Remember me
▼ Content

Our Fragile Planet



Page 7 of 7<<<567
23-09-2019 11:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

This has been thoroughly debunked. Radiance from a cooler gas is being absorbed by your warmer skin right now.
Into the Night wrote:
No atmosphere or lack of it changes the temperature of any planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

This is a discussion of the ground level. Your wild claim is contradicted by every textbook and the available data.
Another debunked lie. Explain Venus.
IBdaMann wrote:
Verner doesn't get to use any of those formulas at .

He does and he did. You're just ducking the debate again claiming we can't talk about it. Note you presented nothing as a method for discussing how the atmosphere interacts with the ground. The Debate Killer strikes again! Your lack of input on this is no loss.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
One more time ... 1) draw a circle, ...

... show us your own calculation.

IBD has never calculated anything in 5 years on this board. It's not because he can't it's because he knows if he does he can't explain why he disqualifies similar work.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 23-09-2019 11:20
23-09-2019 15:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

This has been thoroughly debunked. Radiance from a cooler gas is being absorbed by your warmer skin right now.

This is quite a claim ... worthy of a repeatable test (therefore not involving living things) that isolates radiance from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body.

What could we do to show this?

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No atmosphere or lack of it changes the temperature of any planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

Your wild claim is contradicted by every textbook and the available data.
Another debunked lie.

Wow, you are saying that Into the Night's assertion that energy cannot be created out of nothing is a wild claim contradicted by every textbook as well as "The Data."

While you are pretending to speak for every textbook, let's see what The MANUAL has to say:

The Data: proper noun
According to Global Warming mythology, The Data is the rumored proof of Global Warming, the mere mention of which has the magical superpower to end all debate on questions of Global Warming faith. Note: Often Climate Scientists fabricate data and claim that it comes from The Data. As long as the fabricated/cooked/tweaked/modified/fudged/altered/fiddled data support the truth of Climate Science then it is the Climate Scientists' sworn duty to present that data. This duty is analogous to Taqqiya in Islam.

tmiddles wrote: Explain Venus.

Explain Earth.

How about that insane refrigeration effect earth's atmosphere just freezes down on the planet's surface? Pretty amazing, eh? Instead of our oceans boiling away in the daytime, they stay very cool, making beaches wickedly popular places to cool off! Without an atmosphere, beachgoers would boil alive.

That's some pretty unprecedented refrigeration our atmosphere provides.

... but you think it doesn't do any of that?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2019 22:13
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
James___ wrote:
I must ask you to keep things simple. isn't and mini-isn't will be confused by the earth's gravity being different at the poles than it is at the equator.

I'd do better not to post in a flippant mood, yet the only known sources of blackbody radiation are points: the hole in a cavity radiator, a hollow tube or block of tungsten in which a tiny hole has been drilled to connect the interior with the outside world (illustration).



Because photons in the cavity are absorbed and re-emitted multiple times before exiting through the hole, they are in thermal equilibrium with the cavity walls at some temperature T, usually high so the detectors won't confuse radiation from the hole with the background infrared in the lab. Hence choice of tungsten, the old light bulb filament wire, for these devices.

The hole is basically a point. Any stray light entering is absorbed, and the measured Planck curve shows how the radiant power leaving the hole is distributed over the spectrum. A point in all directions equally, but surfaces do not.

Generalization to radiation from a surface is an ideal, never realized in practice as all surfaces have their own emission characteristics that vary with material, surface roughness and shape. The materials have their own spectral lines and a surface enclosing them interacts thermally with them by conduction and so on, violating the premise that blackbodies interact only by radiation.

Still, blackbodies approximate stars quite well, and most real-world objects have emission curves similar to the Planck, with lower power at each wavelength. It's why ceramics in a kiln all look the same color even though they have different glazes on them.

My apologies to IBdaMann.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
23-09-2019 22:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
What could we do to show this?.

Up to you to support your wild claim (found NOWHERE in the history of science):
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Weird stuff you're claiming there IBD! Should be easy for you to support your claim with a repeatable experiment.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No atmosphere or lack of it changes the temperature of any planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

Your wild claim is contradicted by every textbook and the available data.
Another debunked lie.

Wow, you are saying that Into the Night's assertion that energy cannot be created out of nothing is a wild claim

No his assertion that the presence of an atmosphere increasing ground level temperature is an example is a wild claim.
But you knew that. You just love dishonesty as a tactic.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
23-09-2019 22:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
VernerHornung wrote:
...., a hollow tube or block of tungsten in which a tiny hole has been drilled to connect the interior with the outside world...

So Planck did real experiments with a similar setup?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
23-09-2019 23:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
VernerHornung wrote:
James___ wrote:
I must ask you to keep things simple. isn't and mini-isn't will be confused by the earth's gravity being different at the poles than it is at the equator.

I'd do better not to post in a flippant mood, yet the only known sources of blackbody radiation are points: the hole in a cavity radiator, a hollow tube or block of tungsten in which a tiny hole has been drilled to connect the interior with the outside world (illustration).



Because photons in the cavity are absorbed and re-emitted multiple times before exiting through the hole, they are in thermal equilibrium with the cavity walls at some temperature T, usually high so the detectors won't confuse radiation from the hole with the background infrared in the lab. Hence choice of tungsten, the old light bulb filament wire, for these devices.

The hole is basically a point. Any stray light entering is absorbed, and the measured Planck curve shows how the radiant power leaving the hole is distributed over the spectrum. A point in all directions equally, but surfaces do not.

Generalization to radiation from a surface is an ideal, never realized in practice as all surfaces have their own emission characteristics that vary with material, surface roughness and shape. The materials have their own spectral lines and a surface enclosing them interacts thermally with them by conduction and so on, violating the premise that blackbodies interact only by radiation.

Still, blackbodies approximate stars quite well, and most real-world objects have emission curves similar to the Planck, with lower power at each wavelength. It's why ceramics in a kiln all look the same color even though they have different glazes on them.

My apologies to IBdaMann.
~


You are attempting to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing the emissivity constant again.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2019 23:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What could we do to show this?.

Up to you to support your wild claim (found NOWHERE in the history of science):
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Weird stuff you're claiming there IBD! Should be easy for you to support your claim with a repeatable experiment.
He really doesn't have to. It is YOU claiming the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong. It is currently a theory of science. YOU are claiming to have falsified it. The burden of proof is upon YOU. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
* Using random numbers is not a proof or a falsification.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote:
No atmosphere or lack of it changes the temperature of any planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

Your wild claim is contradicted by every textbook and the available data.
Another debunked lie.

Wow, you are saying that Into the Night's assertion that energy cannot be created out of nothing is a wild claim

No his assertion that the presence of an atmosphere increasing ground level temperature is an example is a wild claim.
But you knew that. You just love dishonesty as a tactic.

Okay, dummy. Let me spell it out for you:

The Earth and the Moon are the same distance from the Sun.

The daytime temperature on the surface of the Moon can approach 250 deg F. No weather station on Earth has ever reported a temperature nearly that hot.

If the atmosphere warms the Earth, why is any measured temperature on Earth's surface so much COLDER?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-09-2019 23:18
24-09-2019 17:13
Blair Macdonald
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
tmiddles wrote:

So you're saying Nitrogen contriburltes more per molecule or more because of how much there is?


Yes, that's what RS shows us.

Why can't this be demonstrated more professionally than what you find online? This is short, I asked about it here months ago:
tmiddles wrote:Look CO2 does get hot relative to other gases:
Hotter Co2
In the video alkaseltzer is used to boost CO2 in a soda bottle and under a heat lamp it's compared to room air.


I addressed this in my second paper on thermoelectrics; I deduced what is really being tested for in such demonstrations is the Heat capacity of the different gases. CO2 has a lower heat capacity so will rise in temperature faster. Notice the 'air' still increased in temperature, presumably by radiation? Yes by radiation and now I know how this works, by it respective emission spectra in the IR. Whatever their respective differences, gases will go to thermal equilibrium by the zeroth law.

24-09-2019 18:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
VernerHornung wrote:Now we'll take up your mantle hydrogen business, clarify it and remind you there was no suggestion from any of the authors writing on this subject that it makes oil & gas.

Nor did they discuss the tortuous conflict suffered by Gollum in the Lord of the Rings. You were questioning the availability of the ingredients necessary to make hydrocarbons. Was there mention of hydrogen in the lower mantle, for example?

VernerHornung wrote:Possible hydrogen in lower mantle

Great. There you go.

VernerHornung wrote: No suggestion from the authors it makes oil & gas, however.

Nor do they allude to Merry's sword being responsible for the death of the King of the Nazgul. You were questioning the availability of the ingredients necessary to make hydrocarbons. Was there mention of hydrogen in, say, the upper mantle as well, for example?

VernerHornung wrote: Possible hydrogen in upper mantle

Great. There you go.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-09-2019 19:28
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1347)
Has anyone ever considered the instrument used to measure temperature at a distance? From you basic one pixel IR thermometer, or a multi-element FLIR sensor, it works the same as a camera. Only the light striking the element directly, is being captured in the reading. You all agree that everything radiates in all directions. The instrument used, on captures light coming from one direction, straight on. I doesn't looked behind, through objects. or around corners. You won't always get the same reading, as shoving a glass thermometer into something. Like a camera, there is a focus factor too, you can be too close, or too far away.
24-09-2019 20:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Has anyone ever considered the instrument used to measure temperature at a distance?
...

Like a camera, there is a focus factor too, you can be too close, or too far away.

One huge problem with said type of sensor is that your includes undetermined readings from other directions/angles. When you take a photograph and you get a lens flare, or glare from an off angle, or an "over exposure", etc... all of these things occur to any sort of light sensor.

Yes, holding your light sensor at different angles at different places will certainly render different temperature "photographs."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-09-2019 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Has anyone ever considered the instrument used to measure temperature at a distance? From you basic one pixel IR thermometer, or a multi-element FLIR sensor, it works the same as a camera. Only the light striking the element directly, is being captured in the reading. You all agree that everything radiates in all directions. The instrument used, on captures light coming from one direction, straight on. I doesn't looked behind, through objects. or around corners. You won't always get the same reading, as shoving a glass thermometer into something. Like a camera, there is a focus factor too, you can be too close, or too far away.


These types of sensors are all based on the same thing: interpreting a temperature by using light emitted from the thing you are 'measuring'. They are all based on the same weakness: the emissivity of what you are measuring is unknown.

Such sensors can be useful, however. They are great at finding cylinders in engines that are 'loafing' (or not working at all!), distribution of coolant or oil in machines, weak points in the insulation of houses, or even a rough idea of how hot a fire is.

They are calibrated to what is called a 50% gray card (a bit like the same card used to calibrate graphic reproduction cameras, but with tighter tolerances). This card has a fairly closely known emissivity that has been measured. It's an expensive process, and these cards are not cheap. Each one has to be measured.

The basic process to measure one is to put it in an isolation chamber properly equipped, accurately measure its temperature, then measure the light output from the card. This is compared to the light output of the chamber itself (like taking a tare weight), and against the ideal black body radiance of the same temperature. The difference is the radiance from the card due to blackbody radiance. The chamber itself has no other light source, and is constructed much like a thermos bottle, with silvered interior to reduce it's own emissivity as much as possible. The photosensor is basically a photon counter with as wide a bandwidth as is practical to build. The thermometer used is an accurate contact thermometer (electronic these days). Any differences between the expected 50% gray card and the one being measured is noted on the card.

Tolerances are affected by the imperfect chamber, the imperfect photosensor and thermometer, the imperfect area of the card being calibrated, the imperfect and limited spectrum of light (the bandwidth and linearity), and the imperfect thermal insulation of the whole affair. Unfortunately, those tolerances are also compared to an ideal black body, which does not exist, so we can't even specify what those tolerances are. We build what we can and hope for the best.

Unfortunately, while most things are somewhat similar to that emissivity of such a card, not all are or even close to it. Grass tends to come close if properly watered and cared for (such as a nice lawn). These cameras and sensors suck at measuring an absolute temperature. They are great at comparative (relative) temperatures.

This leaves such cameras and sensors capable of relative measurements that are pretty accurate. They are not capable of very accurate absolute measurements.

Satellites that measure IR from the Earth are just the same thing on an orbital platform. Such satellites are great at finding out where the Gulf Stream may be wandering that day for sailors (especially of racing yachts!), finding the thermal wake left by a passing ship (or even a submarine if it's not too deep!), finding underwater volcanic activity, in other words relative measurements.

Like the common IR camera or sensor, they cannot measure an absolute temperature. Everything they see is compared to that gray card they were calibrated against.

An absolute measurement is required to try to measure the temperature of the same thing (such as the Earth) over a period of time. Relative measurements compare two temperatures at the same time. All they tell you is that something is warmer or colder than another. They cannot tell you the actual temperature of either object.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2019 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Has anyone ever considered the instrument used to measure temperature at a distance?
...

Like a camera, there is a focus factor too, you can be too close, or too far away.

One huge problem with said type of sensor is that your includes undetermined readings from other directions/angles. When you take a photograph and you get a lens flare, or glare from an off angle, or an "over exposure", etc... all of these things occur to any sort of light sensor.

Yes, holding your light sensor at different angles at different places will certainly render different temperature "photographs."


Yup. Technique in using these things is important. Unfortunately, for most sensors that are not cameras, determining if you are getting such glare can be difficult. IR is not visible to the naked eye, and the thing you are checking for requires the sensor you might be having difficulty with!

I use such sensors myself to help locate problems with aircraft engine performance (such as dead cylinders or hot spots developing in jet engine parts). Many mechanics have such a cheap sensor in their toolkit. It is also handy for locating hot spots in computer cooling systems.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-09-2019 21:21
25-09-2019 11:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:his assertion that the presence of an atmosphere increasing ground level temperature is an example is a wild claim.
...The daytime temperature on the surface of the Moon can approach 250 deg F. ....If the atmosphere warms the Earth, why is any measured temperature on Earth's surface so much COLDER?
Average temperature. But you knew that. But, ah HA! why do you claim the temperature of the Moon can approach 250 deg F??? How do you know the Earth doesn't get that hot??? How do you know that ITN? How?!?

Blair Macdonald wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Look CO2 does get hot relative to other gases:
Hotter Co2In the video alkaseltzer is used to boost CO2 in a soda bottle and under a heat lamp it's compared to room air.
...what is really being tested for in such demonstrations is the Heat capacity of the different gases. CO2 has a lower heat capacity so will rise in temperature faster....
So if you let the heat lamp sit longer the other bottle would catch up?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
25-09-2019 15:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:his assertion that the presence of an atmosphere increasing ground level temperature is an example is a wild claim.
...The daytime temperature on the surface of the Moon can approach 250 deg F. ....If the atmosphere warms the Earth, why is any measured temperature on Earth's surface so much COLDER?
Average temperature. But you knew that. But, ah HA! why do you claim the temperature of the Moon can approach 250 deg F??? How do you know the Earth doesn't get that hot??? How do you know that ITN? How?!?


Wow, you are one amazing case study of living on misrepresenting others. It must suck to be you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-09-2019 19:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The daytime temperature on the surface of the Moon can approach 250 deg F. ....If the atmosphere warms the Earth, why is any measured temperature on Earth's surface so much COLDER?
Average temperature. But you knew that. But, ah HA! why do you claim the temperature of the Moon can approach 250 deg F??? How do you know the Earth doesn't get that hot??? How do you know that ITN? How?!?


Evasion. Answer the question.

Measured temperatures on the Moon have recorded 250 deg F. No weather station has reported a temperature anywhere near that high, yes YOU say that an atmosphere warms a planet. Explain the discrepancy. Answer the question.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-09-2019 19:53
25-09-2019 20:28
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1347)
Why can't they just fill to jars with air taken outdoors, add just enough CO2 to one jar, so it's equal to the amount that's suppose to kill off all life on the planet. Shove a thermometer in both, and crank-up the heat lamp, and watch the fireworks. Maybe piss off PETA, and put a lab rat in each jar too. Should see the temperature rise in one jar, at an alarming rate, will the other stays 1 C cooler. Or would we have to wait a decade for the warming to occur, and the rat to die (likely die before then anyway)...
25-09-2019 21:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:....misrepresenting others.
Tut tut IBD I always quote accurately. Especially when I'm quoting Planck and Provost, the authors of modern net radiative heat, as they debunk you for being a total fraud and lying to this board for 5 years.

Into the Night wrote:
Measured temperatures on the Moon have recorded 250 deg F. No weather station has reported a temperature anywhere near that high,...
Just to be clear ITN that's one thermometer in one location but you're comfortable making a comparative statement about the Earth vs. the Moon based on it?
From:venus-is-hotter-than-mercury
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:....So you say that Venus isn't hotter than Mercury!....?
....There is NO measurement of the temperature of Venus....

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why can't they just fill to jars with air taken outdoors, add just enough CO2 to one jar, so it's equal to the amount that's suppose to kill off all life on the planet. Shove a thermometer in both, and crank-up the heat lamp, and watch the fireworks. ...
Exactly! I don't get why you can't do exactly that. I put the onus on all sides on this one. You could disprove, prove, discover, why not?! I don't get it. Maybe Verner can help on this one.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]
25-09-2019 22:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why can't they just fill to jars with air taken outdoors, add just enough CO2 to one jar, so it's equal to the amount that's suppose to kill off all life on the planet. Shove a thermometer in both, and crank-up the heat lamp, and watch the fireworks. Maybe piss off PETA, and put a lab rat in each jar too. Should see the temperature rise in one jar, at an alarming rate, will the other stays 1 C cooler. Or would we have to wait a decade for the warming to occur, and the rat to die (likely die before then anyway)...


Use a Chicago city rat and larger jars. Some of those babies can get HUGE.

Why pay to buy a lab rat to torture when city rats are free?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-09-2019 22:12
27-09-2019 16:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote: Tut tut IBD I always quote accurately.

You are always dishonest and you misrepresent positions. In fact, you routinely assign bogus positions to others that you know are not theirs. In fact, you channel your ignorance-induced frustration into the bogus positions you assign to others. You merely add some direct quotes out of context just to help you further delude yourself.

Speaking of your self-delusion ...

tmiddles wrote: Especially when I'm quoting Planck and Provost, the authors of modern net radiative heat, as they debunk you for being a total fraud and lying to this board for 5 years.

Were you planning on bringing either Planck or Provost into this conversation so I can cross-examine them, ask them questions and verify that they currently approve of you speaking for them?

Oh no, wait, ... I get it! They are deceased and you are pretending to speak for dead people.

All you need to do is find the quote in which Max Planck spells out a repeatable test for demonstrating your point. Then let me verify that quote and I'll perform that test ... and we'll see if Max Planck was correct in supporting your point as you claim.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2019 20:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:....misrepresenting others.
Tut tut IBD I always quote accurately.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
Especially when I'm quoting Planck and Provost,

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Measured temperatures on the Moon have recorded 250 deg F. No weather station has reported a temperature anywhere near that high,...
Just to be clear ITN that's one thermometer in one location but you're comfortable making a comparative statement about the Earth vs. the Moon based on it?

I'm not. I'm making a comparison between two individual measured points.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:....So you say that Venus isn't hotter than Mercury!....?
....There is NO measurement of the temperature of Venus....


There isn't. There are measured spots on Venus. No one has measured the temperature of Venus.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why can't they just fill to jars with air taken outdoors, add just enough CO2 to one jar, so it's equal to the amount that's suppose to kill off all life on the planet. Shove a thermometer in both, and crank-up the heat lamp, and watch the fireworks. ...
Exactly! I don't get why you can't do exactly that. I put the onus on all sides on this one. You could disprove, prove, discover, why not?! I don't get it. Maybe Verner can help on this one.

All this shows is that CO2 absorbs infrared. Big deal. Absorption of IR from the Earth's surface does not warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2019 02:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Especially when I'm quoting Planck and Provost, the authors of modern net radiative heat, as they debunk you for being a total fraud and lying to this board for 5 years.

Were you planning on bringing either Planck or Provost into this conversation so I can cross-examine them,
Nope. Guess what dufuss. I'm not trying to convince you. Just debunk you. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
28-09-2019 19:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Especially when I'm quoting Planck and Provost, the authors of modern net radiative heat, as they debunk you for being a total fraud and lying to this board for 5 years.

Were you planning on bringing either Planck or Provost into this conversation so I can cross-examine them,
Nope. Guess what dufuss. I'm not trying to convince you. Just debunk you. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED





HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2019 19:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:Nope. Guess what dufuss. I'm not trying to convince you.

Hey genius, when do you imagine that I was ever confused about that? You came here to preach. You didn't come here to convince but to bully. This was identified upon your arrival.

You were nonetheless given the benefit of the doubt, which was an utterly wasted courtesy. You should apologize to the others whose time you have wasted, and especially to Into the Night who did everything humanly possible to be nice to you. Why you lumped him in with me as though we were the same person I don't think I'll ever fully understand outside of your inherent stupidity and inability to differentiate between concepts you don't comprehend.

I, on the other hand, will continue to appreciate your presence here because it gets somewhat boring in those gaps when there aren't dishonest warmizombies to mock. You fill in nicely. Let's get to it.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2019 05:49
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
...., a hollow tube or block of tungsten in which a tiny hole has been drilled to connect the interior with the outside world...

So Planck did real experiments with a similar setup?

Ja. At the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsandstalt in the 1890s. German industry wanted more efficient lighting, a better light bulb than Thomas Edison had. So they studied blackbody spectra with cavity radiators. In 1893 Wilhelm Wien found an equation linking the wavelength of the peak of a blackbody spectrum and its temperature, Wien's displacement law:

λmax = 2.898 millimetets divided by temperature in Kelvin.

Max Planck derived the complete formula for all wavelengths in 1900.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
29-09-2019 06:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
VernerHornung wrote:...German industry wanted more efficient lighting, a better light bulb than Thomas Edison had...
Too cool I never knew there was a practical application looming in the work.

Funny thing is I really knew nothing about Max Planck before using him to debunk the clowns here. He is really amazing.

I asked if he did real experiments because one thing he does that I love is thought experiments for his reader to be able to understand. What he presents is always easy to imagine and it clarifies the concepts. He's a good teacher. Example:
"a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."
He just get's right into it. I've played pool and live in the physical world so there is no need to do an actual experiment to demonstrate the above. His books are full of that.

He just has a wonderfully inquisitive mind and it's inspiring.



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]
29-09-2019 06:30
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:...German industry wanted more efficient lighting, a better light bulb than Thomas Edison had...
Too cool I never knew there was a practical application looming in the work.

Funny thing is I really knew nothing about Max Planck before using him to debunk the clowns here. He is really amazing.

I asked if he did real experiments because one thing he does that I love is thought experiments for his reader to be able to understand. What he presents is always easy to imagine and it clarifies the concepts. He's a good teacher. Example:
"a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."
He just get's right into it. I've played pool and live in the physical world so there is no need to do an actual experiment to demonstrate the above. His books are full of that.

He just has a wonderfully inquisitive mind and it's inspiring.



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
[/quote]

That about gets into Boltzmann's ideal gas law. The more collisions gases have, the more excited they are, the faster they are moving. With pool they normally cite conservation of momentum and the 2 balls that come into contact are the system.
With molecules, would the slower moving one transfer energy to the more excited molecule? An example would be if gases like water vapor, N2, etc. become more excited when they strike a slower moving CO2 molecule?

This is for fun since atmospheric gases are also satellites. It basically means that the Earth's gravity influences the KE of gas molecules in our atmosphere. Why this would matter is if a CO2 molecule slows down when a smaller but faster moving molecule hits it. The Earth's gravity is one system while atmospheric gases are a different system. Basically atmospheric gases can't change the gravity effect because it's non-local it.
When calculating objects in orbit about the Earth, the formula
v=(GM/R)1/2 applies, where v is velocity of the satellite, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the planet, and R is the distance from the center of the Earth.

And this is how to test the hypothesis
https://forum.digikey.com/t/what-is-the-specification-w-mk/370
Edited on 29-09-2019 07:21
29-09-2019 06:44
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
IBdaMann wrote:
Nor did they discuss the tortuous conflict suffered by Gollum in the Lord of the Rings. You were questioning the availability of the ingredients necessary to make hydrocarbons.

H and C are two of the most common elements in the universe. Hardly surprising if there's a little in the mantle. Or even the core. But they're light, so most of them ended up at the surface when the Earth differentiated in its formative history, especially the H. Plate tectonics theory says that oceanic lithosphere subducts at certain plate boundaries, such as off South America's west coast. The plates carry water with them into the mantle.

Petroleum geologists don't believe commercial quantities of oil & gas form from mantle materials, however. Consult source below, or blather on regardless, as I expect you'll do:

"While the presence of inorganically sourced hydrocarbons cannot be discounted, there is abundant evidence that the vast majority of crude oil and natural gas have an organic origin."

Penn State College of Earth & Mineral Sciences
Introduction to Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/png301/node/557

Or maybe Gollum is making the oil down there.

tmiddles wrote:
He's a good teacher. Example: "a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."

Perhaps written when Planck was tracking down the blowup of classical theory, the Rayleigh-Jeans law, for blackbody spectra. R-J is derived from the kinetic theory of gases. It works somewhat for infrared emissions, but goes up to infinity as the wavelengths get shorter. You can see that in the graph; it's going off the top of the page. Planck's law goes up to a hump instead, and then back down to zero at wavelength = zero. Of course there's no light with zero wavelength, so that's what it should do. (5000K is roughly the sun's surface temp.)



Planck staked his career on telling the Technische staff that the oscillators (vibrating metal atoms) in the wall of the cavity were quantized. A classical gas molecule can have any energy, but vibrations in the cavity wall could only have energies

E = nhf for n = 1, 2, 3, ...

and so on. The oscillators couldn't have energy 1.5hf, for instance. Just 1 or 2 or 3 or any larger whole number. I'm trying to figure that idea out; it's really weird. This is supposed to be where quantum mechanics started. The constant

h = 6.67 x 10^(-34) Joule seconds

is the minimum quantum of action. It's very tiny. If it were big enough, my mattress springs would jerk instead of compressing smoothly at bedtime!


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
29-09-2019 07:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
VernerHornung wrote:H and C are two of the most common elements in the universe. Hardly surprising if there's a little in the mantle. Or even the core. But they're light, so most of them ended up at the surface when the Earth differentiated in its formative history, especially the H.

So you have no excuse for having insisted that the necessary ingredients to make hydrocarbons are somehow not to be found in the earth where natural geological processes can form them into hydrocarbons with heat and pressure which are also sufficiently availabe in the earth.


VernerHornung wrote: Petroleum geologists don't believe commercial quantities of oil & gas form from mantle materials,

You do not speak for "petroleum geologists."

Answer yourself: How deep are oil wells? Are they under impermeable rock? How do you believe hydrocarbons formed and under what conditions?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2019 07:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:[Planck]"a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."
An example would be if gases like water vapor, N2, etc. become more excited when they strike a slower moving CO2 molecule?
Planck goes on to say that
Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.
He's just pointing out net heat. That there is give an take and a cooler body absolutely does transfer thermal energy to a warmer one even in conduction.

I didn't understand the second part with the W/mk link.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
29-09-2019 07:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
VernerHornung wrote:The oscillators couldn't have energy 1.5hf, for instance. Just 1 or 2 or 3 or any larger whole number. ...
is the minimum quantum of action. It's very tiny. If it were big enough, my mattress springs would jerk instead of compressing smoothly at bedtime!

Yeah I think an interesting question is what isn't quantized! So matter is of course with atoms/molecules, you can break a solid in half splitting an atom in the process. We know now radiance is. Electricity too right? I guess positions in space are not quantized and nor is mechanical movement. Changes of state are in a way quantized, freezing, melting, vaporizing, happening AT a specific energy level.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
29-09-2019 08:27
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
IBdaMann wrote:
You do not speak for "petroleum geologists."

I'm not speaking for them. Go to the web page and see for yourself. There is no endless oil supply coming up from below to replace what we use, within the time frame of our civilization. And Exxon knows that.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
29-09-2019 09:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You do not speak for "petroleum geologists."

I'm not speaking for them.

You ARE speaking for them, liar.
VernerHornung wrote:
Go to the web page and see for yourself.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
There is no endless oil supply coming up from below to replace what we use,

There quite possibly is. I have already described why. RQAA.
VernerHornung wrote:
within the time frame of our civilization.

The process that we use takes mere hours to run. I assume the Earth can do the same.
VernerHornung wrote:
And Exxon knows that.

You don't get to speak for Exxon.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2019 15:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
@VernerHornung, you are EVADING like a tmiddles-type warmizombie troll. Is that what you are? Can you not think for yourself either? I asked you for your perpective. If I want someone else's perspective I am quite capable of asking that person directly.

Please engage the brain and answer for VernerHornung:

IBdaMann wrote: Answer yourself: How deep are oil wells? Are they under impermeable rock? How do you believe hydrocarbons formed and under what conditions?


Rather straightforward.

As a sidenote, others have had no problem answering and you can even re-read Into the Night's review of the process which he has described a number of times.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2019 17:13
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:[Planck]"a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."
An example would be if gases like water vapor, N2, etc. become more excited when they strike a slower moving CO2 molecule?
Planck goes on to say that
Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.
He's just pointing out net heat. That there is give an take and a cooler body absolutely does transfer thermal energy to a warmer one even in conduction.

I didn't understand the second part with the W/mk link.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them


With w/mk, if you had a cube with a surface area of 1 m^2, if heat passes through one face and out the opposite face, what is the net heat that it's radiating? That would be it's "k" value.
This would show how gases slow the flow of heat. And if CO2 increases the net heat content, it will show it.
This is something that using a cube open to the atmosphere with a solar panel below it. How many watts would the solar panel have as output power as CO2 levels in the cube are raised?
With something like this, a solar panel with a surface area of 1 m^2 would be used to show how many watts of output power it generates without changing the CO2 levels. This is because if solar radiance changes then that would be accounted for.
Changing the amount of water vapor would also need to be tested. With your quote by Planck, that could explain a relationship between increased levels of CO2 and water vapor.
29-09-2019 19:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
James___ wrote: With something like this, a solar panel with a surface area of 1 m^2 would be used to show how many watts of output power it generates without changing the CO2 levels. This is because if solar radiance changes then that would be accounted for.
Changing the amount of water vapor would also need to be tested.

Just make sure you include a second "control" sensor to monitor the solar radiation input because you need to know how that is fluctuating and/or changing due to any unseen phenomena, e.g. solar flare, flux decrease, an invisible cloud of "greenhouse gas" passing by, etc...


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-09-2019 19:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:[Planck]"a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished."
An example would be if gases like water vapor, N2, etc. become more excited when they strike a slower moving CO2 molecule?
Planck goes on to say that
Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.
He's just pointing out net heat. That there is give an take and a cooler body absolutely does transfer thermal energy to a warmer one even in conduction.

I didn't understand the second part with the W/mk link.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them


With w/mk, if you had a cube with a surface area of 1 m^2, if heat passes through one face and out the opposite face, what is the net heat that it's radiating? That would be it's "k" value.
This would show how gases slow the flow of heat. And if CO2 increases the net heat content, it will show it.
This is something that using a cube open to the atmosphere with a solar panel below it. How many watts would the solar panel have as output power as CO2 levels in the cube are raised?
With something like this, a solar panel with a surface area of 1 m^2 would be used to show how many watts of output power it generates without changing the CO2 levels. This is because if solar radiance changes then that would be accounted for.
Changing the amount of water vapor would also need to be tested. With your quote by Planck, that could explain a relationship between increased levels of CO2 and water vapor.


He isn't quoting Planck. He is misquoting Planck.


The Parrot Killer
Page 7 of 7<<<567





Join the debate Our Fragile Planet:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Petition to pressure governments to save the planet and humankind1024-08-2019 05:16
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
UN climate chief warns of 'catastrophe' if planet continues on current path026-04-2019 15:34
If Democrats rule America then in 100 years America will be biggest CO2 emitter on the planet126-04-2019 00:41
Global Climate Strike: Meet the teenagers skipping school to fight for a greener planet913-04-2019 20:34
Articles
Barack Obama: Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact