Remember me
▼ Content

Parliament must declare a climate emergency – not ignore it



Page 1 of 212>
Parliament must declare a climate emergency – not ignore it04-03-2019 15:57
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1039)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster
04-03-2019 17:09
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.
04-03-2019 17:19
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1039)
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html
Edited on 04-03-2019 17:20
04-03-2019 17:52
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm pointing out that even with their greatly exaggerated theory, the amount of CO2 it takes to significantly impact global temperature is astronomical and any puny efforts to reduce emissions are a waste of time and money.
04-03-2019 18:28
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1039)
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm pointing out that even with their greatly exaggerated theory, the amount of CO2 it takes to significantly impact global temperature is astronomical and any puny efforts to reduce emissions are a waste of time and money.


Damn right. UK would have to end all automobile manufacturing like Australia did in 2017.
04-03-2019 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-03-2019 20:55
04-03-2019 20:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs.

Random numbers. Also wrong, as measured by various tanks of different concentrations of CO2 in a laboratory and by satellites.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

That it would. It defies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. CO2 is completely incapable of warming the Earth by a single degree, regardless of its concentration.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

This is wrong. UV light is split into three sub-bands. UV-C, the highest frequency sub-band is completely absorbed. It does not reach the surface at all. That is 100% absorption, not 98%.
UV-B light does reach the surface. About 90% of this sub-band is absorbed. About 10% reaches the surface. Not 98%. About 50% of UV-A light is absorbed. The other 50% reaches the surface.

National Geographic magazine is wrong yet again.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html



The Parrot Killer
04-03-2019 20:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm pointing out that even with their greatly exaggerated theory, the amount of CO2 it takes to significantly impact global temperature is astronomical and any puny efforts to reduce emissions are a waste of time and money.


And a valid point it is.


The Parrot Killer
04-03-2019 20:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm pointing out that even with their greatly exaggerated theory, the amount of CO2 it takes to significantly impact global temperature is astronomical and any puny efforts to reduce emissions are a waste of time and money.


Damn right. UK would have to end all automobile manufacturing like Australia did in 2017.


Guess they'll have to import their cars then. There go the jobs at Rolls-Royce!


The Parrot Killer
04-03-2019 23:04
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(793)
The UK doesn't care about the environment, or global warming, they just want grab up some of that free UN money, to research, and ease the transition. They of course, will put on a good show, while squandering the bulk of what they get. They milk that cash cow just as long as the UN is productive, think kick it out to pasture, just like the EU. Didn't the UK put together the EU deal, and convince all their neighbors it was such a great deal for everyone? And now, they are walking away from it...
04-03-2019 23:29
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.
04-03-2019 23:33
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1039)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.


Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.
04-03-2019 23:41
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.


Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?
04-03-2019 23:42
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1039)
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.


Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?


Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.
04-03-2019 23:49
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.


Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?


Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.

I'm not sure of your point. The ground transfers heat to the atmosphere via convection and conduction if the surface is hotter. The atmosphere transfers heat to the ground via convection and conduction if the air is hotter. Heat always transfers from something hotter to something colder.
04-03-2019 23:52
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1039)
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.


Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?


Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.

I'm not sure of your point. The ground transfers heat to the atmosphere via convection and conduction if the surface is hotter. The atmosphere transfers heat to the ground via convection and conduction if the air is hotter. Heat always transfers from something hotter to something colder.


Ground is not always hotter than air. Air can absorb a lot of the incoming UV and visible and IR radiations.
05-03-2019 02:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Yes it does. It also violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Jeffvw wrote:
It simply overstates the effect.
There is zero effect, None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Jeffvw wrote:
What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).
It all still escapes. It doesn't even have to be high up in the atmosphere.
Jeffvw wrote:
If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface.
The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C).
To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

WRONG! You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no frequency term in the law. Warming the Earth takes energy. Where is that additional energy coming from, assuming a constant Sun?
Jeffvw wrote:
Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet.
None. Zilch. Zero. Nada. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth.
Jeffvw wrote:
The major role they play is by redistributing heat.
That is not warming the Earth.
Jeffvw wrote:
Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4.
Ignoring the constants in the equation, True.
Jeffvw wrote:
That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount).
Also True.
Jeffvw wrote:
An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction.

Also True.
Jeffvw wrote:
This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space.

Wups. You forgot something! Remember those cooler places that are now warmer?
Jeffvw wrote:
This drives up average planetary temperatures.

So...cooler is warmer??? WTF???


The Parrot Killer
05-03-2019 02:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.


Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

Thick air, more like it, but yes, you are correct.


The Parrot Killer
05-03-2019 02:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.


Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?


Yes.


The Parrot Killer
05-03-2019 02:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.


Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?


Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.


Worse, it would mean the creation of energy out of nothing. It would mean a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order.


The Parrot Killer
05-03-2019 02:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.


Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?


Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.

I'm not sure of your point. The ground transfers heat to the atmosphere via convection and conduction if the surface is hotter. The atmosphere transfers heat to the ground via convection and conduction if the air is hotter. Heat always transfers from something hotter to something colder.


Convection does not heat the ground. Heat IS transfer. The term 'heat transfer' is redundant.


The Parrot Killer
05-03-2019 02:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.


Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.


Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?


Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.

I'm not sure of your point. The ground transfers heat to the atmosphere via convection and conduction if the surface is hotter. The atmosphere transfers heat to the ground via convection and conduction if the air is hotter. Heat always transfers from something hotter to something colder.


Ground is not always hotter than air. Air can absorb a lot of the incoming UV and visible and IR radiations.

Air is generally colder than the surface. You are correct. Air can absorb incoming radiation just fine, just like any mass. However, the so-called 'greenhouse effect', which is the point of discussion here, attempts to use surface emitted IR to warm the Earth. This is of course not possible. Perpetual motion machines like this are not possible.


The Parrot Killer
05-03-2019 16:42
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
Into the Night wrote:
So...cooler is warmer??? WTF???

Radiation loss is proportional to T^4. This means that cooling hot spots with an atmosphere reduces radiation loss much more than warming cool spots.

Let's look at a simple example. You have a planet that has a temperature of T0 on one side and is 2*T0 on the other side. The energy it is losing via radiation to space is proportional to 0.5*T0^4 on one side and 0.5*(2*T0)^4 on the other side. That means that the planet is losing energy proportional to 8.5*T0^4.

Now, in the second case, we assume that there is a thick atmosphere that transfers some of the heat from the hot side of the planet to the cool side of the planet making temperatures the same. Let's assume average temperature is the same, so both sides will be 1.5*T0. That means that the planet is losing energy via radiation to space proportional to (1.5*T0)^4 or 5.0625*T0^4.

As you can see, the average temperature is too low to balance out the energy loss. In reality you would need to bring the average temperature up to over 1.7*T0 to get an energy loss that is 8.5*T0^4.

Using numbers that we are familiar with, let's set T0 to 200K (-73 C). That means that 2*T0 would be 400K (127 C) and 1.5*T0 would be 300K (27 C) and 1.7*T0 would be 340K (67 C).

The simple act of cooling the warm side and heating the cool side of this hypothetical planet with an atmosphere will raise the average temperature by 40 degrees C.
05-03-2019 18:25
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(793)
The one thing that gets overlook, is water. 80% of the surface is covered with the liquid, which when it gets warm enough, changes to gas (vapor). Heat rises, and so does the water vapor, carrying off the heat. It lose heat to cooler molecules in the air, as it rises, and heat is also radiated, much back out to space. When the water vapor loses enough heat, it condenses back to the liquid form, and falls, sometime on the 20%, we call dry land, where it rapidly picks up some more heat, and repeat. The surface can only be heated so much, before the water does it's job to cool us back down. Water vapor can get really dense too, clouds, which block the sun's heat rays, not to mention only half the planet is exposed to the sun, at anytime. Water does it's cooling thing, anytime, day or night, if there is enough surface heat. Doesn't get too cold either, the water simply get's turned solid, and can't do the cooling thing, until it warms up enough to melt and vaporize. It's a big planet, some of these climate changes can take a few weeks, or longer...
05-03-2019 21:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So...cooler is warmer??? WTF???

Radiation loss is proportional to T^4. This means that cooling hot spots with an atmosphere reduces radiation loss much more than warming cool spots.

Nope. You cannot create energy out of existing temperature differences. You are defying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at a simple example. You have a planet that has a temperature of T0 on one side and is 2*T0 on the other side. The energy it is losing via radiation to space is proportional to 0.5*T0^4 on one side and 0.5*(2*T0)^4 on the other side. That means that the planet is losing energy proportional to 8.5*T0^4.

Now, in the second case, we assume that there is a thick atmosphere that transfers some of the heat from the hot side of the planet to the cool side of the planet making temperatures the same. Let's assume average temperature is the same, so both sides will be 1.5*T0. That means that the planet is losing energy via radiation to space proportional to (1.5*T0)^4 or 5.0625*T0^4.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law uses absolute temperatures in deg K, not relative temperatures. Math error. You can't subtract temperatures that way using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Jeffvw wrote:
As you can see, the average temperature is too low to balance out the energy loss.

No, your calculations are a math error.
Jeffvw wrote:
In reality you would need to bring the average temperature up to over 1.7*T0 to get an energy loss that is 8.5*T0^4.

Nope. You can't create energy out of an existing temperature difference, whether there is an atmosphere or not.
Jeffvw wrote:
Using numbers that we are familiar with, let's set T0 to 200K (-73 C). That means that 2*T0 would be 400K (127 C) and 1.5*T0 would be 300K (27 C) and 1.7*T0 would be 340K (67 C).

The simple act of cooling the warm side and heating the cool side of this hypothetical planet with an atmosphere will raise the average temperature by 40 degrees C.

No. You can't create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
05-03-2019 21:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The one thing that gets overlook, is water.
Not really. Every so often someone from the Church of Global Warming tries to mention the 'warming effects' of water vapor.
HarveyH55 wrote:
80% of the surface is covered with the liquid, which when it gets warm enough, changes to gas (vapor).
Don't need. Just need dry air. Water of any temperature will form water vapor.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Heat rises, and so does the water vapor, carrying off the heat.
Evaporation is a cooling process for the body of water it comes from, yes.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It lose heat to cooler molecules in the air, as it rises, and heat is also radiated, much back out to space. When the water vapor loses enough heat,
Heat is not contained in anything. Heat does not even have a temperature. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. Convection upward itself is a cooling process. No other molecules necessary. They are being cooled too by the same convection. Upward convection spreads the available thermal energy out over a wider area. Falling air that feeds the convection is being heated. Colder air becomes warmer as it falls. If nothing were lost to space by radiance, there would be no temperature change at all due to convection. Remember convection is a two-way street. What goes up must eventually come back down. Convection is a form of heat, because it moves mass around, and with it, thermal energy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
it condenses back to the liquid form, and falls,
If and only if there is enough water vapor in the first place.
HarveyH55 wrote:
sometime on the 20%, we call dry land, where it rapidly picks up some more heat, and repeat.

If and only if there is sufficient water in the first place.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The surface can only be heated so much,
Given the same Sun, true. Not because of water, but because the same Sun and the same space around Earth exist.
HarveyH55 wrote:
before the water does it's job to cool us back down.
Water does not cool the Earth. You are attempting to utterly destroy energy. That's not possible. You are again defying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy law.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Water vapor can get really dense too, clouds, which block the sun's heat rays,
Clouds are not water vapor. They are liquid water (or even ice!). Water vapor is not visible.
HarveyH55 wrote:
not to mention only half the planet is exposed to the sun, at anytime.
True. You can kind of consider the exposure to the Sun like a pulsating energy source for any spot on Earth, once per 24 hours.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Water does it's cooling thing, anytime, day or night, if there is enough surface heat.

Water is not capable of cooling the Earth. Earth is the same temperature with or without water or even an atmosphere. The only thing that changes is the temperature spread. The average temperature remains the same. It is solely determined by the Sun's output, its proximity, and the emissivity of Earth (which is unknown).
HarveyH55 wrote:
Doesn't get too cold either, the water simply get's turned solid, and can't do the cooling thing, until it warms up enough to melt and vaporize.
Even ice can vaporize. It's called sublimation. You can see it when you fly sometimes. A bit of frost will form on the wing, but at altitude it will 'blow away', leaving the wing completely dry. It's actually sublimating into water vapor. Most ice lost in Antarctica as summer approaches is due to sublimation, not melting.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's a big planet, some of these climate changes can take a few weeks, or longer...

Define 'climate change'. The word 'climate' itself is usually defined as something similar to 'weather over a long time', where 'a long time' is unspecified. Weeks? Hours? Years? Seconds? Just what IS 'a long time'?


The Parrot Killer
05-03-2019 22:22
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So...cooler is warmer??? WTF???

Radiation loss is proportional to T^4. This means that cooling hot spots with an atmosphere reduces radiation loss much more than warming cool spots.

Nope. You cannot create energy out of existing temperature differences. You are defying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at a simple example. You have a planet that has a temperature of T0 on one side and is 2*T0 on the other side. The energy it is losing via radiation to space is proportional to 0.5*T0^4 on one side and 0.5*(2*T0)^4 on the other side. That means that the planet is losing energy proportional to 8.5*T0^4.

Now, in the second case, we assume that there is a thick atmosphere that transfers some of the heat from the hot side of the planet to the cool side of the planet making temperatures the same. Let's assume average temperature is the same, so both sides will be 1.5*T0. That means that the planet is losing energy via radiation to space proportional to (1.5*T0)^4 or 5.0625*T0^4.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law uses absolute temperatures in deg K, not relative temperatures. Math error. You can't subtract temperatures that way using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Jeffvw wrote:
As you can see, the average temperature is too low to balance out the energy loss.

No, your calculations are a math error.
Jeffvw wrote:
In reality you would need to bring the average temperature up to over 1.7*T0 to get an energy loss that is 8.5*T0^4.

Nope. You can't create energy out of an existing temperature difference, whether there is an atmosphere or not.
Jeffvw wrote:
Using numbers that we are familiar with, let's set T0 to 200K (-73 C). That means that 2*T0 would be 400K (127 C) and 1.5*T0 would be 300K (27 C) and 1.7*T0 would be 340K (67 C).

The simple act of cooling the warm side and heating the cool side of this hypothetical planet with an atmosphere will raise the average temperature by 40 degrees C.

No. You can't create energy out of nothing.

I get the feeling that you don't have a clue of what I am talking about. Your criticisms are way off base, and show that you don't understand what you are criticizing. Have you ever taken a basic physics course, or even better, a heat transfer course or a thermodynamics course?

The first law of thermodynamics is not violated in my example. Tell me how it violates it instead of flatly stating that it does. I am not creating energy out of a temperature difference; I am showing that radiative energy flux is significantly different at different temperatures.

I am using degrees K in my equations. I showed that in my example and translated them to degrees C since people can relate to that better.

Every time I try to interact with you, I realize that it is a waste of time. I keep hoping that you will learn something, but I see no sign of that.

*Sigh*
05-03-2019 23:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So...cooler is warmer??? WTF???

Radiation loss is proportional to T^4. This means that cooling hot spots with an atmosphere reduces radiation loss much more than warming cool spots.

Nope. You cannot create energy out of existing temperature differences. You are defying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at a simple example. You have a planet that has a temperature of T0 on one side and is 2*T0 on the other side. The energy it is losing via radiation to space is proportional to 0.5*T0^4 on one side and 0.5*(2*T0)^4 on the other side. That means that the planet is losing energy proportional to 8.5*T0^4.

Now, in the second case, we assume that there is a thick atmosphere that transfers some of the heat from the hot side of the planet to the cool side of the planet making temperatures the same. Let's assume average temperature is the same, so both sides will be 1.5*T0. That means that the planet is losing energy via radiation to space proportional to (1.5*T0)^4 or 5.0625*T0^4.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law uses absolute temperatures in deg K, not relative temperatures. Math error. You can't subtract temperatures that way using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Jeffvw wrote:
As you can see, the average temperature is too low to balance out the energy loss.

No, your calculations are a math error.
Jeffvw wrote:
In reality you would need to bring the average temperature up to over 1.7*T0 to get an energy loss that is 8.5*T0^4.

Nope. You can't create energy out of an existing temperature difference, whether there is an atmosphere or not.
Jeffvw wrote:
Using numbers that we are familiar with, let's set T0 to 200K (-73 C). That means that 2*T0 would be 400K (127 C) and 1.5*T0 would be 300K (27 C) and 1.7*T0 would be 340K (67 C).

The simple act of cooling the warm side and heating the cool side of this hypothetical planet with an atmosphere will raise the average temperature by 40 degrees C.

No. You can't create energy out of nothing.

I get the feeling that you don't have a clue of what I am talking about.
I know exactly what you are trying to talk about.
Jeffvw wrote:
Your criticisms are way off base, and show that you don't understand what you are criticizing.
They are right on the mark. YOU are defying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the energy conservation law, as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Jeffvw wrote:
Have you ever taken a basic physics course, or even better, a heat transfer course or a thermodynamics course?

There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'. 'Heat transfer' is redundant. Heat IS transfer. You might as well say, "transfer transfer'.

Yes. I've taken both physics and thermodynamics courses. I've even taught in them.

Jeffvw wrote:
The first law of thermodynamics is not violated in my example. Tell me how it violates it instead of flatly stating that it does.
Already did. See the previous post.
Jeffvw wrote:
I am not creating energy out of a temperature difference;
Yes you are. You clearly stated that the temperature difference causes the planet to warm by 40 deg C.
Jeffvw wrote:
I am showing that radiative energy flux is significantly different at different temperatures.

Of course it is. But you made a math error. You used relative temperatures instead of absolute ones. The Stefan-Boltzmann law uses absolute temperatures, not relative ones. You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Jeffvw wrote:
I am using degrees K in my equations.

Not good enough. Temperatures are always absolute in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot use relative temperatures in that law. There is no such thing as a temperature lower than 0 deg K.
Jeffvw wrote:
I showed that in my example and translated them to degrees C since people can relate to that better.
No, you made a math error, defied the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and defied the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Jeffvw wrote:
Every time I try to interact with you, I realize that it is a waste of time.
Don't argue with me. These are theories of physics. They have not yet been falsified. It is those that you are trying to change or ignore.
Jeffvw wrote:
I keep hoping that you will learn something, but I see no sign of that.

Buzzword. Learning doesn't mean moving towards ignorance or denying science.
Jeffvw wrote:
*Sigh*

I understand your exasperation, but you cannot just change these laws around or ignore them. That's the hard truth of it.

You cannot create energy out of a temperature difference.
You cannot use relative temperatures in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
There is no 'deficit' in radiance that you have to recover or account for when temperatures drop. Radiance simply goes down...end of story.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-03-2019 23:01
10-03-2019 04:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3836)
Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.


I can't believe there are still people making this same argument out of scientific illiteracy (or flat out science denial).

Jeffvw, the answer is "no." "Climate Sensitivity" isn't a thing. Yes, your argument egregiously violates the 1st LoT up until you pivot and violate Stefan-Boltzmann and tip your king.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-03-2019 05:37
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(793)
You cannot create energy out of a temperature difference.
You cannot use relative temperatures in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
There is no 'deficit' in radiance that you have to recover or account for when temperatures drop. Radiance simply goes down...end of story.

The Parrot Killer


You can generate electricity from temperature differential...

Ever read anything about Seebeck generators? They aren't new, though they do fit in well with all the other alternative 'Green' electric generators. Really surprised nobody has made that proposal yet.
10-03-2019 05:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3836)
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can generate electricity from temperature differential...


You shifted goalposts. You can change the form of energy all day. You cannot create energy. Yes, you can create electricity from another form of energy, but you cannot create any energy out of nothing.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-03-2019 21:13
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
IBdaMann wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.


I can't believe there are still people making this same argument out of scientific illiteracy (or flat out science denial).

You missed the whole point of my post. I am saying that even if you use their exaggerated assumptions (3.0 degrees C of warming per doubling of CO2 concentration), there is not a problem since that amount of CO2 needed to make a significant change in temperatures is astronomical.

IBdaMann wrote:Jeffvw, the answer is "no." "Climate Sensitivity" isn't a thing. Yes, your argument egregiously violates the 1st LoT up until you pivot and violate Stefan-Boltzmann and tip your king.

The potential for a climate sensitivity (the theoretical is 1 C of warming per doubling of CO2 concentration) does not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics nor Stefan-Boltzmann. Where do you get that information?

The whole concept is based on energy balance (the first law of thermodynamics). Energy coming into the system must equal energy coming out of the system. In this case, the sun is supplying energy to the earth via radiation. The earth is losing energy via radiation. They must balance. If you look at the earth with a spectrophotometer from space, you will see that there is a spectrum of radiation coming from earth. Here is an example looking at a portion of the earth at 21 C. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

You will notice a red curve showing the ideal blackbody radiation at 21C. This is the radiation that you would expect to see leaving earth is there were no atmosphere, or an atmosphere with no H2O or CO2. The blue area is the actual radiation leaving earth. What is happening is that at some wave numbers that very little radiation is escaping. These wave numbers correspond to where the radiation is coming from CO2 or H2O or other 'greenhouse' gasses.

If you were to draw other red lines corresponding to cooler ideal blackbody temperatures, you would get an idea of how cool the CO2 and H2O are when they emit their radiation to space. They are cooler because they emit their radiation to space a much higher altitudes.

Going back to the original curves you can get an idea of the impact of greenhouse gasses. Integrating the blue area tells you the total energy that the earth is radiating to space. If you want to know the impact of CO2 and H20, you could come up with a theoretical blackbody temperature (a new red line) that would give you the exact same total energy radiating to space. You would find that this temperature is significantly lower than the 21C that we are measuring. This is using the first law of thermodynamics.

Now, how does additional CO2 impact this curve? It does it in two ways. One is that it effectively raises the elevation that the CO2 is radiating to space. Higher elevations are cooler. Instead of radiating into space at -53 C, it may radiate into space at -54 C. A second way is the additional CO2 may scatter the radiation a bit and effectively widen the CO2 band by a tiny bit.

How does this warm the earth? Going back to the first law of thermodynamics we learn that the radiation escaping to space must equal radiation coming from the sun. Since the additional CO2 means that the planet is losing slightly less radiation at the current temperature, the planet must warm up slightly to compensate (this is where Stefan-Boltzmann comes into play). This leads to the fact that a doubling of CO2 will warm the globe by about 1 C. That is very little.

The problem with climate models is not that they get this part wrong. They are wrong because the are assuming feedbacks (such as additional H20) that will triple the amount of warming. That is not supported by any real data. In reality, we don't know what feedbacks will do, but they are likely have a very small impact and could even be negative.
10-03-2019 21:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8105)
Jeffvw wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.


I can't believe there are still people making this same argument out of scientific illiteracy (or flat out science denial).

You missed the whole point of my post. I am saying that even if you use their exaggerated assumptions (3.0 degrees C of warming per doubling of CO2 concentration), there is not a problem since that amount of CO2 needed to make a significant change in temperatures is astronomical.

IBdaMann wrote:Jeffvw, the answer is "no." "Climate Sensitivity" isn't a thing. Yes, your argument egregiously violates the 1st LoT up until you pivot and violate Stefan-Boltzmann and tip your king.

The potential for a climate sensitivity (the theoretical is 1 C of warming per doubling of CO2 concentration) does not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics nor Stefan-Boltzmann. Where do you get that information?

The whole concept is based on energy balance (the first law of thermodynamics). Energy coming into the system must equal energy coming out of the system. In this case, the sun is supplying energy to the earth via radiation. The earth is losing energy via radiation. They must balance. If you look at the earth with a spectrophotometer from space, you will see that there is a spectrum of radiation coming from earth. Here is an example looking at a portion of the earth at 21 C. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

You will notice a red curve showing the ideal blackbody radiation at 21C. This is the radiation that you would expect to see leaving earth is there were no atmosphere, or an atmosphere with no H2O or CO2. The blue area is the actual radiation leaving earth. What is happening is that at some wave numbers that very little radiation is escaping. These wave numbers correspond to where the radiation is coming from CO2 or H2O or other 'greenhouse' gasses.

If you were to draw other red lines corresponding to cooler ideal blackbody temperatures, you would get an idea of how cool the CO2 and H2O are when they emit their radiation to space. They are cooler because they emit their radiation to space a much higher altitudes.

Going back to the original curves you can get an idea of the impact of greenhouse gasses. Integrating the blue area tells you the total energy that the earth is radiating to space. If you want to know the impact of CO2 and H20, you could come up with a theoretical blackbody temperature (a new red line) that would give you the exact same total energy radiating to space. You would find that this temperature is significantly lower than the 21C that we are measuring. This is using the first law of thermodynamics.

Now, how does additional CO2 impact this curve? It does it in two ways. One is that it effectively raises the elevation that the CO2 is radiating to space. Higher elevations are cooler. Instead of radiating into space at -53 C, it may radiate into space at -54 C. A second way is the additional CO2 may scatter the radiation a bit and effectively widen the CO2 band by a tiny bit.

How does this warm the earth? Going back to the first law of thermodynamics we learn that the radiation escaping to space must equal radiation coming from the sun. Since the additional CO2 means that the planet is losing slightly less radiation at the current temperature, the planet must warm up slightly to compensate (this is where Stefan-Boltzmann comes into play). This leads to the fact that a doubling of CO2 will warm the globe by about 1 C. That is very little.


You are ignoring the radiance from the surface, which is most of the radiance into space. You are also ignoring the radiance from ALL of the atmosphere at ALL altitudes. You are STILL attempting to trap light. You are STILL attempting to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law to only certain substances and not others.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. BOTH the blue and red curves are random numbers.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface.

The warming effect of CO2 or H2O is zero. Zilch. Nothing. Nada.

You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas.
You cannot reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies everywhere, all the time, to all frequencies of light, in all substances equally.
The 1st law of thermodynamics applies everywhere, all the time, to all substances. It doesn't just apply to one or two select substances!


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2019 00:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3836)
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas.
You cannot reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies everywhere, all the time, to all frequencies of light, in all substances equally.
The 1st law of thermodynamics applies everywhere, all the time, to all substances. It doesn't just apply to one or two select substances!


You just summarized all the relevant physics.

We should be able to pack it up now and go home.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2019 00:58
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas.
You cannot reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies everywhere, all the time, to all frequencies of light, in all substances equally.
The 1st law of thermodynamics applies everywhere, all the time, to all substances. It doesn't just apply to one or two select substances!


You just summarized all the relevant physics.

We should be able to pack it up now and go home.

You do not understand physics. I suggest taking physics courses instead of relying on what ITN says.

CO2 acts as an insulator. Take an insulated bottle as an example. You put a warm liquid inside of it and it stays warm, even if the outside surface of the bottle is very cold. The insulating material in between goes from very hot to very cold. It is not the insulating material on the cold surface that is keeping the liquid warm. It is all of the material from the inside surface to the outside surface. Just because the CO2 in the stratosphere is cold, does not mean that is that cold CO2 that is keeping the surface warm. It is all of the gas between the stratosphere and the surface of the planet. ITN does not understand this concept.

Reducing radiance is exactly how you increase temperature in something that is receiving a constant incoming radiance (1st law of thermodynamics). If you can somehow reduce radiance from a body by insulating it, then the temperature of the body will increase until the outgoing radiance again equals the incoming radiance (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to everything. ITN just doesn't understand it.

Same with the 1st law of thermodynamics.
11-03-2019 01:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3836)
Jeffvw wrote:
You do not understand physics. I suggest taking physics courses instead of relying on what ITN says.

Rather than simply declaring that I don't understand physics just because I do not accept your Church's teachings, why don't you run through your standard battery of physics violations and let me help you out?

I'll start by giving you some axioms:

1. Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is a fanatical religion of hatred and intolerance
1a. There is therefore no formal, falsifiable definition of Global Warming (aka Climate Change) for science to apply to it in the first place
1b. There is therefore no science supporting Global Warming (aka Climate Change).
2. Global Warming appeals to the scientifically illiterate who are conscientious about being idiot morons and who are desperate to appear "smart"
2a. Global Warming worshippers are necessarily scientifically illiterate because they fall for the idea that the religion isn't a religion, it's actually "settled science"
2b. Global Warming worshippers are necessarily scientifically illiterate because they don't know that there is no such thing as "settled science."
2c. Global Warming worshippers are necessarily scientifically illiterate because they believe science is subjective, that it is determined by consensus or by democratic vote, and that something can be made to be science by conveniently applying the word "scientific" as a prefix.
3. Global Warming worshippers can't distinguish religion from science.
3a. They think that variations on the theme "I don't know the answer, let me refer you to my preacher because he explains it so much better than I do" are valid scientific responses, e.g. pointing to the opinions of others who s/he considers authority figures.
3b. Global Warming worshippers are therefore forever presuming that science works like a religion

So, now that I have laid it all out for you, there won't be any surprises. Let's start with you.

Do you believe in Global Warming?

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 acts as an insulator. Take an insulated bottle as an example. You put a warm liquid inside of it and it stays warm, even if the outside surface of the bottle is very cold.

Sorry, you need to first get out of the starting gate. Post here in this thread the falsifiable definition of Global Warming so that science can apply to it in the first place. At the moment you have Global Warming as completely undefined. Only a scientifically illiterate moron would believe he could discuss the science of something that is undefined.

Jeffvw wrote:
The insulating material in between goes from very hot to very cold.

You don't have a full grasp of blackbody science, do you? Your understanding is whatever Wikipedia says, right? Egregious errors and all ... and you don't what parts are erroneous. Ask me how I can tell.

Jeffvw wrote:. ITN does not understand this concept.

You should be worried more about yourself. You're about to get your bluff called.

Jeffvw wrote:
Reducing radiance is exactly how you increase temperature in something that is receiving a constant incoming radiance (1st law of thermodynamics).

Science has already answered this question. Radiance and Temperature move in the same direction. If the temperature increases then radiance increases. If you tell me that radiance has decreased then you have told me that the temperature has decreased.

You have been informed. To deny this now officially makes you a science denier.

Lest we forget, do you believe in Global Warming? Do you have a falsifiable definition for Global Warming?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2019 02:20
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
IBdaMann wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
You do not understand physics. I suggest taking physics courses instead of relying on what ITN says.

Rather than simply declaring that I don't understand physics just because I do not accept your Church's teachings, why don't you run through your standard battery of physics violations and let me help you out?

I'll start by giving you some axioms:

1. Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is a fanatical religion of hatred and intolerance
1a. There is therefore no formal, falsifiable definition of Global Warming (aka Climate Change) for science to apply to it in the first place
1b. There is therefore no science supporting Global Warming (aka Climate Change).
2. Global Warming appeals to the scientifically illiterate who are conscientious about being idiot morons and who are desperate to appear "smart"
2a. Global Warming worshippers are necessarily scientifically illiterate because they fall for the idea that the religion isn't a religion, it's actually "settled science"
2b. Global Warming worshippers are necessarily scientifically illiterate because they don't know that there is no such thing as "settled science."
2c. Global Warming worshippers are necessarily scientifically illiterate because they believe science is subjective, that it is determined by consensus or by democratic vote, and that something can be made to be science by conveniently applying the word "scientific" as a prefix.
3. Global Warming worshippers can't distinguish religion from science.
3a. They think that variations on the theme "I don't know the answer, let me refer you to my preacher because he explains it so much better than I do" are valid scientific responses, e.g. pointing to the opinions of others who s/he considers authority figures.
3b. Global Warming worshippers are therefore forever presuming that science works like a religion

So, now that I have laid it all out for you, there won't be any surprises. Let's start with you.

Do you believe in Global Warming?

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 acts as an insulator. Take an insulated bottle as an example. You put a warm liquid inside of it and it stays warm, even if the outside surface of the bottle is very cold.

Sorry, you need to first get out of the starting gate. Post here in this thread the falsifiable definition of Global Warming so that science can apply to it in the first place. At the moment you have Global Warming as completely undefined. Only a scientifically illiterate moron would believe he could discuss the science of something that is undefined.

Jeffvw wrote:
The insulating material in between goes from very hot to very cold.

You don't have a full grasp of blackbody science, do you? Your understanding is whatever Wikipedia says, right? Egregious errors and all ... and you don't what parts are erroneous. Ask me how I can tell.

Jeffvw wrote:. ITN does not understand this concept.

You should be worried more about yourself. You're about to get your bluff called.

Jeffvw wrote:
Reducing radiance is exactly how you increase temperature in something that is receiving a constant incoming radiance (1st law of thermodynamics).

Science has already answered this question. Radiance and Temperature move in the same direction. If the temperature increases then radiance increases. If you tell me that radiance has decreased then you have told me that the temperature has decreased.

You have been informed. To deny this now officially makes you a science denier.

Lest we forget, do you believe in Global Warming? Do you have a falsifiable definition for Global Warming?

I have already said that I don't think Global Warming is a problem. The science backs up some warming. It does not backup catastrophic warming. I'm on your side; I just don't agree that CO2 has zero impact.

The physics is solid that there is some impact. Look up statements from respected scientist that are considered deniers such as Judith Curry, Fred Singer, William Happer, Freeman Dysan, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize winning physicist), and many others. They all agree that CO2 has a small impact, they just don't think it is a big enough impact to be catastrophic. I can't find any real scientists that think CO2 has no impact. Give me a name of a real physicist that agrees with your position and I will look into it.
11-03-2019 02:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3836)
Jeffvw wrote:
I have already said that I don't think Global Warming is a problem.

Which means you believe in Global Warming, just that it's not a problem.

You believe in Global Warming, ergo you are a scientifically illiterate dupe who got suckered into a religion because it claimed to be "science".

You also opted to go on the offensive and claimed that I don't understand science ... so bring it on.

Jeffvw wrote:
The science backs up some warming.

Enlighten us as to what "science" you were duped into believing supports your undefined religion, and also tell us how easy it was to get you to fall for it.

Jeffvw wrote:
It does not backup catastrophic warming. I'm on your side; I just don't agree that CO2 has zero impact.

You are not on my side. I am an atheist. I will not obey the orders of others to regurgitate religious dogma. I'll stick with actual science, thank you.

You, on the other hand, have immersed yourself in a religion steeped in dishonesty. You were sold a bill of goods, namely that belief in the Global Warming faith will somehow make you a genius.


Jeffvw wrote:
The physics is solid that there is some impact.

You don't have to be so technically specific.

Jeffvw wrote:
Look up statements from respected scientist that are considered deniers such as Judith Curry, Fred Singer, William Happer, Freeman Dysan, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize winning physicist), and many others.

Did you just refer me to your clergy because they explain it so much better than you?

Jeffvw wrote:
They all agree that CO2 has a small impact, they just don't think it is a big enough impact to be catastrophic.

Did you just express that the science is somehow based on the consensus of their subjective opinions?


Jeffvw wrote:
I can't find any real scientists that think CO2 has no impact.

Completely irrelevant! What does the SCIENCE say about it? Nobody's opinion matters. Only the science matters.

I'll give you a clue: there is absolutely no parameter for atmospheric composition in the determination of the earth's average global temperature. I'll let you figure out what that means.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2019 05:43
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
IBdaMann wrote:I'll give you a clue: there is absolutely no parameter for atmospheric composition in the determination of the earth's average global temperature. I'll let you figure out what that means.

That you don't understand the science at all.

Take for example the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere and latent heat. It has a massive impact on earth's average global temperature.

Have you noticed any difference between a cloudy day and a dry sunny day in terms of temperature?
11-03-2019 12:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3836)
Jeffvw wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I'll give you a clue: there is absolutely no parameter for atmospheric composition in the determination of the earth's average global temperature. I'll let you figure out what that means.

That you don't understand the science at all.

You are now officially a science denier.

Enlighten us on which parameter is the "change in CO2" parameter.

Jeffvw wrote:
Take for example the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere and latent heat.

Take for example that you still have not defined Global Warming. You have not shown how water vapor is any more relevant than peanut butter. Science please. Wait, you are a science denier so I suppose you are trying to avoid it.

Jeffvw wrote:
It has a massive impact on earth's average global temperature.

I have the blackbody temperature equation right in front of me at the moment. Which parameter is the one you are talking about exactly?

Jeffvw wrote:
Have you noticed any difference between a cloudy day and a dry sunny day in terms of temperature?

I'm beginning to think that this stupid question is the last refuge of the brain-dead. Wait a minute. You weren't being hunted by Rick Grimes were you?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Parliament must declare a climate emergency – not ignore it:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
health emergency625-06-2019 21:36
Old Crow to declare climate change state of emergency029-04-2019 03:03
Nicola Sturgeon declares 'climate emergency' at SNP conference028-04-2019 22:50
Corbyn launches bid to declare a national climate emergency028-04-2019 15:40
Catherine McKenna: Premiers who fight carbon tax ignore climate change at their peril108-04-2019 22:37
▲ 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