity of the person taking the measurement nor the time of measurement are relevant to the validity of the laws of physics.

The extent to which you don't even know what words to use to formulate your questions is painful. The "validity" of science? Do you even know what you are asking?

Of course the laws of physics do not change depending upon who is measuring. However only the person taking the measurements can tell you whether he measured at the top of the meniscus or at the bottom, whether he put the device on setting A or setting B, whether he rounded up or rounded down or whether he truncated, to clarify details of the alternate method he used, etc...

These kinds of questions can only be answered by the person performing the measurements and this was made clear to you ... yet you insisted on pulling a tmiddles and injecting some stupid notion about the laws of physics somehow changing based on the person taking the measurements. I can only assume this is due to your scientific illiteracy and to the ease with which you are confused.

I'm starting to reject the idea that you are a researcher. You can't possibly be entrusted to produce valid data.

I'd still like your answer for this question btw: Any conditions on how I can measure temperature? Like do I have to use a a mercury thermometer? A thermocouple? An infrared thermometer? Or can I use any method I chose?[/quote]
No. There are no conditions. Your question is stupid. An actual researcher would know the answer and not need to ask.

JackFou wrote: Let's say I want to measure heat flowing from a hotter molecule molecule to a colder one -- which method/instrument would you find acceptable for me to demonstrate that?

For individual molecules you'd have ask to tmiddles because only he is omniscient. Otherwise humanity doesn't have the means to measure temperature of individual molecules. This is why physics models address "bodies" (re
iscrete objects of matter).

.


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
10-05-2020 23:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
JackFou wrote:
The gas isn't heating the earth, the sun is.


I certainly don't understand the science like you guys do, so I'm COMPLETELY guessing here when I say that if the sun is ACTUALLY heating the earth, then you'll need more output from the sun to increase the surface temperature....don't you think so JackFou?


Not necessarily. You'd have to either increase the influx of energy *or* attenuate the outflux of energy. Greenhouse gases do the latter.

Not possible. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the 1st law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* you can't reduce entropy in any system.
* you can't create energy out of nothing.
JackFou wrote:
The temperature of a system depends not only on the rate of incoming energy but on the ratio between incoming and outgoing energy.

Mantra 20a2.
JackFou wrote:
In other words, if you can't cool yourself as effectively, you will run hotter.

Mantra 20a2...20g...20h... Gasoline is not thermal energy. It is not radiant heating from gasoline in the tank that runs the engine.
JackFou wrote:
Let's say you have an engine running at a certain load and rpm. After you start the engine, it will heat up until it eventually reaches an equilibrium temperature at which the rate of energy influx and energy dissipation into the environment are the same.

Now what happens if you stop the flow of cooling water to the engine without changing the load and rpm? Right, the engine gets hotter.

False equivalence. The Earth is not liquid cooled. It has no Magick Blanket around it. It does not use conductive heating to be cooled, like a liquid cooled internal combustion engine.
JackFou wrote:
But you haven't increased the rate of energy input into the system, so how is this possible?

You have removed conductive heating, but are still converting the same chemical energy to thermal in the engine. The Earth is not cooled by conductive heating.
JackFou wrote:
Did we transfer heat from the cooling water back to the engine? Did the colder cooling water warm the hotter engine? Obviously not. By stopping the circulation you've simply reduced the capacity of the engine to cool itself.

The engine does not cool itself at all.
JackFou wrote:
Therefore, the engine has to respond by increasing its temperature, thereby radiating more heat per unit of time to the environment until influx and outflux are again in balance.

Nope. The engine will quit. It will then cool to ambient temperature. You cannot trap thermal energy. Mantra 20a2...20g...
JackFou wrote:
Now IBD and ITN being predictable as always will probably chime in and say that I'm confused about conductive/convective and radiative heat transfer and that those are not the same.

You are treating them the same here. Which is it, dude?
Mantras 20a2...20s...20g...
JackFou wrote:
They are of course not the same but for the result it doesn't matter whether I consider conductive or radiative cooling. We would still get the same behaviour in a vacuum. All that matters is the rate of energy influx vs the rate of energy outflux. Whether the energy flows out through radiation or conduction makes no difference to this fundamental fact. You could do an equivalent thought experiment for radiative heat transfer if you wanted.

It does matter. Mantras 20g.
JackFou wrote:
It's not very easy to come up with a good analogy for radiative heat transfer to visualize it because classical macroscopic behaviour doesn't reflect quantum mechanic behaviour on the microscopic scale very well but I'll try.

Let's say you stand on a tennis court and there's a machine firing 100 tennis balls at you per minute. If you do nothing, the balls just accumulate on your side of the court and we don't want that. What we want is equilibrium, meaning the same amount of balls are leaving your half of the court per minute as are coming in. So you need to hit 100 balls per minute across the net and out of your half of the court to reach a steady equilibrium. That was easy, right?
...deleted remaining false equivalence fallacy....

Tennis balls being fired at you is not radiant heat or an example of radiant heat.
JackFou wrote:
Now if I wanted to *really* stretch this analogy, I could say that in order to reach the new equilibrium you need to work harder than before and you'll get warmer as a result.

To bring this back to the system "earth", "you" are now a patch of surface area, the tennis ball machine is the sun, no longer firing tennis balls but energy (joules) in the form of photons and "I" am a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
The sun sends a certain amount of energy per unit of time towards the surface of the earth. Let's say for the sake of argument that for a certain patch of the surface of the earth that's 100 joules of incoming energy per second.
Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the patch of surface area would just have to radiate energy back up towards space at a power of 100 J/s to maintain energy balance. The temperature of this equilibrium state can be calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
If I now introduce greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, they absorb (infrared) radiation at specific wavelengths. The energy they absorb isn't lost of course (conservation of energy and all). Some of it is converted into heat through collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere while some of it is send out again as radiation. Now the molecules don't have a sense of direction, they don't know up from down. They send the radiation equally in all directions meaning some of it goes up towards space, some of it goes back down towards earth.

No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Radiance does not depend on the substance radiating.
Mantras 20a2...20q...20b1...20b5...20b3...
JackFou wrote:
So now we have an imbalance in the energy flux just like we had an imbalance in tennis ball flux before. If the greenhouse gases let half of the radiation through and send half of it back down to earth, the result will be that the surface of the earth now has to radiate at 200 J/s to maintain equilibrium with the 100 J/s from the sun and 100 J/s being sent back from the greenhouse gases, just like you had to increase your rate of hitting tennis balls to 200 per minute. According to Stefan-Boltzmann increased radiative power corresponds to a higher temperature.

False conclusion. Mantras 20a2...20q...20b1...20b5...20b3...29...
JackFou wrote:
Of course reality is a lot more complicated and delicate than that

Mantras 10d...11...
JackFou wrote:
because greenhouse gases don't absorb all wavelengths of radiation and because an increase in temperature of a black/grey body actually changes the energy distribution across different wavelengths of its blackbody radiation and so on and we could go on until the end of time trying to make the math as complicated as possible by adding all the tiny little intricacies. But the general idea remains the same.

Mantras 10d...11...20b1...20b3...20b5...
JackFou wrote:
To summarize, in order to maintain energy balance, earth needs to send the same amount of energy per unit of time back to space as it receives from the sun.

It does. You cannot trap light.
JackFou wrote:
If I introduce greenhouse gases, the gases only let some of the energy emitted from the surface through and send some of it back down to the surface.

Mantra 20a2...20b1...20b3...20b5...20q...29...
JackFou wrote:
Therefore, in order to maintain equilibrium, the surface needs to increase its energy output which can only happen when the temperature of the surface goes up.

There is no sequence. Mantra 20b3. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Mantra 20b1. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


No argument presented. RQAA.


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
10-05-2020 23:52
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
No. There are no conditions. Your question is stupid. An actual researcher would know the answer and not need to ask.

In that case you might want to take a look at this.
But I have a feeling that you'll just go for some cheap cop-out.

IBdaMann wrote:
For individual molecules you'd have ask to tmiddles because only he is omniscient. Otherwise humanity doesn't have the means to measure temperature of individual molecules. This is why physics models address "bodies" (re
iscrete objects of matter).

That seems a bit too convenient for me. If we can't figure out temperatures of atoms or molecules then how do you explain a laser cutter? A CO2 laser can easily melt or even vaporize materials such as wood or metal. However, if I just use your macroscopic concept of temperature, then surely if I put a laser on a table and wait for a while, the temperature of the laser is just the room temperature? So how can a cold laser then heat up metals until they melt?
10-05-2020 23:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
In science, this is called "reducing radiance."


You're trying to be sneaky by mixing up different things. The radiance at the top of the atmosphere and the radiance at the surface aren't the same.

You cannot reduce entropy in any system. Mantra 20a2.
JackFou wrote:
If you look down at the earth from space and you measure the spectrum of thermal radiation you'll indeed find that the outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere is a pretty good approximation of a blackbody curve -- minus the wavelengths at which the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb radiation.

You cannot reduce entropy in any system. Mantra 20a2. The Stefan Boltzmann law has no frequency term. Mantra 20b1.
JackFou wrote:
But the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere needs be maintained. If it's not you'd be in a disequilibrium state and we both know that any macroscopic system will tend towards equilibrium over time.

There is no sequence. Mantra 20b3.
JackFou wrote:
If the greenhouse gases prevent some of the radiation emitted by the surface from escaping into space, the only way to maintain energy balance for the whole of system earth is by *increasing* the radiance at the surface of the planet. An *increase* in radiance corresponds to an *increase* in temperature.

No gas or vapor can trap light. An radiance decreases the temperature. It doesn't increase it. It takes energy to radiate, dude. Radiance is energy leaving the radiating surface. Mantras 20b1...20b3...20b5...20a2...
JackFou wrote:
I don't know about you but I definitely live at the surface of the planet, not in the upper atmosphere. So really, the temperature at the surface is what I care more about.

The surface is cooled by heating the atmosphere, whether that cooling is heat by conductance or heat by radiance.

Get a clue.


No argument presented. Religion as science. RQAA.


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
11-05-2020 00:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
duncan61 wrote:
Nice theory but it does not work in reality and fortunately more organisations are getting more vocal on shutting down this lunacy which is actually scaring dumb people that do not have the ability to see the truth.The average temperature of the Earth can not be measured and I have just researched the Satellites that are supposed to be able to do this and 1 they can not and 2 the one that is claimed to be able to do it was launched in 2004 so not that long ago.The actual on ground temp records have been convieniently fudged and even then it shows things were warmer in 1930


There are no temperatures of the Earth on record, and never have been. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


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
11-05-2020 00:02
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into The Night wrote:
you can't reduce entropy in any system.

Yes you can, by adding energy to the system.

Into The Night wrote:
You have removed conductive heating, but are still converting the same chemical energy to thermal in the engine. The Earth is not cooled by conductive heating.

Thank you for being just as extremely predictable as I thought you were.

Into The Night wrote:
Tennis balls being fired at you is not radiant heat or an example of radiant heat.

You do understand the concept of an "analogy", right?

Into The Night wrote:
No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has.

I have already demonstrated that this is false. If you need more evidence, look at a laser cutter melting metal -- a continuous stream of photons of the same energy keeps adding and adding energy to the atoms it hits until the metal eventually melts.

Into The Night wrote:
An radiance decreases the temperature. It doesn't increase it. It takes energy to radiate, dude. Radiance is energy leaving the radiating surface.

You might wanna take that up with your buddy IBD because he keeps insisting that a decrease in radiance corresponds with a lower temperature. Now you're saying the opposite. You two need to get your stories straight.

No arguments presented.
You're just repeating the same unsubstantiated nonsense over and over again.
Aren't clowns supposed to be funny?
Edited on 11-05-2020 01:01
11-05-2020 00:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
duncan61 wrote:
I have just spent 9 months trying to find one shred of actual evidence of AGW/CC and have found nothing at all except theories.The science is not settled and I fail to understand why Warmazombies lead with this


The 'greenhouse effect' is not a theory of science. It fails the internal consistency check for it is built on a buzzword fallacy (no one has ever defined 'global warming' or 'climate change' in a quantitative way and ignores a paradox). It fails the external consistency check (by violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law). It confuses absorption of light with the trapping of light. It has no formula and therefore no power to predict.

It therefore is not even a nonscientific theory, for all theories must pass the internal consistency check.

The 'greenhouse effect' is, in and of itself, a buzzword fallacy.


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
11-05-2020 00:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
JackFou am I correct in assuming that increasing CO2 can somehow change the weather if so please allow for a saturation level and for CO2 going up in the atmosphere if it is cabable of reflecting energy back to Earth it is not a one for one deal.Doubling the CO2 does not double its alleged effect and its all theory not actually demonstratably real time events.Example a claim is made half the Ice at the poles has already melted yet the sea has not gone up at all anywhere so I say melt the lot and see what actually happens not that human activity has the ability to change anything.The world is a big place not a jar in a lab

Earth is indeed not an experiment in a jar but the laws of physics are still the same. If the physics is true in a lab it will also be true outside of the lab.

You are denying physics.
JackFou wrote:
The "saturation" that you're talking about is included in the simple fact that it takes a doubling of CO2 to increase the temperature by a fixed amount. This means going from 100 ppm to 200 ppm has the same effect as going from 400 ppm as 800 ppm. You need to add more and more CO2 to get the same result.

Absorption of infrared light from the Earth's surface cannot heat the Earth. Indeed, emitting that light in the first place cools the surface.
JackFou wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Nice theory but it does not work in reality and fortunately more organisations are getting more vocal on shutting down this lunacy which is actually scaring dumb people that do not have the ability to see the truth.The average temperature of the Earth can not be measured and I have just researched the Satellites that are supposed to be able to do this and 1 they can not and 2 the one that is claimed to be able to do it was launched in 2004 so not that long ago.The actual on ground temp records have been convieniently fudged and even then it shows things were warmer in 1930


The average temperature of earth is indeed difficult to measure. It may be so difficult that it is in fact impossible.

It is in fact impossible. We simply don't have enough thermometers to produce any sensible statistical analysis with any meaning.
JackFou wrote:
We can only hope to approximate it as good as we can.

Mantra 10. You cannot redefine statistical math as 'approximation' or 'tolerance'.
JackFou wrote:
In fact, any "real" measurement will only ever be an approximation of some kind of true value.

Statistical math is not tolerance. Neither is margin of error.
JackFou wrote:
When you measure the length of a stick with a measuring tape, you don't know the "true" value down to the single atom.

Sticks don't measure atoms. Mantra 25k.
JackFou wrote:
You approximate it to an accuracy that is sufficient for your purpose.

Redefinition fallacy. Margin of error is not tolerance. Sticks do not measure atoms. Math error. Unit incompatibility.
JackFou wrote:
When it comes to the average temperature, we don't even care so much about the exact value but rather about how the value changes over time.
So if we used the same method and the same instruments to measure the same thing for a long period, we will still see whether the measurement results trend upwards or downwards or stay steady. (Of course this won't stop us from trying to determine the average temperature as accurately as we can anyway)

Math error. Base rate fallacy. Mantra 25a. You cannot substitute a derivative of a measurement for a measurement (or lack thereof).
JackFou wrote:
Again, reality is unfortunately extremely complex.

Mantra 10d...11...
JackFou wrote:
So instruments don't necessarily respond perfectly linearly across the whole measurement range,

Irrelevant. Mantra 15.
JackFou wrote:
measurement stations may break and have to be removed or replaced,

Irrelevant. Mantra 15.
JackFou wrote:
the environment around stations may change,

Irrelevant. Mantra 25a.
JackFou wrote:
causing heat island effects to change over time,

Math error. Mantras 25d...10b...
JackFou wrote:
new instruments may have a systematically lower or higher reading than older instruments and so on.

Temperature scales have not changed. Instrument tolerance is not bias. Mantra 10...25a.
JackFou wrote:
So you have to be really, really, really careful about interpreting the data

There is no data of the temperature of the Earth or its surface.
JackFou wrote:
and you have to make all sorts of corrections to ensure that you're not measuring the wrong thing.

Math error. Mantra 25d. You cannot use cooked data as raw data. Only raw data is allowed in statistical math.
JackFou wrote:
Making those corrections isn't "fudging the data". It's actually being careful and doing good science.

It is fudging, or even manufacturing data. Science is not involved here. Science isn't data. Math is involved here. You are not denying mathematics.
JackFou wrote:
If you know that your measurement has a systematic error and you *don't* correct for it, *that's* when you're actually doing shoddy science.

Science is not data. You are not allowed to use cooked data in statistical mathematics. Mantras 25d...25e...25g...
JackFou wrote:
To give you an example, in the past we used to measure water temperature of the oceans by throwing a bucket over board, lifting it back up and sticking a thermometer in the water. Depending on how well or poorly you do this, the water might warm up ever so slightly while you bring the bucket back up. You have to account for this.

Actually, no you don't. Water has a high thermal index. It's temperature is not going to change significantly for this purpose in the time it takes to measure it this way.
JackFou wrote:
But it gets worse.
Eventually, as technology progressed and we weren't mostly traveling the oceans by sailboat anymore, we started measuring the temperature in the intake of the cooling water for the engines. This is convenient but because engines run hot, measuring near the engine room causes a systematic overestimation of the temperature. So if you didn't account for this, you'd find that around the time when we switched from buckets to engines, the temperature of the oceans jumped by a few degrees. That is of course nonsense. The "raw" datasets aren't compatible.

Ocean water temperature is not measuring the induction temperature of the water. If it did, the induction temperature is pretty accurate, except for friction effects (the engine is no factor at all).

JackFou wrote:
So what can we do if we want to look at long-term trends anyway? Is all hope lost? Do we just throw our hands in the air and give up? Of course not.

You have to. You have no choice. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the surface of the Earth. Mantras 25c...25e...25g...
JackFou wrote:
To fix this you have to determine how large the overestimation of the new temperature measurement is compared to the old temperature measurements and then adjust the datasets accordingly to get one continuous dataset.

There is no dataset to compare. Comparing random numbers with random numbers is pointless. Math error. You are not allowed to use cooked data in statistical mathematics.
Mantras 25d...25e...
JackFou wrote:
Now a lot of people seem to think that AGW is just a hoax for achieving political goals.

Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
JackFou wrote:
And I will not deny that there are certainly a lot of players, especially in politics and the media, who do wish to personally profit from this. However, that doesn't mean that the science is wrong, it just means that politics sucks and the media suck.

You are denying science. Trump has made an excellent case for why the media sucks and why liberals and Democrats suck.
JackFou wrote:
If you think it's all just a political conspiracy, let me ask you this: Who is conspiring against who?

Liberals in government are conspiring against the people, against the Constitution of the United States, and against science.
JackFou wrote:
Scientific agencies and institutes from all around the world are in agreement that AGW is real. It doesn't matter if you ask scientists from China, Russia, the US, Europe, South America...

Climate 'scientists' are not scientists. They deny science and mathematics, just like you do. Science isn't scientists. Mathematics isn't scientists. Data isn't science. Random numbers are not data. Science is not an agency, government organization, university, credential or degree, association, society, magazine, book, paper, or even a scientist. Science isn't even people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You deny three of those theories.

Mathematics is not an agency, government organization, university, credential or degree, association, society, magazine, book, paper, or even a scientist or mathematician. Mathematics is not even people at all. Mathematics is a closed functional system based on a set of axioms.

Neither science nor mathematics use consensus. Only religions and governments use consensus.

JackFou wrote:
So if scientists from many different nations with entirely different (geo)political goals are agreeing then who is conspiring against who and for what purpose?

Science does not use consensus.
JackFou wrote:
What about the scientists themselves?

Irrelevant.
JackFou wrote:
Do they have a vested interest in faking global warming?

Political bias, especially those that are government paid.
JackFou wrote:
Why would they?

They are government paid.
JackFou wrote:
You might say that their funding depends on it but then again, who was paying climate scientists before global warming became a big concern?

Climate 'scientists' did not exist before 'global warming' became a popular religion. Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics. Define 'global warming'.
JackFou wrote:
Are the scientists just doing it for the fame and attention? I can assure you, if you could scientifically disprove global warming, you'd be famous over night.

Mantra 38b. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. I need not prove anything. YOU have to show how the 1st and 2nd laws and the Stefan Boltzmann laws are falsified. YOU have to provide valid data. YOU have to publish that raw data, declare how biasing influences were eliminated, determine and declare and justify your source of variance, and perform the math according to the rules of statistical mathematics.
JackFou wrote:
See, the scientific consensus didn't happen just fall from the sky.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'scientific' consensus. Science does not use consensus. Mantras 20j...20k..20l...20c...20t...25g...
JackFou wrote:
100 years ago most scientists actually *didn't* believe that greenhouse gases could cause global warming. However, more and more careful experiments, better instruments and a better understanding of physics showed that they were wrong and over time that's how we got the overwhelming consensus that we have now.

Science does not use consensus.
JackFou wrote:
If anyone has a vested interest in being dishonest about AGW, I'd say it's the opponents of AGW.

Define 'AGW'. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
JackFou wrote:
Fossil fuel industries for example are fearing for their profits and a lot of AGW denial is funded by them.

There are no fossil fuel industries. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
JackFou wrote:
We know for example for a fact that exxon mobil

Exxon Mobil is a proper noun. It is capitalized. This company produces oil products. Oil is a hydrocarbon, not a fossil.
JackFou wrote:
knew already in the 80s about global warming due to CO2.

Define 'global warming'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
JackFou wrote:
Their own researchers had concluded it's true.

What is True? Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. You have to define the phrase before you even talk about True or False conditions.
JackFou wrote:
Yet the company decided to spend millions upon millions on lobbying to prevent legislation that would cut into their profits.

The researcher that tried to claim 'global warming' as science at Exxon was fired. I don't blame them. Religion has no place in science. I don't blame them for fighting the Church of Global Warming either.


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
11-05-2020 01:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Now just as the IRS can prove criminal income based on a bank account balance (where did the money come from Mr. Capone?) we can prove that thermal energy is gained from an objects cooler surroundings. Because where id it come from otherwise? (IBD might think it's witches, he keeps dodging this)

Why? Because there is no way to explain the following:

A human body loses ~700 watts from radiance alone:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W
Metabolism of a normal diet is +100 watts.
So +624 watts come from where?


IBD is never going to answer this because he cannot. According to his description of energy transfer, this would be impossible.

He already has. So have I. Mantra 29.


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
11-05-2020 01:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I have just read an article on sea ice in Hudson Bay and apparently there is more ice than last year and it is thicker than usual.The ice in Arctic can be -45 and in Antartic as low as -75. The claim is the Earth is a degree or so warmer.I fail to see how that can melt ice compared to direct sunlight the ice would just be -44 -43.it would still be ice.


You fall into your own trap, somewhat. Earth is big. Just because there is more ice somewhere doesn't mean that there is more ice everywhere.

Divisional error fallacy. Mantra 20h...25g. Argument from randU fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
And just because there is more ice now than there was last year doesn't mean that over the long term ice isn't becoming less.

Mantra 25g. Argument from randU fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
Regarding the temperature of the ice, the ice melts at the surface, not in the centre. If you take a cube of ice from your freezer it may very well be -10°C or so. The surface starts melting and turns into water. The centre is still -10°C.
If there's warmer water or warmer air around the ice or if the sun shines on the ice, the surface can still melt even if deeper layer of ice are still way below 0°C.

Irrelevance fallacy. Mantra 15.

No argument presented.


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
11-05-2020 01:07
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night
There are no fossil fuel industries. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.


Okay, this one actually made me laugh
Maybe there is some hope for your clown career after all!
11-05-2020 01:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: Why would the person who collected the data and the time it was collected be relevant?

A real scientist would know that there are always questions that arise about the data, about the collection and about the notes/comments made thereof, and these questions cannot be directed to anyone other than the official POC for the collection.

In cases where the "collector" is an automatic sensor, the owning organization designates a POC to field questions about the data.

.


That's why every published paper has a corresponding author and their contact details with it.
If you have questions about the data, you can shoot them a mail.

Science is not a paper or a magazine. Mantra 20l.
JackFou wrote:
I still don't see how the identity of the person taking the measurement or the time of measurement would influence the laws of physics.

Measurement is not physics. Redefinition fallacy. Mantra 20j.

No argument presented.


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
11-05-2020 01:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
No. There are no conditions. Your question is stupid. An actual researcher would know the answer and not need to ask.

In that case you might want to take a look at this.
But I have a feeling that you'll just go for some cheap cop-out.

This paper I would flunk. It is attempting to equate electron spin with temperature.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
For individual molecules you'd have ask to tmiddles because only he is omniscient. Otherwise humanity doesn't have the means to measure temperature of individual molecules. This is why physics models address "bodies" (re
iscrete objects of matter).

That seems a bit too convenient for me. If we can't figure out temperatures of atoms or molecules then how do you explain a laser cutter? A CO2 laser can easily melt or even vaporize materials such as wood or metal. However, if I just use your macroscopic concept of temperature, then surely if I put a laser on a table and wait for a while, the temperature of the laser is just the room temperature? So how can a cold laser then heat up metals until they melt?

Light has no temperature. Neither does a laser.


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
11-05-2020 01:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
Into The Night wrote:
you can't reduce entropy in any system.

Yes you can, by adding energy to the system.

You cannot add energy to the system. The system must be closed. No outside energy sources or sinks may be considered. Mantra 20a2.
JackFou wrote:
Into The Night wrote:
You have removed conductive heating, but are still converting the same chemical energy to thermal in the engine. The Earth is not cooled by conductive heating.

Thank you for being just as extremely predictable as I thought you were.

So apparently you figure that Earth loses heat to space by conductive heating! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
JackFou wrote:
Into The Night wrote:
Tennis balls being fired at you is not radiant heat or an example of radiant heat.

You do understand the concept of an "analogy", right?

Your analogy is in error for the reasons I've already given. Mantra 29.
JackFou wrote:
Into The Night wrote:
No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has.

I have already demonstrated that this is false. If you need more evidence, look at a laser cutter melting metal -- a continuous stream of photons of the same energy keeps adding and adding energy to the atoms it hits until the metal eventually melts.

Light has no temperature. Mantra 25k.
JackFou wrote:
Into The Night wrote:
An radiance decreases the temperature. It doesn't increase it. It takes energy to radiate, dude. Radiance is energy leaving the radiating surface.

You might wanna take that up with your buddy IBD because he keeps insisting that a decrease in radiance corresponds with a lower temperature. Now you're saying the opposite. You two need to get your stories straight.

Nope. No conflict at all. Mantras 4c...16c...20b...
JackFou wrote:
No arguments presented.
You're just repeating the same unsubstantiated nonsense over and over again.
Aren't clowns supposed to be funny?

Mantras 17...5...29...

No argument presented. RQAA.


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
11-05-2020 01:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night
There are no fossil fuel industries. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.


Okay, this one actually made me laugh
Maybe there is some hope for your clown career after all!


Glad you had a good laugh. Such is your religion. Oil is not a fossil nor contains any fossil. Oil is a hydrocarbon. It is a liquid. No fossils.

Coal is primarily carbon. Carbon is an element. It may contain fossils within it, but it is not a fossil itself.

Natural gas is methane. It is also a hydrocarbon. It is a gas. No fossils.


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
11-05-2020 01:30
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
This paper I would flunk. It is attempting to equate electron spin with temperature.

Of course you would because it contradicts what you're saying.

Into the Night wrote:
Light has no temperature. Neither does a laser.

Last time I checked, a laser was a physical object made up of atoms. If temperature is just a measure of average thermal energy, then surely a laser has a temperature. Atoms cannot have *no* thermal energy. That would be 0 K and that's forbidden by the third law of thermodynamics. You wouldn't try to refute the laws of thermodynamics now, would you?
Edited on 11-05-2020 01:31
11-05-2020 01:34
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Into The Night wrote:
you can't reduce entropy in any system.

Yes you can, by adding energy to the system.

You cannot add energy to the system. The system must be closed. No outside energy sources or sinks may be considered.


You said "any system". An open system is "a system". Planet earth in contact with the sun and space is an open system. You seem to have a serious problem with language.

Into the Night wrote:
Light has no temperature.


The physical object "laser" does have a temperature and it happens to be capable of heating other, warmer objects.
Edited on 11-05-2020 01:35
11-05-2020 03:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7466)
JackFou wrote: But I have a feeling that you'll just go for some cheap cop-out.

One clear sign of an incorrigible Wikipedia Warrior is the unshakable belief that everything on the internet that supports one's opinions and beliefs must be true and correct.

If you had been an actual scientist, you would have immediately scoffed at the article implication that it operated off of better science than "standard science." There are no tiers of science and "standard science" is not the basement model in need of upgrades.

Heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold in standard thermodynamics. However, the latter theory presupposes the absence of initial correlations between interacting systems.


And you fell for this? This level of gullibility exists because of scientific illiteracy.
No actual scientist would have bothered to read this article.

Just for my own edification, at what forums do they actually think you are a scientist? I simply must know.

JackFou wrote: So how can a cold laser then heat up metals until they melt?


This will be my only warning. You need to read my posts. I specifically covered this:

IBdaMann wrote: If you show repeatable increases in temperature of the warmest object due to thermal energy flow (as opposed to molecular excitation, for example) then yes, absolutely. I'm not asking for much ... or do you admit that I am in fact asking for the impossible?


The next time you pull a tmiddles I will simply respond with "RQAA" and you can do the footwork to find where I already addressed your question.

JackFou wrote:
Into the Night
There are no fossil fuel industries. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
Okay, this one actually made me laugh
Maybe there is some hope for your clown career after all!

Hey Mr. Genius ... did you read what he wrote? Fossils don't burn. If I were you I wouldn't be referring to others as being clowns while you are trying to perpetrate a hoax concerning you being a scientist.

But as long as you brought it up, let's rake you over the coals on this topic as well. It never hurts to be thorough.

How do you believe hydrocarbons get into the ground in the first place ... Mr. Genius?

What fossils do you believe are combustible, Mr. Genius?


.
Attached image:

11-05-2020 03:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7466)
JackFou wrote: Planet earth in contact with the sun and space is an open system.

You have to know that it takes a special kind of stupid for a stupid person to try to pass himself off as a genius. The moment he begins trying to communicate he will give himself away.

You have zero understanding of thermodynamics and you are trying to pass yourself off as being an absolute master of the science. I need an entirely new magnitude of scale to gauge your level of stupidity. Your statement above has an egregious error ... and you don't know what it is. How does one even begin describing your whole absurd charade. A stupid person calling others stupid.

You are a waste of bandwidth.

JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Light has no temperature.

The physical object "laser" does have a temperature and it happens to be capable of heating other, warmer objects.

Which is it, are you:
A) Disagreeing with Into the Night in some way? If so, how?
B) Simply unable to follow a conversation
C) Claiming that light (electromagnetic energy) has a temperature?

You seem to have a huge problem with language.


.
Attached image:


Edited on 11-05-2020 03:53
11-05-2020 09:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Couple questions IBD about your new position in this thread:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A transfer of thermal energy through space is radiance IBD.
What I see is your attempt to redefine thermal energy flow as electromagnetic emission.
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:I have explained to you what I consider a plausible mechanism for radiative energy transfer.
... and I have been clear that I am ignoring everything but discussion of thermal energy.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Heat" has no definition. It is the word that scientifically illiterate warmizombie morons use ...

Are you calling ITN an illiterate warmizombie?:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder gas.

Why do you use the term "thermal radiation" yourself?
IBdaMann wrote:Thermal radiation is governed by temperature and nothing else.
link
IBdaMann wrote:The sun does not provide enough thermal radiation to increase the temperature of the earth's mantle or core,
link
11-05-2020 10:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
This paper I would flunk. It is attempting to equate electron spin with temperature.

Of course you would because it contradicts what you're saying.

No, Because it is attempting to equate electron spin with temperature. Pay attention. Mantra 16b.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Light has no temperature. Neither does a laser.

Last time I checked, a laser was a physical object made up of atoms.

Nope. A laser is light. It is photons. It is not atoms.
JackFou wrote:
If temperature is just a measure of average thermal energy, then surely a laser has a temperature.

Light has no temperature. Mantra 20g.
JackFou wrote:
Atoms cannot have *no* thermal energy.

Laser light has no atoms.
JackFou wrote:
That would be 0 K and that's forbidden by the third law of thermodynamics. You wouldn't try to refute the laws of thermodynamics now, would you?

No, that would be you trying to conflate two forms of energy as the same again. Mantra 20g.


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
11-05-2020 10:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Into The Night wrote:
you can't reduce entropy in any system.

Yes you can, by adding energy to the system.

You cannot add energy to the system. The system must be closed. No outside energy sources or sinks may be considered.


You said "any system". An open system is "a system". Planet earth in contact with the sun and space is an open system. You seem to have a serious problem with language.

Earth is not in contact with the Sun. The Sun-Earth-space system is a closed system. Mantra 20i.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Light has no temperature.


The physical object "laser" does have a temperature and it happens to be capable of heating other, warmer objects.

Nope. A device for generating laser light is not light. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. Mantra 20a2...20h...20i...

No argument presented.


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
11-05-2020 10:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
tmiddles wrote:
Couple questions IBD about your new position in this thread:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A transfer of thermal energy through space is radiance IBD.
What I see is your attempt to redefine thermal energy flow as electromagnetic emission.
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:I have explained to you what I consider a plausible mechanism for radiative energy transfer.
... and I have been clear that I am ignoring everything but discussion of thermal energy.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Heat" has no definition. It is the word that scientifically illiterate warmizombie morons use ...

Are you calling ITN an illiterate warmizombie?:

No, he's not. Pay attention. Mantra 16c...30...29...
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder gas.

Why do you use the term "thermal radiation" yourself?
...deleted Holy Link...

Mantra 29...

No argument presented. RQAA.


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
Edited on 11-05-2020 10:37
11-05-2020 11:52
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: So how can a cold laser then heat up metals until they melt?


This will be my only warning. You need to read my posts. I specifically covered this:


Oh no! I've been warned! How frightening!

So how is it possible then? The metal (or pretty much whatever object you chose to aim your laser at) heats up properly, you can measure it with a thermometer so clearly there's thermal energy being added continuously.
But the laser only emits light of a specific wavelength.
Since your understanding of temperature is sadly limited to "measure of average thermal energy" of an object, we're forced to conclude two things:

a) A device at room temperature can heat up another object to several hundred degrees and higher. Yet I can comfortably touch the device with my hand the whole time.

b) Any object that can be heated with a laser keeps absorbing more and more photons of the same wavelengths. This is proof beyond doubt that atoms can in fact absorb photons of an energy less than what the atom already has.

So if it's not the photons from the laser being absorbed and converted into thermal energy, where does the thermal energy come from?
How can a laser continue to add thermal energy to any object if it only emits photons of less energy than the atoms already have?

Must be awful to be so scientifically illiterate that something as simple as a laser flies in the face of everything you claim to be true.

Now of course lasers don't *actually* violate any laws of thermodynamics (but then again, neither does the greenhouse gas effect). It's only due to your high-school level understanding of temperature that it seems like they do.


IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night
There are no fossil fuel industries. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
Okay, this one actually made me laugh
Maybe there is some hope for your clown career after all!


How do you believe hydrocarbons get into the ground in the first place ... Mr. Genius?


The hydrocarbons got in the ground when organic matter (aka formerly living organisms) got sedimented.

Pretty much everyone knows what the word "fossil fuels" refers to. I can literally pull a random person off the street and they'll be able to tell me. If you don't know what it means, you can look it up in a dictionary.
"Fossil fuels" have their name for historic reasons. "Fossil" is an adjective in this case, not a noun.
You look like two 4th-graders who have just learned that fossil fuels aren't actually made from fossilized dinosaurs and now they have to tell everyone about it.
Insisting that fossil fuels aren't actually made from fossils doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look pretty dumb.

Are you guys training to be a duo?

Edited on 11-05-2020 11:56
11-05-2020 12:02
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Earth is not in contact with the Sun. The Sun-Earth-space system is a closed system. Mantra 20i.


I don't know about you but when I walk outside on a good day, I can literally *feel* the energy from this heat source called "the sun" pouring into me.
I'm happy living on this open system version of planet earth. Your closed version sounds like a pretty shitty place.

Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Light has no temperature.


The physical object "laser" does have a temperature and it happens to be capable of heating other, warmer objects.

Nope. A device for generating laser light is not light. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. Mantra 20a2...20h...20i...

No argument presented.


Edited on 11-05-2020 12:03
11-05-2020 12:05
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
I can see why some people are scared of clowns.I am going to have nightmares now.
11-05-2020 17:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7466)
JackFou wrote:Oh no! I've been warned!

That you have.

JackFou wrote: So how is it possible then?

As promised: RQAA

JackFou wrote: a) A device at room temperature can heat up another object to several hundred degrees and higher. Yet I can comfortably touch the device with my hand the whole time.

I'm guessing you just learned about microwave ovens. Go back to the trailer park.

JackFou wrote: b) Any object that can be heated with a laser keeps absorbing more and more photons of the same wavelengths. This is proof beyond doubt that atoms can in fact absorb photons of an energy less than what the atom already has.

Nope ... and the kicker is that you still feel compelled to use the word "proof." Too funny.

JackFou wrote: So if it's not the photons from the laser being absorbed and converted into thermal energy, where does the thermal energy come from?

Why are you asking this question again? RQAA

JackFou wrote: How can a laser continue to add thermal energy to any object if it only emits photons of less energy than the atoms already have?

Why are you asking this question again? RQAA

Must be awful to be so scientifically illiterate that you can't understand the answers to your questions, relegating you to keep asking them over and over in an apparent endless cycle that never seems to result in you learning anything.

So, in your honest opinion, how many people do you believe you have fooled on this site?

JackFou wrote: Now of course lasers don't *actually* violate any laws of thermodynamics

Did you only now come to this realization?

JackFou wrote: (but then again, neither does the greenhouse gas effect).

Too late. You have already revealed you belief that Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann. You are merely implying that you are scientifically illiterate on blackbody science ... which we already knew ... which is why you aren't really fooling anyone into believing that you are actually a scientist.

Yes, you blew it. You would be advised to quit while you are behind.

JackFou wrote: The hydrocarbons got in the ground when organic matter (aka formerly living organisms) got sedimented.

So Mr. Genius, why are all oil and gas wells miles below the fossil record, beneath impermeable rock? Hydrocarbons seep upward from where they are created and they require great heat and pressure to form. That rules out your stupid theory. The impermeable rock is what prevents the hydrocarbons from seeping upward any further, causing them to accumulate in a "well." How can this be a result of previously living organisms?

JackFou wrote: Pretty much everyone knows what the word "fossil fuels" refers to.

If you are telling me that the world is full of mistaken people blissfully unaware of their operating misconceptions ... and that you are one of them ... sure, I agree.

So, how do you explain hydrocarbons beneath impermeable rock far below the fossil record and what fossils do you believe burn?

Insisting that fossils burn doesn't help you fool people into believing that you are an actual scientist, especially when you don't even know how hydrocarbons get into the ground.

.
Attached image:

11-05-2020 19:45
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
That you have.

Issuing "warnings" across the internet from behind a keyboard is one of the most pathetic things I can think of. Are you going to do a limbo performance for us later or why are you dropping the bar so low?

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm guessing you just learned about microwave ovens. Go back to the trailer park.

If you insist on bringing up more counter examples to your own theory, feel free but for now I'm still waiting to hear from you how you think a laser heats any material if no atom can absorb photons of an energy less than what the atom already has.

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: b) Any object that can be heated with a laser keeps absorbing more and more photons of the same wavelengths. This is proof beyond doubt that atoms can in fact absorb photons of an energy less than what the atom already has.

Nope ... and the kicker is that you still feel compelled to use the word "proof." Too funny.

The laser emits only one wavelength of light. The substrate keeps absorbing more and more energy. You can measure this as a temperature increase. Ergo more and more energy is continuously added to the atoms by means of photons of the same energy. You claim that this is impossible. You're denying what you can easily observe with your own eyes.

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: So if it's not the photons from the laser being absorbed and converted into thermal energy, where does the thermal energy come from?

Why are you asking this question again? RQAA

I'm asking again because you haven't yet answered.
Where is the thermal energy coming from?

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: How can a laser continue to add thermal energy to any object if it only emits photons of less energy than the atoms already have?

Why are you asking this question again? RQAA

Because you've failed to answer.
How can a laser continue to add thermal energy to any object if it only emits photons of less energy than the atoms already have?

IBdaMann wrote:
Too late. You have already revealed you belief that Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann. You are merely implying that you are scientifically illiterate on blackbody science ... which we already knew ... which is why you aren't really fooling anyone into believing that you are actually a scientist.

Radiance of the surface goes up therefore temperature goes up. This is exactly what the Stefan-Boltzmann law dictates. You're trying to twist the Stefan-Boltzmann law by conflating the radiance of the surface with the radiance of the upper atmosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: The hydrocarbons got in the ground when organic matter (aka formerly living organisms) got sedimented.

So Mr. Genius, why are all oil and gas wells miles below the fossil record, beneath impermeable rock? Hydrocarbons seep upward from where they are created and they require great heat and pressure to form. That rules out your stupid theory. The impermeable rock is what prevents the hydrocarbons from seeping upward any further, causing them to accumulate in a "well." How can this be a result of previously living organisms?

You've kind of answered your own question. They're buried as deep as they are because they couldn't drift upwards any further. Also if you've ever seen a coal mine, you'd know that a lot of coal isn't buried terribly deep. Some of it can be dug up with surface mining techniques. We've definitely found fossils deeper than that. There are almost certainly lots of fossils still buried *way* deeper. The fossil record doesn't have a specific depth. But since fossils are not easy to locate, paleontologists don't generally blindly dig holes kilometres deep hoping to find something. Therefore, the known fossil record is biased towards shallower depths.

Now neither paleontology nor geology are subjects that particularly interest me but a quick search reveals the following:
Fossils go from a few thousand years ago all they way to billions of years ago and the depth at which you'll find them can vary from a few meters to kilometres.
Coal, gas and oil on the other hand are around 200-300+ million years old and have all been found at shallower depths than the deepest fossils we've found.
So your claims don't quite add up, I'm afraid.

I'm sure you'll dispute all of these numbers. In which case, feel free to show your radioiosotpe dating results that disprove all those claims.

But now I'm really curious to hear what *you* think where those hydrocarbon fuels come from. Did god put them there?

IBdaMann wrote:
If you are telling me that the world is full of mistaken people blissfully unaware of their operating misconceptions ... and that you are one of them ... sure, I agree.

You're the one who's apparently unaware of the difference between adjectives and nouns and what a dictionary is and how it works, so I wouldn't get too cocky.
12-05-2020 00:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: So how can a cold laser then heat up metals until they melt?


This will be my only warning. You need to read my posts. I specifically covered this:


Oh no! I've been warned! How frightening!

Well, you've ignored his warning. You might as well settle in for his caustic humor being directed against you.

JackFou wrote:
So how is it possible then?

Mantra 29.
JackFou wrote:
The metal (or pretty much whatever object you chose to aim your laser at) heats up properly, you can measure it with a thermometer so clearly there's thermal energy being added continuously.

Lasers don't work unless you plug them in. Mantra 20a2...20h...20g...
JackFou wrote:
But the laser only emits light of a specific wavelength.

More or less true, but only if the laser device is plugged in.
JackFou wrote:
Since your understanding of temperature is sadly limited to "measure of average thermal energy" of an object, we're forced to conclude two things:

a) A device at room temperature can heat up another object to several hundred degrees and higher. Yet I can comfortably touch the device with my hand the whole time.

Mantras 20a2...20h...20g...29...
JackFou wrote:
b) Any object that can be heated with a laser keeps absorbing more and more photons of the same wavelengths. This is proof beyond doubt that atoms can in fact absorb photons of an energy less than what the atom already has.
Nope. The material can only heat so far. Mantras 20a2...20a1...20e2...20g...20h...
JackFou wrote:
So if it's not the photons from the laser being absorbed and converted into thermal energy, where does the thermal energy come from?
Absorption does not create energy, dude. Light does not have a temperature. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20e1...20e2...20g...20h...20q...25f...25k...29...
JackFou wrote:
How can a laser continue to add thermal energy to any object if it only emits photons of less energy than the atoms already have?
It doesn't, once the material is hot enough. Mantras 20a2...20q...25f...25k...25l...25a...
JackFou wrote:
Must be awful to be so scientifically illiterate that something as simple as a laser flies in the face of everything you claim to be true.
It doesn't. Mantras 20a2...20q...25f...7...25l...29...
JackFou wrote:
Now of course lasers don't *actually* violate any laws of thermodynamics (but then again, neither does the greenhouse gas effect). It's only due to your high-school level understanding of temperature that it seems like they do.

No gas or vapor is capable of adding energy to the Earth from nothing. Mantra 20a1. No gas or vapor is capable of trapping light, heat, or thermal energy. Mantra 20a2.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night
There are no fossil fuel industries. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
Okay, this one actually made me laugh
Maybe there is some hope for your clown career after all!


How do you believe hydrocarbons get into the ground in the first place ... Mr. Genius?


The hydrocarbons got in the ground when organic matter (aka formerly living organisms) got sedimented.

'Organic chemistry' is the chemistry of carbon related only to life processes. Carbon itself is an element. It is not organic. Hydrocarbons are a compound. They are not organic.

We can and do synthesize both oil and natural gas from inorganic compounds. All you need is carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, heat, and pressure, in the presence of an iron catalyst...all conditions found naturally within the Earth.

Coal is primarily carbon. Carbon is an element. It is not a fossil.

JackFou wrote:
Pretty much everyone knows what the word "fossil fuels" refers to.
I can literally pull a random person off the street and they'll be able to tell me.
Because, like you, they were taught many incorrect things when they went to grade school. They also teach things like tomatoes being a vegetable (they aren't), and religions like the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, and the Church of Karl Marx.

JackFou wrote:
If you don't know what it means, you can look it up in a dictionary.

False authority fallacy. Dictionaries do not define words. They are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation, and to give examples of how a word might be used. No dictionary is authoritative over the definition of any word. No dictionary owns any word.
JackFou wrote:
"Fossil fuels" have their name for historic reasons. "Fossil" is an adjective in this case, not a noun.
'Fossil' is a noun. It is nothing other than a noun.
JackFou wrote:
You look like two 4th-graders who have just learned that fossil fuels aren't actually made from fossilized dinosaurs and now they have to tell everyone about it.
Why then is oil found well below any fossil layer? Natural gas too. Coal also. What dinosaur was in the labs in Germany when they discovered the Fischer-Tropshe process? What dinosaur was in the industrial plants that were built to synthesize oil from carbon monoxide and hydrogen for Germany in WW2?
JackFou wrote:
Insisting that fossil fuels aren't actually made from fossils doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look pretty dumb. ...deleted Mantra 1...

I can forgive this sort of illiteracy only once. You are, after all, a victim of a crappy education.


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
12-05-2020 00:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 20i...20h...29...5...1...


No argument presented. RQAA.


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
Page 6 of 10<<<45678>>>





Join the debate Nils-Axel Mörner:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact