Remember me
▼ Content

Northern hemisphere sees in early spring due to global warming



Page 2 of 3<123>
02-03-2017 20:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
I willing to change my mind in the face of evidence of course but as a betting man am confident that If read it I would find that it does not back you up and would find that you or the blog where you heard about it from is misrepresenting it.


As I noted, you don't accept the Smithsonian Institute as a knowledgeable source.


I do I just don't accept your word on what we can take away from it.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-03-2017 20:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
So an animal that has adapted to cold over millions of years of evolution does better in the warm, interesting theory you have did you invent it all by yourself? That explains the polar bear on that island in lost.


So polar bears which first appeared 150,000 years ago and caribou that may be nothing more than a subspecies of deer that fill an empty ecological niche so narrow that they aren't even willing to make guesses as to it's age TO YOU have evolved over millions of years huh?
02-03-2017 20:36
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
spot wrote: Notice I don't defend litesong because I know he is a nut...

Spot... not a nut. I am here for a completely different reason than you. I found (on other websites, of which I see much commonality to this site) a large percentage of AGW deniers to also be uneducated & racist, even with the ability to be threateners. I have had my wife threatened & I have been threatened. If I were to publish here the threats I have had made against my wife & me on other sites, you would know why I am so adamantly opposed to AGW denier liar whiners, not only for their anti-AGW views, but their acceptance of inhuman philosophies to hammer their way thru humanity.
I also believe you accept AGW denier liar whiner contentions that I am uneducated. I need NOT prove myself to the ilk of AGW denier liar whiners. But to a much lesser extent, I need NOT prove myself to you. Saying that then, I do have a re-construction of the accepted form of the one of the Galaxy Superclusters. I do support your activities here, even tho you have never acknowledged me.... to my knowledge.

One finality.... some AGW denier liar whiners, who do have pukey proud pig racist philosophy, would kill those who oppose them.... specially people they consider to be of non-white races. The threats my wife & I have endured are the VERY PROOF of the inhumanity of large numbers of AGW denier liar whiners.
02-03-2017 20:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

You don't even know what he's thinking. You've even argued with me concerning the energy balance of the Earth using grade school pictures that while right in the general sense are totally misleading in reality. The very fact that fossil fuel exists disproves the idea that the Earth can be treated as a "blackbody" and has ALWAYS been treated as a greybody by knowledgeable scientists.

Either grow up or hide under your bed from the coming doom.


No I don't know what he is thinking but I know what he is writing and its bollocks. he is the one who thinks everything is a blackbody so If you want to have that argument take it up with him not me.


Everything that has an energy balance IS considered to be a blackbody. Because it is more complex than that doesn't make it untrue. You are the one that understands next to nothing but are busy showing it to the world.
02-03-2017 20:48
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1695)
Spot wrote,
So an animal that has adapted to cold over millions of years of evolution does better in the warm, interesting theory you have did you invent it all by yourself?


Yes duffass, that is correct. Admittedly I posted before looking it up. Applied common sense and confirmed with google. You should try it. Turns out the portion of your article about the caribou was entirely false, claiming migration to calving grounds is triggered by amount of daylight. It also claims lack of nutrition for the reason calves die. All fabricated lies. Here's a clip of the truth if you actually care. I suspect you don't.

Pregnant cows destined for the calving grounds initiate spring migration. It corresponds with significant snow melt — commonly in April and May. Bulls, yearlings and dry cows follow weeks later. Pregnant cows (who move north before the flush of early spring forage) are in constant energy deficit during this period, traveling an average of 20km per day. Deep snow, early breakup, and spring floods are just some of the factors that can delay this tough stage of the Caribou Herd's annual journey.

An average of 25% of the calves get killed by golden eagles, grizzly bears, sudden storms, and accidents in their first month of life.


So no, still not a caribou expert, but with the slightest effort, I know way more than you.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
02-03-2017 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
litesong wrote:
spot wrote: Notice I don't defend litesong because I know he is a nut...

Spot... not a nut. I am here for a completely different reason than you. I found (on other websites, of which I see much commonality to this site) a large percentage of AGW deniers to also be uneducated & racist, even with the ability to be threateners. I have had my wife threatened & I have been threatened. If I were to publish here the threats I have had made against my wife & me on other sites, you would know why I am so adamantly opposed to AGW denier liar whiners, not only for their anti-AGW views, but their acceptance of inhuman philosophies to hammer their way thru humanity.
I also believe you accept AGW denier liar whiner contentions that I am uneducated. I need NOT prove myself to the ilk of AGW denier liar whiners. But to a much lesser extent, I need NOT prove myself to you. Saying that then, I do have a re-construction of the accepted form of the one of the Galaxy Superclusters. I do support your activities here, even tho you have never acknowledged me.... to my knowledge.

One finality.... some AGW denier liar whiners, who do have pukey proud pig racist philosophy, would kill those who oppose them.... specially people they consider to be of non-white races. The threats my wife & I have endured are the VERY PROOF of the inhumanity of large numbers of AGW denier liar whiners.


No one here has threatened you or your wife. No one has on Topix either. Very few even know where Lake Stevens is. NONE know where you live.

If people have threatened you, it is for other reasons than AGW. It might be because you are so hard headed that walking into almost any bar would start a problem.


The Parrot Killer
02-03-2017 22:35
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: No one here has threatened you or your wife. No one has on Topix either....If people have threatened you, it is for other reasons than AGW. It might be because you are so hard headed...

As my post above states, I made no accusation of threats on this website, altho there is some common ground here.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" came late to toxic topix. The way you determined the condition of toxic topix was AFTER I (with the wife's blessings) began advertising the racist threatening philosophies of several old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners. First, the threats stopped, because they knew I uncovered & showed to all readers their lust FOR inhumanity. I know you saw some of my posts detailing the worst worlds of such racist pig threateners. But you, being an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner yourself, would & WILL NOT (TO THIS PRESENT DAY) acknowledge that other AGW denier liar whiners were philosophic lovers of themselves & haters of those who weren't white america.
02-03-2017 22:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:

Everything that has an energy balance IS considered to be a blackbody. Because it is more complex than that doesn't make it untrue. You are the one that understands next to nothing but are busy showing it to the world.


So is air a blackbody then?


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-03-2017 22:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spot wrote,
So an animal that has adapted to cold over millions of years of evolution does better in the warm, interesting theory you have did you invent it all by yourself?


Yes duffass, that is correct. Admittedly I posted before looking it up. Applied common sense and confirmed with google. You should try it. Turns out the portion of your article about the caribou was entirely false, claiming migration to calving grounds is triggered by amount of daylight. It also claims lack of nutrition for the reason calves die. All fabricated lies. Here's a clip of the truth if you actually care. I suspect you don't.

Pregnant cows destined for the calving grounds initiate spring migration. It corresponds with significant snow melt — commonly in April and May. Bulls, yearlings and dry cows follow weeks later. Pregnant cows (who move north before the flush of early spring forage) are in constant energy deficit during this period, traveling an average of 20km per day. Deep snow, early breakup, and spring floods are just some of the factors that can delay this tough stage of the Caribou Herd's annual journey.

An average of 25% of the calves get killed by golden eagles, grizzly bears, sudden storms, and accidents in their first month of life.


So no, still not a caribou expert, but with the slightest effort, I know way more than you.


Again that explains what all those the polar bears are doing in the tropics. Applied "common sense" trumps observation, who knew?


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-03-2017 22:59
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
litesong wrote:
spot wrote: Notice I don't defend litesong because I know he is a nut...

Spot... not a nut. I am here for a completely different reason than you. I found (on other websites, of which I see much commonality to this site) a large percentage of AGW deniers to also be uneducated & racist, even with the ability to be threateners. I have had my wife threatened & I have been threatened. If I were to publish here the threats I have had made against my wife & me on other sites, you would know why I am so adamantly opposed to AGW denier liar whiners, not only for their anti-AGW views, but their acceptance of inhuman philosophies to hammer their way thru humanity.
I also believe you accept AGW denier liar whiner contentions that I am uneducated. I need NOT prove myself to the ilk of AGW denier liar whiners. But to a much lesser extent, I need NOT prove myself to you. Saying that then, I do have a re-construction of the accepted form of the one of the Galaxy Superclusters. I do support your activities here, even tho you have never acknowledged me.... to my knowledge.

One finality.... some AGW denier liar whiners, who do have pukey proud pig racist philosophy, would kill those who oppose them.... specially people they consider to be of non-white races. The threats my wife & I have endured are the VERY PROOF of the inhumanity of large numbers of AGW denier liar whiners.


Sure but the phrase: "AGW denier liar whiners" seems Juvenal


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-03-2017 23:17
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
spot wrote:
litesong wrote:
spot wrote: Notice I don't defend litesong because I know he is a nut...

Spot... not a nut. I am here for a completely different reason than you. I found (on other websites, of which I see much commonality to this site) a large percentage of AGW deniers to also be uneducated & racist, even with the ability to be threateners. I have had my wife threatened & I have been threatened. If I were to publish here the threats I have had made against my wife & me on other sites, you would know why I am so adamantly opposed to AGW denier liar whiners, not only for their anti-AGW views, but their acceptance of inhuman philosophies to hammer their way thru humanity.
I also believe you accept AGW denier liar whiner contentions that I am uneducated. I need NOT prove myself to the ilk of AGW denier liar whiners. But to a much lesser extent, I need NOT prove myself to you. Saying that then, I do have a re-construction of the accepted form of the one of the Galaxy Superclusters. I do support your activities here, even tho you have never acknowledged me.... to my knowledge.

One finality.... some AGW denier liar whiners, who do have pukey proud pig racist philosophy, would kill those who oppose them.... specially people they consider to be of non-white races. The threats my wife & I have endured are the VERY PROOF of the inhumanity of large numbers of AGW denier liar whiners.

Sure but the phrase: "AGW denier liar whiners" seems Juvenal

Actually, I've had some people admit my words are... poetic. Me.... I consider them deadly accurate. "Don'T rump" is a racist sexist xenophobe(ferget da commas). See how.... artistically genteel.... but "knivingly" precise the words are. Once you gain the lilt of the words & phrasings, artistry shows itself well against.... old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners. Most all the words have been used against my wife & me & I have incorporated them into my mirrors I hold up to racists & observers of racists.
I think "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no sigh-ants mann" agrees with me. Tho NOT about my accuracy.... or maybe it agrees even with my contention of accuracy. At the least, it understands my artistry.
Edited on 02-03-2017 23:22
02-03-2017 23:36
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1695)
Again that explains what all those the polar bears are doing in the tropics. Applied "common sense" trumps observation, who knew?


I don't believe I typed the word polar bear until now. That was you. But since you mention it, how does a Polar bear survive in the zoo?? Hint-it is not -30 or -60 at the zoo.

Side note- they can swim 60 miles (nearly 100KM) without rest. So don't bother posting up a picture of a polar bear "stranded" on a chunk of ice.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
02-03-2017 23:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Again that explains what all those the polar bears are doing in the tropics. Applied "common sense" trumps observation, who knew?


I don't believe I typed the word polar bear until now. That was you. But since you mention it, how does a Polar bear survive in the zoo?? Hint-it is not -30 or -60 at the zoo.

Side note- they can swim 60 miles (nearly 100KM) without rest. So don't bother posting up a picture of a polar bear "stranded" on a chunk of ice.


Polar bear caribou or anything found only in cold climates will do as an example

Your assertion is ridiculous I am giving it the respect it deserves

If they do better the warmer it gets why aren't they in the tropics?


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-03-2017 00:13
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1695)
Don't be stupid.

Arctic animals can survive wide range of temps and to suggest that any species survival is in jeopardy because of an early spring is ridiculous.

You think animals just know it's warmer the farther south you go?

You see, like yourself animals don't have the ability to reason. They sleep where it's safe and they eat where there's food. Period. 1 degree or 5 degrees never killed a polar bear....or a caribou.

I might ask you this-

Why do you find so many caribou grazing so close to the Alaskan pipeline?

I'll give ya another hint-has nothin to do with food.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Edited on 03-03-2017 00:31
03-03-2017 03:40
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed:...animals don't have the ability to reason.

Migrating birds know where the warm & cold climes are. They have their babies in the Arctic, but make sure they're "outa Dodge" before the snow flies.... most of the time.
03-03-2017 03:49
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1695)
It's all about the food, and no animal's survival has been challenged by any recent global warming.

Birds migrate to move from areas of low or decreasing resources to areas of high or increasing resources. The two primary resources being sought are food and nesting locations.

Birds that nest in the Northern Hemisphere tend to migrate northward in the spring to take advantage of burgeoning insect populations, budding plants and an abundance of nesting locations. As winter approaches and the availability of insects and other food drops, the birds move south again. Escaping the cold is a motivating factor but many species, including hummingbirds, can withstand freezing temperatures as long as an adequate supply of food is available.

Edited on 03-03-2017 03:50
03-03-2017 04:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
litesong wrote:I think "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no sigh-ants mann" agrees with me. Tho NOT about my accuracy.... or maybe it agrees even with my contention of accuracy. At the least, it understands my artistry.

You got that right, litesong! "Poetic" is just the beginning.

You had me at "pukey proud pig."



By the way, I think you're overdue for an update on the High Arctic Berserker.




Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
03-03-2017 11:36
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whinerd gaslighter" gushed:... many species, including hummingbirds, can withstand freezing temperatures as long as an adequate supply of food is available.

Have found birds on the early morning rocky river shores with their feet frozen to the rocks. Man, that's some sound sleeping!!
The other day, saw the hummers sitting in the snow..... not long, tho.
Tho the hummers have sixteen nectar outlets at our feeders (even got perches), some of the most covetous birds monitor vigilantly, keeping as many of the others away as possible. Yeah, 16 hummers could drink simultaneously, if they drew up a peace treaty. Guess they got a lot of transplanted euro in them, & know they would break the treaties at the first perching.
03-03-2017 16:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
Wake wrote: Everything that has an energy balance IS considered to be a blackbody. Because it is more complex than that doesn't make it untrue.

All matter radiates, per Planck's, which is the absolute authority on the exact energy level of a given photon of a given wavelength emitted by a molecule at a given temperature. Warmizombies hate this because it makes it clear that every single molecule has a temperature, and this runs counter to the Wikipedia notion that "temperature" only applies to volumes of multiple molecules.

From Planck's we derive Stefan-Boltzmann which integrates energy radiation across all wavelengths to tell us the radiance of a body at a particular temperature. Warmizombies hate this because Stefan-Boltzmann explains how radiance moves in the same direction as temperature and that kills the "greenhouse effect" notion that temperature somehow increases because radiance decreases due to "heat trapping."

The problem in all this is actually a non-problem. Scientifically illiterate warmizombies need to discount science of thermal radiation just because it flat out kills "greenhouse effect" ...

... plus the science itself is beyond their grasp so they resort to quibbling over terms and just flat out denying that science applies where Global Warming is concerned.

Some common confusion points that are exploited by warmizombies:

What is a "body"? In physics, the term is kept general so as to include planets which include atmospheres and hydrospheres. It could refer to an object like a Styrofoam cup, a marble or a steel beam, for example. It could be a single molecule, either of a solid, liquid or a gas. However warmizombies try to further subdivide "body" so as to create nonexistent forces, to separate planets from their atmospheres and hydrospheres, so as to attempt to revise science to exactly align with WACKY religious Global Warming dogma. Unfortunately for them, bodies are not further subdivided.

A preferred warmizombie denial is the emissivity constant. All bodies in nature have an emissivity constant 0 < Emissivity < 1. Emissivities of exactly 0 and 1 do not occur in nature. So what do we call theoretical bodies of Emissivity = 1? The standard physics term is "an ideal black body" while referring to all other bodies in nature as just "black bodies" (the word "black" referring to the fact that they are absorbing and emitting at least some energy). Among some of the mistaken, it has become popular to refer to a body of Emissivity = 1 as a "black body" and to bodies of Emissivity < 1 as "grey bodies." This causes a problem when two people are discussing "black bodies" and one person means one thing and another person means something else.

So we have the statement above that anything in thermal equilibrium is a body. This is technically not correct just because a "body" has to be a single identifiable thing. At any given moment there are unidentifiable shapes in the atmosphere that are at thermal equilibrium ... for only but a brief moment ... but since it is not an identifiable thing we can't really refer to it as a body. Normally a "body" involves some solid matter, but a gas giant planet could still be a body just by being a single identifiable thing.

... just define up front whether you want to call it a black body or a grey body.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
03-03-2017 16:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
It's all about the food, and no animal's survival has been challenged by any recent global warming.

Birds migrate to move from areas of low or decreasing resources to areas of high or increasing resources. The two primary resources being sought are food and nesting locations.

Birds that nest in the Northern Hemisphere tend to migrate northward in the spring to take advantage of burgeoning insect populations, budding plants and an abundance of nesting locations. As winter approaches and the availability of insects and other food drops, the birds move south again. Escaping the cold is a motivating factor but many species, including hummingbirds, can withstand freezing temperatures as long as an adequate supply of food is available.


Obviously a sign that even the animals are trying to get away from global warming - just ask the Three Headless Horse's Asses.
03-03-2017 17:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:

All matter radiates, per Planck's, which is the absolute authority on the exact energy level of a given photon of a given wavelength emitted by a molecule at a given temperature. Warmizombies hate this because it makes it clear that every single molecule has a temperature, and this runs counter to the Wikipedia notion that "temperature" only applies to volumes of multiple molecules.

From Planck's we derive Stefan-Boltzmann which integrates energy radiation across all wavelengths to tell us the radiance of a body at a particular temperature. Warmizombies hate this because Stefan-Boltzmann explains how radiance moves in the same direction as temperature and that kills the "greenhouse effect" notion that temperature somehow increases because radiance decreases due to "heat trapping."

The problem in all this is actually a non-problem. Scientifically illiterate warmizombies need to discount science of thermal radiation just because it flat out kills "greenhouse effect" ...

... plus the science itself is beyond their grasp so they resort to quibbling over terms and just flat out denying that science applies where Global Warming is concerned.

Some common confusion points that are exploited by warmizombies:

What is a "body"? In physics, the term is kept general so as to include planets which include atmospheres and hydrospheres. It could refer to an object like a Styrofoam cup, a marble or a steel beam, for example. It could be a single molecule, either of a solid, liquid or a gas. However warmizombies try to further subdivide "body" so as to create nonexistent forces, to separate planets from their atmospheres and hydrospheres, so as to attempt to revise science to exactly align with WACKY religious Global Warming dogma. Unfortunately for them, bodies are not further subdivided.

A preferred warmizombie denial is the emissivity constant. All bodies in nature have an emissivity constant 0 < Emissivity < 1. Emissivities of exactly 0 and 1 do not occur in nature. So what do we call theoretical bodies of Emissivity = 1? The standard physics term is "an ideal black body" while referring to all other bodies in nature as just "black bodies" (the word "black" referring to the fact that they are absorbing and emitting at least some energy). Among some of the mistaken, it has become popular to refer to a body of Emissivity = 1 as a "black body" and to bodies of Emissivity < 1 as "grey bodies." This causes a problem when two people are discussing "black bodies" and one person means one thing and another person means something else.

So we have the statement above that anything in thermal equilibrium is a body. This is technically not correct just because a "body" has to be a single identifiable thing. At any given moment there are unidentifiable shapes in the atmosphere that are at thermal equilibrium ... for only but a brief moment ... but since it is not an identifiable thing we can't really refer to it as a body. Normally a "body" involves some solid matter, but a gas giant planet could still be a body just by being a single identifiable thing.

... just define up front whether you want to call it a black body or a grey body.
.


The complexity I was speaking of is part of this: When the Sun's energy strikes the Earth unlike an ideal black body, it can and does absorb and store energy that is never emitted. Coal is SURPRISE one development of that. As are all other fossil fuels.

And I'm still waiting for Surface Detail to figure out how and why tree rings could demonstrate atmospheric levels of CO2.
03-03-2017 19:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

All matter radiates, per Planck's, which is the absolute authority on the exact energy level of a given photon of a given wavelength emitted by a molecule at a given temperature. Warmizombies hate this because it makes it clear that every single molecule has a temperature, and this runs counter to the Wikipedia notion that "temperature" only applies to volumes of multiple molecules.

From Planck's we derive Stefan-Boltzmann which integrates energy radiation across all wavelengths to tell us the radiance of a body at a particular temperature. Warmizombies hate this because Stefan-Boltzmann explains how radiance moves in the same direction as temperature and that kills the "greenhouse effect" notion that temperature somehow increases because radiance decreases due to "heat trapping."

The problem in all this is actually a non-problem. Scientifically illiterate warmizombies need to discount science of thermal radiation just because it flat out kills "greenhouse effect" ...

... plus the science itself is beyond their grasp so they resort to quibbling over terms and just flat out denying that science applies where Global Warming is concerned.

Some common confusion points that are exploited by warmizombies:

What is a "body"? In physics, the term is kept general so as to include planets which include atmospheres and hydrospheres. It could refer to an object like a Styrofoam cup, a marble or a steel beam, for example. It could be a single molecule, either of a solid, liquid or a gas. However warmizombies try to further subdivide "body" so as to create nonexistent forces, to separate planets from their atmospheres and hydrospheres, so as to attempt to revise science to exactly align with WACKY religious Global Warming dogma. Unfortunately for them, bodies are not further subdivided.

A preferred warmizombie denial is the emissivity constant. All bodies in nature have an emissivity constant 0 < Emissivity < 1. Emissivities of exactly 0 and 1 do not occur in nature. So what do we call theoretical bodies of Emissivity = 1? The standard physics term is "an ideal black body" while referring to all other bodies in nature as just "black bodies" (the word "black" referring to the fact that they are absorbing and emitting at least some energy). Among some of the mistaken, it has become popular to refer to a body of Emissivity = 1 as a "black body" and to bodies of Emissivity < 1 as "grey bodies." This causes a problem when two people are discussing "black bodies" and one person means one thing and another person means something else.

So we have the statement above that anything in thermal equilibrium is a body. This is technically not correct just because a "body" has to be a single identifiable thing. At any given moment there are unidentifiable shapes in the atmosphere that are at thermal equilibrium ... for only but a brief moment ... but since it is not an identifiable thing we can't really refer to it as a body. Normally a "body" involves some solid matter, but a gas giant planet could still be a body just by being a single identifiable thing.

... just define up front whether you want to call it a black body or a grey body.
.


The complexity I was speaking of is part of this: When the Sun's energy strikes the Earth unlike an ideal black body, it can and does absorb and store energy that is never emitted. Coal is SURPRISE one development of that. As are all other fossil fuels.

And I'm still waiting for Surface Detail to figure out how and why tree rings could demonstrate atmospheric levels of CO2.


You think I am saying everything is a blackbody and you are rude to me, Ibdaman says that and you think it is complex and I can't possibly understand what he is talking about. Do you even understand what he is saying?

The short answer is no matter how long he spends typing out his diatribes he is wrong because he has convinced himself of some fundamental assumptions that are wrong.

And a tree ring tells you what happened to a tree in that year, a lot of tree rings in a lot of locations tells you what happens to a lot of trees, if you know what conditions affect a tree you can tell things about past conditions.

But that bothers and you think it goes against your politics you so you have to be rude to people about it.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-03-2017 19:17
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1695)
he is wrong because he has convinced himself of some fundamental assumptions that are wrong.


Ya mean like AGW (All Generic Wisdom)
03-03-2017 19:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

The complexity I was speaking of is part of this: When the Sun's energy strikes the Earth unlike an ideal black body, it can and does absorb and store energy that is never emitted. Coal is SURPRISE one development of that. As are all other fossil fuels.

And I'm still waiting for Surface Detail to figure out how and why tree rings could demonstrate atmospheric levels of CO2.


You think I am saying everything is a blackbody and you are rude to me, Ibdaman says that and you think it is complex and I can't possibly understand what he is talking about. Do you even understand what he is saying?

The short answer is no matter how long he spends typing out his diatribes he is wrong because he has convinced himself of some fundamental assumptions that are wrong.

And a tree ring tells you what happened to a tree in that year, a lot of tree rings in a lot of locations tells you what happens to a lot of trees, if you know what conditions affect a tree you can tell things about past conditions.

But that bothers and you think it goes against your politics you so you have to be rude to people about it.


So after more than a year of insulting entries by yourself you don't want people to be rude to you? Ahhhhh, yeah. Maybe you shouldn't have started it in the first place. But if you do not post insulting messages in the future neither will I.

The only thing that can be a blackbody is a OPAQUE object. The perfect blackbody is the perfect absorber. Since there is no such thing you and I can agree that Ibdaman is a bit off using just gas or even individual molecules as a blackbody but only just.

Tree rings over a great area tell you the conditions at the time of that growth ring. Tree rings can be matched to tell the SAME age through matching growing conditions.

While lower growth rings can be caused by many things LARGE growth rings over a large area can ONLY mean that the conditions of high water availability, high solar energy input and HIGH CO2 were present. By examining these rings you can determine the total amount of saved carbon and hence the levels of CO2 necessary to cause such things.

The papers that have been written in the past on CO2 levels in the atmosphere were based on a flawed database and the correction of the database shows that there had to be significantly higher than stated CO2 in the atmosphere on at least 2 occasions in the last slightly more than 2,000 years.

I want to UNDERSCORE that people that don't know what they are talking about seem to be doing all of the True Believer talking. We saw "Climate Scientist" disappear in sheer embarrassment over those supportive of his/her position that didn't even know what he/she was saying. We even had someone showing what an extraordinary fool he was by proudly telling us all the SEX of Climate Scientist. As if that had ANY bearing on the science.

When NASA and NOAA are claiming AGW because the AMA and the American Horticultural Association agree with them you better start questioning more than you have been. Presently the papers they are using to develop this preposterous claim are flawed and the majority of papers that do not claim to be "climate science" are disproving them and their flawed associations.
03-03-2017 20:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
You are an expert on tree rings now? I am not interested in your musings on the subject I can just look it up.

Anyway How can a individual molecule be a black body as far as I am aware this is a novel concept. This should be interesting and you obviously have a lot of time on your hands so tell me.
03-03-2017 20:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
You are an expert on tree rings now? I am not interested in your musings on the subject I can just look it up.

Anyway How can a individual molecule be a black body as far as I am aware this is a novel concept. This should be interesting and you obviously have a lot of time on your hands so tell me.


You could always look tree rings up but you didn't did you?

You don't understand that a molecule can be opaque to certain frequencies of the spectrum and have a blackbody-like radiation profile but you can talk about it.

Instead your usual meaningless talk.
03-03-2017 20:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
I already know that you are wrong about tree rings if i looked it up I would know the details of why your wrong.

An individual gas molecule can have a blackbody like profile? can you provide an example?
03-03-2017 20:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
I already know that you are wrong about tree rings if i looked it up I would know the details of why your wrong.

An individual gas molecule can have a blackbody like profile? can you provide an example?


Here is exactly why you are insulted: You don't know anything about tree rings but you know I'm wrong because you are a psychic.

You don't understand energy transfer from molecules but they cannot have a blackbody energy transfer profile because again you are psychic.

You are nothing more than a talker. You haven't the slightest credentials in science and not the slightest desire to learn anything.
03-03-2017 21:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
What? I know your wrong because they don't show CO2 levels in the past, you said they were. however I know different methods are used for determining that.

I know that, perhaps you should enroll in a course to get the necessary credentials .

Tell me; what credentials do I need to know whether a gas is a blackbody or not?
03-03-2017 21:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
What? I know your wrong because they don't show CO2 levels in the past, you said they were. however I know different methods are used for determining that.

I know that, perhaps you should enroll in a course to get the necessary credentials .

Tell me; what credentials do I need to know whether a gas is a blackbody or not?


Thanks for underscoring exactly what I accused you of doing.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#/media/File
hanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf

Over and over again you simply write with you mind tightly shut. You appear to be totally unaware of the many mechanisms that a blackbody can get rid of energy but that doesn't stop you from talking about it.
04-03-2017 04:00
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf
Over and over again you simply write with you(sic) mind tightly shut.

Over & over again, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" repeats 9 year old articles by the discredited T. Ball.
04-03-2017 15:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Thanks for the random links. Quick question, did you read them because they don't advance your argument.
04-03-2017 16:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
spot wrote:I willing to change my mind in the face of evidence ...

... but you aren't willing to change your mind in the face of science..

Sure, if your Global Warming clergy tells you that they found "the shroud of Climate" then you will certainly allow yourself to accept that as "evidence" of your WACKY faith.

But if Stefan-Boltzmann shows you that radiance cannot decrease while temperature increases, you struggle for a lame excuse as to why Global Warming somehow overrides science.

For you, everything is about subjective interpretation of dogmababble, i.e. "evidence" while denying science.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
04-03-2017 16:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
You weren't funny the first time with that joke.
04-03-2017 18:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
he is wrong because he has convinced himself of some fundamental assumptions that are wrong.


Ya mean like AGW (All Generic Wisdom)


As long as there was no one here to show that they were nothing more than mindless sheep following a political line based on hatred they had pretty much free run of the groups.

But then when confronted by actual scientific papers proving that they hadn't the slightest idea what they were talking about the whole world shifted under then and all they could finally answer with is Surface Detail's comments - "You don't know what you're talking about and I'm not going to talk to you anymore".

Their 97% has been reduced to the actual 1% it is. Their CO2 has been shown not only to have been based on a database used to support their claims and entirely false but not only have studies shown that but even the corrected dendrochronology is showing that even those very low averages are entirely incorrect.

It must be hell to be so filled with hatred and with no way to point it at man.
05-03-2017 03:14
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
To put this into perspective the latest issue of Smithsonian Magazine has an article from a rather too famous Dr. Thomas McGovern that discusses Greenland and how conditions NOW are not as warm as they were when the Viking Settlements on Greenland were supporting some 2,500 people.


Huh? The article didn't say that at all. You're just making shit up.


Wake wrote:
Greenland is not capable of supporting a portion of that presently without heavy outside support.


From the article "For all their intrepidness, though, the Norse were far from self-sufficient, and imported grains, iron, wine and other essentials. Ivory was their currency. "Norse society in Greenland couldn't survive without trade with Europe," says Arneborg, "and that's from day one.""


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/#XcE9iIH5SXOXtidJ.99
Edited on 05-03-2017 03:16
05-03-2017 05:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
To put this into perspective the latest issue of Smithsonian Magazine has an article from a rather too famous Dr. Thomas McGovern that discusses Greenland and how conditions NOW are not as warm as they were when the Viking Settlements on Greenland were supporting some 2,500 people.


Huh? The article didn't say that at all. You're just making shit up.


Wake wrote:
Greenland is not capable of supporting a portion of that presently without heavy outside support.


From the article "For all their intrepidness, though, the Norse were far from self-sufficient, and imported grains, iron, wine and other essentials. Ivory was their currency. "Norse society in Greenland couldn't survive without trade with Europe," says Arneborg, "and that's from day one.""


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/#XcE9iIH5SXOXtidJ.99


We have a difference of opinion about what he was talking about when he said that conditions were mild and farming etc. was possible.

Then conditions turned bad from what he thinks was the Volcanic eruption in Indonesia but others think considerably different. Though there are MARKS of the eruption along that timeline they are hardly widespread or extreme enough to have the effects of causing the Maunder Minimum. Remember that slightly after that we also had the Dalton minimum which was another extreme cold spell though not like the Little Ice Age.

The article has PICTURES of conditions there now. The same two sites that are presently clear are not possibly able to support 2500 people let alone the 5000 cited by other sources.

Hence my statement that conditions today aren't as warm as they were in the Medieval Warm Period.

Think about what is said - they imported grains (generally a necessity) and IRON - think about that. There are NO WOODLANDS on Greenland today. What would you use iron for save to connect wood. Greenland has been essentially uninhabited for 500 years and in ANY decent conditions woods would have returned. So conditions there HAD to have been quite a bit better. That means if they "imported iron" it was in the manner of hammers and knives only. So they sure as hell weren't importing enough of it to be essential but more a comfort item like wine.

Also obviously they had boats capable of considerable sea travel in unfriendly waters (as a yachtsman I can tell you that you wouldn't want to be out on that ocean even on the most well equipped modern sailing yacht of a size they would have been capable of handling). Going to Iceland would have been a beat - into the wind. A long and very difficult journey for the sort of sailing rigs they had.

Perhaps you are trying to go from a single article instead of research into the many papers about Greenland that have been published. There have been quite a few and if you read them you discover a great deal of disagreement.
05-03-2017 08:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
To put this into perspective the latest issue of Smithsonian Magazine has an article from a rather too famous Dr. Thomas McGovern that discusses Greenland and how conditions NOW are not as warm as they were when the Viking Settlements on Greenland were supporting some 2,500 people.


Huh? The article didn't say that at all. You're just making shit up.


Wake wrote:
Greenland is not capable of supporting a portion of that presently without heavy outside support.


From the article "For all their intrepidness, though, the Norse were far from self-sufficient, and imported grains, iron, wine and other essentials. Ivory was their currency. "Norse society in Greenland couldn't survive without trade with Europe," says Arneborg, "and that's from day one.""


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/#XcE9iIH5SXOXtidJ.99


We have a difference of opinion about what he was talking about when he said that conditions were mild and farming etc. was possible.

Then conditions turned bad from what he thinks was the Volcanic eruption in Indonesia but others think considerably different. Though there are MARKS of the eruption along that timeline they are hardly widespread or extreme enough to have the effects of causing the Maunder Minimum. Remember that slightly after that we also had the Dalton minimum which was another extreme cold spell though not like the Little Ice Age.

The article has PICTURES of conditions there now. The same two sites that are presently clear are not possibly able to support 2500 people let alone the 5000 cited by other sources.

Hence my statement that conditions today aren't as warm as they were in the Medieval Warm Period.

Think about what is said - they imported grains (generally a necessity) and IRON - think about that. There are NO WOODLANDS on Greenland today. What would you use iron for save to connect wood. Greenland has been essentially uninhabited for 500 years and in ANY decent conditions woods would have returned. So conditions there HAD to have been quite a bit better. That means if they "imported iron" it was in the manner of hammers and knives only. So they sure as hell weren't importing enough of it to be essential but more a comfort item like wine.

Also obviously they had boats capable of considerable sea travel in unfriendly waters (as a yachtsman I can tell you that you wouldn't want to be out on that ocean even on the most well equipped modern sailing yacht of a size they would have been capable of handling). Going to Iceland would have been a beat - into the wind. A long and very difficult journey for the sort of sailing rigs they had.

Perhaps you are trying to go from a single article instead of research into the many papers about Greenland that have been published. There have been quite a few and if you read them you discover a great deal of disagreement.


Fascinating. You just continue to make up shit about that Smithsonian Institute magazine article, despite the fact that anyone can read it themselves here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/#XcE9iIH5SXOXtidJ.99

I doubt you've read much of the published literature about Greenland. You seem to just make shit up and parrot the usual pseudoscience myths.
Edited on 05-03-2017 08:29
05-03-2017 16:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
I have no idea what Wake is talking about, thanks for looking into it and confirming it it seems he has no idea what people who are arguing with him are saying as well as his claimed sources. Perhaps if he could say what exact "credentials" that he keeps going on about are needed to interpret what he is saying I could attend a course or something.

Meanwhile the claim that you can't farm in Greenland or that trees will not grow are false http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326



"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk. "Potatoes have most benefited. Also, cabbage has been very successful."

Sten Erik Langstrup Pedersen, who runs an organic farm in a fjord near Nuuk, first grew potatoes in 1976. Now he can plant crops two weeks earlier in May and harvest three weeks later in October compared with more than a decade ago.

He grows 23 kinds of vegetables, compared with 15 a decade ago, including beans, peas, herbs and strawberries. He says he has sold some strawberries to top restaurants in Copenhagen.


The claim you can not farm in Greenland is false, and they are noticing changes due to a warmer climate.
05-03-2017 17:33
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1695)
Warmer temps and more food. I bet the caribou are in real trouble. I've always wanted to arrow one. Better get there before they're all gone.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Northern hemisphere sees in early spring due to global warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
Early IPCC Reports908-07-2019 07:48
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
'100-year floods' are increasing in Canada due to climate change, officials say — is this t327-04-2019 22:56
411.66 PPM: Scientists Alarmed by Early Rise in Atmospheric CO2209-03-2019 16:55
▲ 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