Remember me
▼ Content

Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?



Page 3 of 5<12345>
13-07-2019 05:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
tmiddles wrote:Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply to a planet with an atmosphere. Read here:

Nope. I don't need to.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. Period. End of story.

Your church leaders have reamed some nasty religious dogma into you, e.g. that physics applies everywhere in the universe except to earth for some reason.

Earth to tmiddles: physics applies to earth as well.

You have not fulfilled your requirement to provide the science for your assertions. Your arguments remain dismissed.

tmiddles wrote: As for the definition of Climate I didn't even mention CO2. The definition is correct.

You didn't mention CO2 because you didn't mention any definition whatsoever. You have to have a definition before you can have a correct definition.

As such, your arguments remain null and void.

tmiddles wrote: Do you believe in Dinasours?

Is dina-sour a South American drink made with Colombian aguardiente and Peruvian pisco?

In what dinosaurs do you believe? Do they speak to you?

tmiddles wrote: Because science works.

You are scientifically illiterate. You don't have a clue what science is or how it differs from religion. In fact, you apparently misunderstand science to be a religion that insists it is science. That is one screwed up dogma.

Anyway, you have no business pretending to discuss science.

tmiddles wrote: The earths surface temperature, right here right now, is 81 Ferenheit.

You apparently aren't sharp enough to recognize a stupid contradiction when it is reamed into you.

The temperature of one point of a planet's surface is not a planetary temperature of the entire surface area of the planet. This is something you should have been taught long ago.

tmiddles wrote: If you ask a scientist what the temperature is "ON" venus they'll give you the surface temperature.

Incorrect. An actual scientist would speak in terms of the temperature of the "body" which would be the average planetary temperature ... not some temperature at an arbitrary point at the bottom of the atmosphere.

Ask me how someone can immediately tell that you aren't a scientist.

tmiddles wrote: I think you like to play games with words. Waste of everyone's time.

I can see that you find it difficult trying to defend your beliefs when you get confused by the mere mention of the subject matter.

tmiddles wrote: Saying you cannot measure to a usable margin of error is the same as saying you cannot usefully or effectively measure something.

You still have not provided the required valid dataset for your argument to have any merit. We're done until you do.

tmiddles wrote: So you actually think Venus is not hotter than Mercury??

When your complete failure becomes apparent, your next step is to misrepresent the positions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth. Your mistaken beliefs about what you "know" do not translate into any claims on my part.

tmiddles wrote: Even in a murder trial "REASONABLE" doubt is what matters.

... because in a court of law, people (humans) subjectively decide the outcome, just as in religions where humans decide what is to be considered "true."

That is not the case in science. "Reasonable" is not applicable. Nothing subjective is applicable. You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

tmiddles wrote: And trust me ...

Nope. I'm certainly not going to trust someone who underlines passages in his Wikipedia.

You are still on tap to provide the science supporting your positions.

You are still on tap to provide the valid datasets to support your conclusions.

Until then, you are dismissed.


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
13-07-2019 05:45
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
In a greenhouse heat isn't trapped. The barrier acts as a prism changing the potential of e = hf.
The barrier of a greenhouse merely slows light as it is resistance measured in ohms. As the potential of e = hf increases so does it's ability to pass through a prism.
Because of this we know that a barrier can regulate the heat that pass through it.


A green house let's light in and keeps the warmed air from leaving.Gardening explanation of greenhouses, the non political kind


Granted it's not identical but "greenhouse effect" is a reasonable title for the atmosphere holding heat to the earth a bit longer. Glass dissipates heat too, just as our atmosphere radiates it out into space. Also it should be noted that the "Greenhouse effect" has always been "in effect" and is a normal part of the physics of the solar system for a planet with an atmosphere.


So this makes sense to me: explaining how the atmosphere keeps earth warm

Reading that article and thinking about how CO2 is just 0.04% of the atmosphere, but just a little while ago it was only 0.03% is a bit unsettling.



With the greenhouse effect, one wavelength might easily pass through it while the one it creates is reflected. Think of a one way mirror. You can see them but they can't see you. Light passes through that greenhouse in only one direction.


No. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



And now you understand how generalized data such as the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is lacking.

There is no such thing as a Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The Boltzmann constant is not data.
James___ wrote:
There is nothing that states that the tropopause and the ozone layer cannot act like a barrier because they are a barrier.
They are not a barrier to thermal energy or infrared light.
James___ wrote:
I know, I know, barriers have to be solid like the sound barrier.
The sound barrier isn't a solid, liquid, or gas.
James___ wrote:
Kind of why there are sonic booms.
Not why there are sonic booms.
James___ wrote:
Isn't it interesting that a fast moving object in our atmosphere can compress sound waves?
Isn't it interesting that you can compress a gas?
James___ wrote:
What you fail to understand is that sometimes what is not said is more compelling. Have you ever read a report on how much denser our atmosphere becomes with more or less CO2 or oxygen? Stuff like that does not matter to you. It requires thought.

The barometers of the world disagree with you.



That's the good thing about philosophy. You can write a super long post and still say nothing.
13-07-2019 05:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Into the Night wrote:Okay. I'll go with holes are not solids.


Wait, I was mistaken. Holes apparently are solids ...



... but they are permeable to gases. I'm confused.


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
13-07-2019 06:24
tmiddles
★☆☆☆☆
(80)
On December 15, 1970 an unmanned Soviet spacecraft, Venera 7, became the first spacecraft to land on another planet. It measured the temperature of the atmosphere on Venus. In 1972, Venera 8 gathered atmospheric and surface data for 50 minutes after landing. On Oct. 22, 1975, Venera 9 landed on the surface of Venus.



First ever photograph from another planet.

" temperature of 485 °C (905 °F), and surface light levels comparable to those at Earth"

Given the constraints of reality we only got this "First hand" if a robot is a witness, measurement of the surface temperature at one location.
Edited on 13-07-2019 06:27
13-07-2019 06:35
tmiddles
★☆☆☆☆
(80)
IBdaMann wrote:You are still on tap to provide the science supporting your positions.


So it's not about me or you but figuring out the true facts as accurately as possible. No I'm not a scientist (clearly no one on this forum even knows one).

How do we go about figuring things out and when is a doubt reasonable or not?

Non-scientists like you and me need to get that right just as much as real scientists.

Is this about right for your position?:
Global Warming is not an explanation for planetary temperature but I don't have one?

We KNOW, with a capital K, that Venus is super duper hot. We KNOW that the atmosphere has 97% carbon dioxide

Look! Dude! We've been there:



Do you think in 1970 the conspiracy had already begun and the Soviets falsified data?
13-07-2019 13:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
tmiddles wrote: So it's not about me or you but figuring out the true facts as accurately as possible.

It's about you finally defining "Climate."
It's about you providing science and math for your claims instead of avoiding them.
It's about you finally providing the valid datasets that support your conclusions.

Let's not forget what this is about.

tmiddles wrote:No I'm not a scientist (clearly no one on this forum even knows one).

Why are you declaring me to not be a scientist? The only thing that is clear is that you cannot recognize a scientist. You are scientifically illiterate. You don't even know what science is. You should be taking notes on everything I tell you but you feel compelled to avoid science, not to embrace it.

Also, this is an anonymous board. It is irrelevant who or what anyone "is." All ideas must stand on their own.


tmiddles wrote:How do we go about figuring things out and when is a doubt reasonable or not?

We start with what science says on the matter.

Go ahead.

tmiddles wrote:We KNOW, with a capital K, that Venus is super duper hot.

We KNOW that the atmosphere has 97% carbon dioxide

... this is where you pull out science and make a point.

I recommend you read up on the basics at Politiplex.


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
13-07-2019 19:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law by attempting to eliminate the emissivity term from the equation. [/b]


Yes I was inaccurate in how I put it.

No, you were dead wrong in how you put it. You tried to change the equation to something else.
tmiddles wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law starts with a black body and you have to adjust it from there. You are wrong to assume it's the only thing at play because of course we know that it fails to explain the date if you don't use the greenhouse effect in the equation.

Denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. This time you are trying to add a 'greenhouse effect' term to the equation. You don't get to change the equation!
tmiddles wrote:
Disagree? Why is Venus so hot then?

You already asked this question and it has already been answered. Argument by repetition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You defined 'climate' as 'weather'. To you they are synonyms???


To the English language they are synonyms:
Thesaurus

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! A thesaurus doesn't define words, dumbass! Climate and weather are NOT the same thing! Weather and temperature are not the same thing either!

You are now reducing the debate, like so many liberals before you, into one of attempting to redefine words. You are quickly losing the ability to speak English. You have studied Liberal too well.
tmiddles wrote:
We're all trying to figure things out. I don't have any more of a burden of proof than you do.
Yes you do. YOU are the one trying to claim this thing called 'global warming' or 'climate change'. YOU are the one trying to say the temperature of the Earth is increasing. YOU are the one trying to assign all this to some Magick Holy Gas.

I am not trying to claim anything but existing theories of science, which I've given, and mathematics. The burden of proof is squarely on YOU.

* YOU have to define 'global warming' and/or 'climate change'. I don't have to define anything.
* YOU are the one that has to falsify the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law to get 'greenhouse effect' to work.
* YOU are the one that has to produce correctly built summaries of temperature increasing on Earth.
* YOU are the one that has to produce all this AND the equations that will result in all the disasters you list.

I have to do nothing. I will stay with the existing theories of science and the existing mathematics.

tmiddles wrote:
Sitting back and saying we can't know anything and it's not certain is just a cop out.

I have shown theories of science, which you have tried to deny and change. I have shown you the rules of statistical mathematics, which you deny and ignore. To say these are a cop-out is itself a cop-out. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
And Into the Night:
I wasn't making an equivalency between global warming and an algae bloom.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
Just making the point that a good thing can cause a big problem.

Extreme argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2019 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Okay. I'll go with holes are not solids.


Wait, I was mistaken. Holes apparently are solids ...



... but they are permeable to gases. I'm confused.


You ate the wrong snack, dude. Didn't you know that eating holes messes with your metabolism?



The Parrot Killer
13-07-2019 19:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You are still on tap to provide the science supporting your positions.


So it's not about me or you but figuring out the true facts as accurately as possible. No I'm not a scientist (clearly no one on this forum even knows one).

I am a scientist. So is IBdaMann. I am also an engineer. I design and manufacture instrumentation for industrial, medical, and aerospace uses. I design, build, and fly small aircraft as a hobby. I am also a certified aircraft mechanic. I hold a commercial FCC radiotelegraph operators license with radar endorsement and an advanced amateur radio license.

That said, what I am and what my certifications are do not mean a damn thing on a blind forum. The theories of science speak for themselves. You are just denying them. The mathematics speaks for itself. You are just denying it. My arguments do not come from my career, my certifications, or my licenses. They come from existing theories of science, which you are constantly trying to deny and change.

I list my business and certifications here to satisfy your curiosity. Nothing more.'

tmiddles wrote:
How do we go about figuring things out and when is a doubt reasonable or not?

Science is not about removing doubt or figuring things out. Science is about explaining something, formalizing that into mathematics (or logic), and using that to predict.

Science is not a Universal Truth. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

If you want Truth, go join a religion. Oh, wait, you already did. The Church of Global Warming. Too bad your Truth is based on an undefined word and denying science and mathematics.

tmiddles wrote:
Non-scientists like you and me need to get that right just as much as real scientists.

True Scotsman fallacy. I am a real scientist. So is IBdaMann. It doesn't take a real scientist to understand and use these theories.
tmiddles wrote:
Is this about right for your position?:
Global Warming is not an explanation for planetary temperature but I don't have one?

No. I don't use undefined words. Define 'global warming'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of a planet. You don't have enough thermometers.
tmiddles wrote:
We KNOW, with a capital K, that Venus is super duper hot. We KNOW that the atmosphere has 97% carbon dioxide

So? Carbon dioxide is a heavy gas (one of the reasons the surface pressure on Venus is so high), and is an excellent conductor of thermal energy (one of the reasons the temperatures on Venus vary so little). It has absolutely NO capability to warm a planet. Not even Venus.
tmiddles wrote:
Look! Dude! We've been there:

Yup. An amazing achievment. Venus is most unfriendly to our spacecraft. The U.S. would have been there first, but our spacecraft suffered a really stupid software bug that sent it into the Sun instead.

Got some really great pictures of the Sun, though...as it got closer...and closer...pfffft!

Oh well, at least it wasn't manned.

tmiddles wrote:
Do you think in 1970 the conspiracy had already begun and the Soviets falsified data?

What data? A single thermometer??? Do you seriously believe you can measure the temperature of an entire planet with a single thermometer??


The Parrot Killer
13-07-2019 20:26
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You are still on tap to provide the science supporting your positions.


So it's not about me or you but figuring out the true facts as accurately as possible. No I'm not a scientist (clearly no one on this forum even knows one).

How do we go about figuring things out and when is a doubt reasonable or not?

Non-scientists like you and me need to get that right just as much as real scientists.

Is this about right for your position?:
Global Warming is not an explanation for planetary temperature but I don't have one?

We KNOW, with a capital K, that Venus is super duper hot. We KNOW that the atmosphere has 97% carbon dioxide

Look! Dude! We've been there:



Do you think in 1970 the conspiracy had already begun and the Soviets falsified data?



Are you aware that both the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss and ozone depletion parallel global warming while CO2 levels do not? CO2 levels rose from 1946 to 1978 with only about a 0.1º C. rise in temperature while CO2 levels rose by about 20 ppm. Before that, from 1910 to 1945 the temperature rose by about 0.6º C. while CO2 levels rose about 10 ppm. Yet they say that global warming started in 1950 when CO2 levels started having a significant rise.
I think this is why scientists won't demonstrate how the density/pressure of our atmosphere changes when it's composition changes. This then can be used to demonstrate a definitive cause/effect with atmospheric gasses relative to atmospheric temperatures.
Kind of why I'm more interested in the barrier and it's health. A small increase in solar radiation is heat. I haven't been able to find any information on the w/m^2 of extra energy being allowed into our atmosphere.
This is from 2001;
surface observations have shown that levels of UVB reaching southern Canada have strengthened by 7% in the past 20 years.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/ozone-layer

And that extra 7% which does not include the 30 years before it can be measured in w/m^2. That radiation can be absorbed by the ground and the oceans unless it is refracted/reflected which then it will be a different wavelength. And if you consider feedback mechanisms, then that small amount of heat could increase. You know, why is the Greenland Sea abyss warming so quickly? Are there deep faults there caused by tectonic plated lifting due to glacial melt? That's what I think is actually happening.
13-07-2019 23:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
James__, this latest post of yours is a desperate cry for help. See a counselor, now.

James___ wrote:I think this is why scientists won't demonstrate how the density/pressure of our atmosphere changes when it's composition changes.

Atmospheric density/pressure is determined by the sheer quantity/mass of the atmosphere, not of its composition.

James___ wrote:Kind of why I'm more interested in the barrier and it's health. [quote]

[quote]James___ wrote:A small increase in solar radiation is heat.

So now you want to create another possible meaning for "heat." Weren't there enough already?

James___ wrote: I haven't been able to find any information on the w/m^2 of extra energy being allowed into our atmosphere.

Who does the "allowing" of solar energy into our atmosphere?

It's Climate, right? [hint: I read it in The Manual.

James___ wrote: surface observations have shown that levels of UVB reaching southern Canada have strengthened by 7% in the past 20 years.

I think more Canadians are ordering it online.

James___ wrote: And if you consider feedback mechanisms, then that small amount of heat could increase.

Energy is created via feedback mechanisms?

James___ wrote: You know, why is the Greenland Sea abyss warming so quickly?

I'm not aware of any thermometers in the Greenland Sea Abyss.

James___ wrote:Are there deep faults there caused by tectonic plated lifting due to glacial melt? That's what I think is actually happening.

Can there possibly be deep faults there for normal geological reasons?


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
13-07-2019 23:44
tmiddles
★☆☆☆☆
(80)
Putting my terminology and understanding in context:

So the simple case for the original "Green House effect. "

1827 Fourier indicated the similarity between what happens under the glass of a greenhouse and how heat is absorbed in the atmosphere. This led to the term "greenhouse effect."
...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. (source)

There are currently no scientists or researchers that question this happens on any planet with an atmosphere. A planet with an atmosphere is kept warmer by it. No atmosphere = colder planet. Everyone knows first hand air can be hot.

The most dramatic example of the (original) greenhouse effect is Venus. Venus is much hotter than it would be without an atmosphere. Earth probes have directly measured the surface temperature and gas composition of Venus multiple times at multiple locations. The temperature and gas composition is not speculation but a fact. We can make accurate comparisons with Earth.

So what now? Does this mean global warming as currently taught is gospel? Of course not. It only means hot air is real. That's quite literally the only thing that the above establishes without a doubt.

HOT AIR IS REAL

If you question that someone should fart on you.

Now "Greenhouse Effect" is used loosely and today usually also means to say not just what Forier indicated but also that CO2 specifically is heated by sunlight directly. A real scientist in the this area, Harry Dale Huffman, (posts)has a solid argument here against the newer meaning of "Greenhouse Effect":
there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

My understanding of it is that you have to compare the same atmospheric pressures on Venus and Earth, which means comparing the surface of earth with an altitude above the surface of Venus, which has a much denser atmosphere with all that CO2. If you do that the temperature is what you would expect to find based on the distance from the sun.

That of course a heavier blanket is warmer, but CO2 doesn't seem to be influencing the temperature dramatically. He is of course not refuting the original "Greenhouse Effect" as described by Fourier, which is obvious to anyone, but instead the newer meaning of "Greenhouse Effect" as commonly used today to describe the CO2 factor in planetary temperature.

No one in the global warming camp thinks we will generate so much CO2 that it will cause the density of our atmosphere to change significantly. Huffman makes a solid argument that it's simply the weight of the atmosphere that makes it a "warmer blanket" (my words).

Disagree?
Edited on 14-07-2019 00:04
14-07-2019 00:12
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(815)
Only half the planet is facing the sun at any point in time. on side warms, one side cools. There is no barrier to prevent gasses from sharing their thermal energy, with cooler gasses. Also, heat always rises. Now, if your greenhouse gasses prevent heat from rising, wouldn't they also be blocking that same energy from reaching the surface? You can't create or destroy energy, only transform it. Hot air rises, until it sheds the thermal energy, either to cooler surfaces (other molecules), or back out into space.

You are aware that you can wrap something cold in a blanket, it will stay cold for a little while longer? Blankets don't warm anything, they just don't transfer thermal energy as well as the air around us.

I remember Fourier Transforms from electronic and spectrum analyzers. Don't remember any global warming crap associated with it. Maybe it's a different dude.
14-07-2019 00:23
tmiddles
★☆☆☆☆
(80)
HarveyH55 wrote:You can't create or destroy energy, only transform it. ..any global warming crap


A distinction needs to be made between the blanket effect of an atmosphere and the separate "global warming crap" theory (that CO2 is struck by sunlight and it's presence is a significant factor in the temperature).

A planet gets hot and the heat is shared with it's atmosphere which can retain the heat.

Do you disagree with that?
14-07-2019 00:36
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
tmiddles wrote:
Putting my terminology and understanding in context:

So the simple case for the original "Green House effect. "

1827 Fourier indicated the similarity between what happens under the glass of a greenhouse and how heat is absorbed in the atmosphere. This led to the term "greenhouse effect."
...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. (source)

There are currently no scientists or researchers that question this happens on any planet with an atmosphere. A planet with an atmosphere is kept warmer by it. No atmosphere = colder planet. Everyone knows first hand air can be hot.

The most dramatic example of the (original) greenhouse effect is Venus. Venus is much hotter than it would be without an atmosphere. Earth probes have directly measured the surface temperature and gas composition of Venus multiple times at multiple locations. The temperature and gas composition is not speculation but a fact. We can make accurate comparisons with Earth.

So what now? Does this mean global warming as currently taught is gospel? Of course not. It only means hot air is real. That's quite literally the only thing that the above establishes without a doubt.

HOT AIR IS REAL

If you question that someone should fart on you.

Now "Greenhouse Effect" is used loosely and today usually also means to say not just what Forier indicated but also that CO2 specifically is heated by sunlight directly. A real scientist in the this area, Harry Dale Huffman, (posts)has a solid argument here against the newer meaning of "Greenhouse Effect":
there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

My understanding of it is that you have to compare the same atmospheric pressures on Venus and Earth, which means comparing the surface of earth with an altitude above the surface of Venus, which has a much denser atmosphere with all that CO2. If you do that the temperature is what you would expect to find based on the distance from the sun.

That of course a heavier blanket is warmer, but CO2 doesn't seem to be influencing the temperature dramatically. He is of course not refuting the original "Greenhouse Effect" as described by Fourier, which is obvious to anyone, but instead the newer meaning of "Greenhouse Effect" as commonly used today to describe the CO2 factor in planetary temperature.

No one in the global warming camp thinks we will generate so much CO2 that it will cause the density of our atmosphere to change significantly. Huffman makes a solid argument that it's simply the weight of the atmosphere that makes it a "warmer blanket" (my words).

Disagree?



At the same time it's possible that less O2 in our atmosphere is allowing less heat to be radiated out into space.
At the same time ozone reflects a lot of UV radiation which for some reason isn't considered a source of heat. Since the stratosphere has cooled relative to atmospheric warming, no one has yet to show that isn't caused by a depleted ozone layer.
Since it's summer, put one thermometer in your car and one somewhere in the sun. Let some air flow through your car. Inside of it, it will get warmer while it has the same gasses as what's outside of your car. Barriers can have that effect. It is why a greenhouse warms.
Could be that Fourier got the greenhouse part right. It's the barrier that matters. Put a thermal blanket on a greenhouse and 80% of solar radiation will be reflected helping to keep it cool. That's something that the ozone layer might help with.
I don't think much research has been done to determine if at increased levels if ozone blocks more than UV radiation.
14-07-2019 00:56
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
This https://ag.tennessee.edu/solar/Pages/What%20Is%20Solar%20Energy/Sunlight.aspx states that UV radiation is about 10% of the solar radiation that we receive from the Sun. The ozone layer blocks 97 - 99% of it.
So of the 1327 w/m^2, that means that a depleted ozone layer can increase the heat in our atmosphere by 4 w/m^2 or more. If that's even a 2° C. increase in potential, that is sufficient to allow for more glacial melt than normal.

This is very interesting. And other scientists say that global warming is still happening. What scientists need to find out is if more CO2 and less O2 has any appreciable effect on our atmosphere's ability to retain heat or the density of our atmosphere. This hasn't been done which is why there's a debate.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wait-the-ozone-layer-is-still-declining1/

According to Canada, the ozone layer in mid-latitudes is depleted about 4 - 6% per decade.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/edu/power-pouvoir/ch5/casestudy-edudedecas/5214797-eng.htm
Edited on 14-07-2019 01:52
14-07-2019 02:22
tmiddles
★☆☆☆☆
(80)
James___ wrote:
What scientists need to find out is if more CO2 and less O2 has any appreciable effect on our atmosphere's ability to retain heat or the density of our atmosphere.


It's O3 and looks like it doesn't:
Nasa on O3 not causing warming

Also the theory of modern "Global Warming Greenhouse Effect" is not that the gases in our atmosphere block light or heat. It's simply first off that, as everyone sane agrees, the atmosphere can absorb thermal energy, and the theoretical part is that CO2 specifically can be heated up directly by sun light.

Here it seems to claim that 99% of the atmosphere does not absorb either sunlight or infrared radiation as the earth releases its heat:
global warming crap
That only CO2 and water vapor do.

Again this is far beyond simply believing an atmosphere acts like a blanket.
Edited on 14-07-2019 02:45
14-07-2019 02:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
tmiddles wrote:Disagree?

Let's review your post:

1) Completely devoid of any science
2) Name dropping.
3) Violations of science ... and claiming that it's the argument of a famous dead mathematician.

Your entire post is absurd and is summarily dismissed.

Get some science that supports your assertions.

Get valid datasets that support your conclusions.

Don't think you're going to fool me by pointing to one of your canonized saints and folklore legends, claiming that your WACKY opinions were his opinions and that I therefore need to adopt your faith.

I gave you a link to the science you deny. The ball is in your court.


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
14-07-2019 03:50
tmiddles
★☆☆☆☆
(80)
IBdaMann wrote:
[your post:..Completely devoid of any science


What link?

So you still don't think an atmosphere or lack there off can change the surface temperature on a planet?

If you don't find one bit of research to back that up.

I already gave you numbers and 100% of the scientific community, without exception, agrees on that.
Edited on 14-07-2019 03:53
14-07-2019 04:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
HarveyH55 wrote:Also, heat always rises.

If heat always rises then you should be able to make a frying pan searing hot over open flame and then set the pan on top of your head with no threat of being burned.

You absolutely need to define what you mean by "heat".

If "heat" is thermal radiation then heat travels in all directions equally.
If "heat" is conduction then heat travels in all directions equally.

Bouyancy from temperature increase causes an "upward" movement.

Increasing the temperature of a fluid causes its pressure to increase which causes it to expand until its pressure matches the lower pressure of the surrounding cooler fluid. The expansion increases the warmer fluid's bouyancy, causing it to rise relatively within the cooler fluid.


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
14-07-2019 04:15
tmiddles
★☆☆☆☆
(80)
.
Edited on 14-07-2019 04:16
14-07-2019 04:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
tmiddles wrote:What link?

If you missed it before, THIS LINK will provide you all the science references you will need to navigate your issue.

tmiddles wrote:So you still don't think an atmosphere or lack there off can change the surface temperature on a planet?

You should stop trying to draw attention away from your failure to rationalize your religious beliefs by pretending that I somehow am making some ridiculous claims that I am not making.

tmiddles wrote: If you don't find one bit of research to back that up.

You STILL have not provided any science whatsoever to back up your religious dogma.

Oh, and no scientists believe in violations of physics. Only Climate Scientists preach violations of physics as being true ... while they are reaming them into those they are manipulating.


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
14-07-2019 04:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
tmiddles wrote:Again this is far beyond simply believing an atmosphere acts like a blanket.

What prevents you from formally defining "Greenhouse Effect"? Inherent dishonesty? What?


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
14-07-2019 04:56
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
What scientists need to find out is if more CO2 and less O2 has any appreciable effect on our atmosphere's ability to retain heat or the density of our atmosphere.


It's O3 and looks like it doesn't:
Nasa on O3 not causing warming

Also the theory of modern "Global Warming Greenhouse Effect" is not that the gases in our atmosphere block light or heat. It's simply first off that, as everyone sane agrees, the atmosphere can absorb thermal energy, and the theoretical part is that CO2 specifically can be heated up directly by sun light.

Here it seems to claim that 99% of the atmosphere does not absorb either sunlight or infrared radiation as the earth releases its heat:
global warming crap
That only CO2 and water vapor do.

Again this is far beyond simply believing an atmosphere acts like a blanket.



tmiddles, looking from 1880 to present, CO2 levels do not parallel warming or cooling. NASA also said that the ozone layer is recovering when it isn't. It's actually still declining.
14-07-2019 05:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
James___ wrote:NASA also said that the ozone layer is recovering when it isn't. It's actually still declining.

Aren't you both correct?

Doesn't the ozone replenish and then recede ... on a daily basis?


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
14-07-2019 06:54
tmiddles
★☆☆☆☆
(80)
IBdaMann wrote:
What prevents you from formally defining "Greenhouse Effect"?


So I saw your link is to your own posts, the first to a glossary of some kind. Thanks but "peer reviewed" is a good way to go in science. Find some backup.

So the definition of things is fluid in every language. "Greenhouse effect" has three meanings I can see:
What makes an actual greenhouse warm
Fourier's original discovery that having gas around a planet makes it warmer(than without gas)
The modern "add on" of believing that CO2, water vapor and other gases are able to absorb thermal energy from infra red radiation from the earth and from sun light to a degree significant enough to really influence the temperature.

James___ wrote:
tmiddles, looking from 1880 to present, CO2 levels do not parallel warming or cooling.


No they don't. I'm in the "global warming is real but insignificant camp". There just isn't enough CO2 to make a big enough difference. If there was we would see the correlation as you pointed out.

It can seem like global warming is very real when some go to the mat and deny everything. Global warming deniers that deny basic facts give more credibility to the political movement than anyone else.

Look CO2 does get hot relative to other gases:
Hotter Co2

You can't doubt the scientific use of Alka Seltzer

but still I don't see results in our atmosphere to worry about. Oddly enough the crazy spike in CO2 is a bit of a demonstration of it's insignificance as we don't see crazy shit happening.
Edited on 14-07-2019 06:57
14-07-2019 12:06
tmiddles
★☆☆☆☆
(80)
IBdaMann wrote:
If you missed it before, THIS LINK will provide you all the science references you will need to navigate your issue.


So I tried. For: "Venus", "Huffman", "Fourier", "grey body",
No threads were found.

It would seem to be a glossary.

Pointing out where wikipedia gets it wrong with well supported arguments would be useful work.

I wish you'd clarify your argument here. People need perspective on these issues so non-scientists like us can serve a valuable role in figuring out how to clarify an issue for other regular folks.
Edited on 14-07-2019 12:49
14-07-2019 15:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
tmiddles wrote:So I tried. For: "Venus", "Huffman", "Fourier", "grey body",
No threads were found.

None of those terms are science. Several times we have focused on your egregious scientific illiteracy and I really think you should address it.

tmiddles wrote:It would seem to be a glossary.

Add to the list that you don't know what a glossary is.

tmiddles wrote:Pointing out where wikipedia gets it wrong with well supported arguments would be useful work.

No, it would be pointless; there are far too many errors. Wikipedia is a non-authoritative source written by misinformed individuals who propagate their errors in the one forum where they are guaranteed to be able to do so. This is why Wikipedia is summarily dismissed as a reference.

In your case it it wouldn't even be possible for you to point out the errors because you cannot recognize errors when you see them. I might as well ask a blind man in a park to point out litter.

tmiddles wrote:I wish you'd clarify your argument here.

I can't be any clearer. I repeat my position but you seem to ignore me. My position is that:

1. You claim "Greenhouse Effect."
2. You claim a global "Climate"
3. You have made WACKY claims about both
4. You have formally defined neither
5. You have provided zero science for your assertions
6. You have provided no valid datasets for your conclusions
7. You have demonstrated extreme scientific illiteracy and mathematical incompetence
*Ergo: Your assertions are summarily dismissed

This is where we stand. You have your WACKY religious beliefs and I don't share them. I'll stick with science, thank you very much.

tmiddles wrote: People need perspective on these issues so non-scientists like us can serve a valuable role in figuring out how to clarify an issue for other regular folks.

For you to have context on this issue, you need to understand that you are simply being manipulated for political purposes. You have been indoctrinated into a religion that targets the scientifically illiterate because its dogma requires belief in violations of physics. The cherry on the sundae is that the WACKY religious dogma requires absolute belief that the religion is not a religion, but that it is "settled science." Scientifically Illiterate people who are desperate to appear smart eat this crap up like a starving dog being fed beef.


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
14-07-2019 15:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
tmiddles wrote: Thanks but "peer reviewed" is a good way to go in science. Find some backup.

Only the scientifically illiterate speak as you do.

You have officially become a science denier.

tmiddles wrote: "Greenhouse effect" has three meanings I can see:

... but it can only have one if we are to discuss it.

Ergo, you define it, formally and unambiguously.

tmiddles wrote: Global warming deniers that deny basic facts give more credibility to the political movement than anyone else.

Scientifically Illiterate morons who promote a WACKY religion based on hatred and intolerance get Donald Trump elected.

tmiddles wrote:Look CO2 does get hot relative to other gases:
Hotter Co2

Your scientific illiteracy makes you vulnerable to being fooled by that particular parlor trick. Your resulting gullibility makes you believe whatever erroneous conclusions you are ordered to believe.

tmiddles wrote:You can't doubt the scientific use of Alka Seltzer

OK, I'll bite.

I officially doubt that any of uses of Alka-Seltzer are scientific, and that all are simply practical applications.

Prove me wrong.

tmiddles wrote: Oddly enough the crazy spike in CO2 is a bit of a demonstration of it's insignificance as we don't see crazy shit happening.

Let me guess, you don't have any valid datasets for any of this either, do 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
14-07-2019 16:01
James___
★★★★☆
(1372)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What prevents you from formally defining "Greenhouse Effect"?


So I saw your link is to your own posts, the first to a glossary of some kind. Thanks but "peer reviewed" is a good way to go in science. Find some backup.

So the definition of things is fluid in every language. "Greenhouse effect" has three meanings I can see:
What makes an actual greenhouse warm
Fourier's original discovery that having gas around a planet makes it warmer(than without gas)
The modern "add on" of believing that CO2, water vapor and other gases are able to absorb thermal energy from infra red radiation from the earth and from sun light to a degree significant enough to really influence the temperature.

James___ wrote:
tmiddles, looking from 1880 to present, CO2 levels do not parallel warming or cooling.


No they don't. I'm in the "global warming is real but insignificant camp". There just isn't enough CO2 to make a big enough difference. If there was we would see the correlation as you pointed out.

It can seem like global warming is very real when some go to the mat and deny everything. Global warming deniers that deny basic facts give more credibility to the political movement than anyone else.

Look CO2 does get hot relative to other gases:
Hotter Co2

You can't doubt the scientific use of Alka Seltzer

but still I don't see results in our atmosphere to worry about. Oddly enough the crazy spike in CO2 is a bit of a demonstration of it's insignificance as we don't see crazy shit happening.



The pressure difference in the bottles could account for the difference in temperature. If he would've pressurized both bottles then his results would be more interesting.
The guys in here for the most part have bought into the argument that everything is CO2 or nothing. Since we don't understand natural climate variation we can't be sure how much we're impacting global warming.
With that said, it would be interesting for me to know how more CO2 and less O2 and stratospheric ozone effects everything. After some of what I read about the ozone layer still being depleted I almost wonder if less heat is being radiated into the tropopause.
This could be noticed as fewer molecules needed for stratospheric ozone to occur rising into the tropopause. Basically those molecules could remove heat from our atmosphere. That would be evidence that by changing the balance of CO2 and O2 in our atmosphere that heat is being trapped. But would that account for global warming? It might not. One reason why there is less O2 and more CO2 is the denuding of our planet. Green space is less than what it used to be.
14-07-2019 19:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
James___ wrote: The guys in here for the most part have bought into the argument that everything is CO2 or nothing.

Who said that? I'd like to respond to whomever made that assertion.


James___ wrote: Since we don't understand natural climate variation we can't be sure how much we're impacting global warming.


We understand it completely.

From The MANUAL:


Natural Variation: noun
The extent of the Greenhouse Effect miracle that is caused by Climate and is considered "a force of good."

Climate Sensitivity or Climate Variation: noun
The extent of the Greenhouse Effect miracle that is caused by Global Warming and is imposed on Climate. This is considered "a force of evil."

James___ wrote:With that said, it would be interesting for me to know how more CO2 and less O2 and stratospheric ozone effects everything.

Science tells us that it has zero effect on the planet's average temperature.

James___ wrote: After some of what I read about the ozone layer still being depleted ...

I bet you read it on the internet where it has to be true.

James___ wrote: I almost wonder if less heat is being radiated into the tropopause.

Science has already answered this question. You are wondering if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being violated.

No. It isn't.

James___ wrote: That would be evidence that by changing the balance of CO2 and O2 in our atmosphere that heat is being trapped.


From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

In your case James__, you include "radiance" as well.


James___ wrote:But would that account for global warming?

Just as it would account for the miracle of the loaves.


James___ wrote:It might not. One reason why there is less O2 and more CO2 is the denuding of our planet. Green space is less than what it used to be.


From The MANUAL:

Climate Driver: noun
In Climate Science, anything that forces Climate's hand or that puts Her at a disadvantage against Global Warming. The normally cited "drivers" are CO2, methane, water vapor and greenhouse gas, as well as generally nice things and human existence.

Climate Justice: noun
Climate Justice is the Global Warming penal code, akin to "Shariah Law" that holds as its core tenet that CO2, methane, water vapor and greenhouse gas are "vile," much in the same way fundamentalist Muslims view pork, and thus consider them to be both pollution and poison, to be outlawed and forthwith disposed/eliminated. This view is considered an imperative to prevent Climate from falling over the tipping point in Her war against Global Warming.

Climate Ground Zero: proper noun
In the Global Warming mythology, the term for wherever Climate is directly facing off with Global Warming. Global Warming believers make pilgrimages to such locations to see the fighting in action and to cheer on Climate, or if the battle has ended, to view the effects of the War.


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
14-07-2019 21:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You are still on tap to provide the science supporting your positions.


So it's not about me or you but figuring out the true facts as accurately as possible. No I'm not a scientist (clearly no one on this forum even knows one).

How do we go about figuring things out and when is a doubt reasonable or not?

Non-scientists like you and me need to get that right just as much as real scientists.

Is this about right for your position?:
Global Warming is not an explanation for planetary temperature but I don't have one?

We KNOW, with a capital K, that Venus is super duper hot. We KNOW that the atmosphere has 97% carbon dioxide

Look! Dude! We've been there:



Do you think in 1970 the conspiracy had already begun and the Soviets falsified data?



Are you aware that both the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss and ozone depletion parallel global warming while CO2 levels do not? CO2 levels rose from 1946 to 1978 with only about a 0.1º C. rise in temperature while CO2 levels rose by about 20 ppm. Before that, from 1910 to 1945 the temperature rose by about 0.6º C. while CO2 levels rose about 10 ppm. Yet they say that global warming started in 1950 when CO2 levels started having a significant rise.
I think this is why scientists won't demonstrate how the density/pressure of our atmosphere changes when it's composition changes. This then can be used to demonstrate a definitive cause/effect with atmospheric gasses relative to atmospheric temperatures.
Kind of why I'm more interested in the barrier and it's health. A small increase in solar radiation is heat. I haven't been able to find any information on the w/m^2 of extra energy being allowed into our atmosphere.
This is from 2001;
surface observations have shown that levels of UVB reaching southern Canada have strengthened by 7% in the past 20 years.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/ozone-layer

And that extra 7% which does not include the 30 years before it can be measured in w/m^2. That radiation can be absorbed by the ground and the oceans unless it is refracted/reflected which then it will be a different wavelength. And if you consider feedback mechanisms, then that small amount of heat could increase. You know, why is the Greenland Sea abyss warming so quickly? Are there deep faults there caused by tectonic plated lifting due to glacial melt? That's what I think is actually happening.


The ozone is not been depleted, James. It never was being depleted.


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2019 21:28
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(815)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You can't create or destroy energy, only transform it. ..any global warming crap


A distinction needs to be made between the blanket effect of an atmosphere and the separate "global warming crap" theory (that CO2 is struck by sunlight and it's presence is a significant factor in the temperature).

A planet gets hot and the heat is shared with it's atmosphere which can retain the heat.

Do you disagree with that?


No, I don't agree. CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is quite large, around 260 billion cubic miles. In order for CO2 to have any significant effect, it would have to create energy. I'm not aware of special properties, or super-powers, that CO2 might posses, in order to accomplish global warming.

CO2 is being demonized, only because it's the only byproduct of industry, that can't really be collected or contained. Since it's cast as being an evil planet killer, and can't be contained, the only option is to shut down the industrial sources. You have to understand, that 'green' energy is a poor joke, nothing comes close to fossil fuels, cost or energy density. None of the alternatives are as portable, easy to implement anywhere. Solar not so good in the northwest, cloudy much of the time. Wind power in Florida, either too little, or way too much. Biofuels need a lot of farm land, which is better used for food.

Atmosphere isn't a solid mass of molecules, lot of empty space there. Molecules can only deal with a very small amount of energy. Noting reflects or radiates in one direction only. If there was a blanket thrown over the planet, it would let the energy in, to the same degree you claim it hold it in. Works both ways. You do you see how the IPCC only presents one side of pretty much everything. And pretty much every time someone points out a flaw, they drag out a long list of studies and papers, most have little to do with anything, some you have to pay to read, to find out it doesn't really apply. Basically, you waste a lot of time spinning in circles, while they continue to sell a bad product.
14-07-2019 21:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
tmiddles wrote:
Putting my terminology and understanding in context:

So the simple case for the original "Green House effect. "

1827 Fourier indicated the similarity between what happens under the glass of a greenhouse and how heat is absorbed in the atmosphere. This led to the term "greenhouse effect."
...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. (source)

You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You cannot trap light.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot decrease entropy in any system. By attempting to 'trap' thermal energy or light, you are attempting to do just that, ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* You cannot decrease the radiance of Earth and increase its energy at the same time. By attempting to trap infrared light from leaving Earth, you are doing just exactly that, violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* Blankets do not create energy of any kind. They do not trap light. They do not trap thermal energy. They do not trap heat. They reduce heat. Putting a blanket of any kind on a rock will NOT make the rock warmer.

tmiddles wrote:
There are currently no scientists or researchers that question this happens on any planet with an atmosphere. A planet with an atmosphere is kept warmer by it. No atmosphere = colder planet.

Lie. Argument of ignorance fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (science<->scientists). An atmosphere does not warm a planet. An atmosphere is part of a planet. Now you are denying Kirchoff's law.
tmiddles wrote:
Everyone knows first hand air can be hot.

So? It can also be cold. It can also be 'wet' (humid) or 'dry' (arid).
tmiddles wrote:
The most dramatic example of the (original) greenhouse effect is Venus.

Nope. Venus is not hot because of CO2. It is hot because it absorbs infrared light from the Sun better. The surface is hot because of the ideal gas law.
tmiddles wrote:
Venus is much hotter than it would be without an atmosphere.

Nope. Same temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
Earth probes have directly measured the surface temperature and gas composition of Venus multiple times at multiple locations. The temperature and gas composition is not speculation but a fact.

You are comparing two different temperatures again as if they were the same. Divisional error fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
We can make accurate comparisons with Earth.

No, you can't. Earth's emissivity is different, and we have less of an atmosphere as Venus. We also have liquid oceans.
tmiddles wrote:
So what now? Does this mean global warming as currently taught is gospel?

Yes. It's taught as gospel. I call it the Church of Global Warming.
tmiddles wrote:
Of course not.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
It only means hot air is real. That's quite literally the only thing that the above establishes without a doubt.
HOT AIR IS REAL

Hot air is not global warming.
tmiddles wrote:
If you question that someone should fart on you.

YALIF.
tmiddles wrote:
Now "Greenhouse Effect" is used loosely and today usually also means to say not just what Forier indicated but also that CO2 specifically is heated by sunlight directly. A real scientist in the this area, Harry Dale Huffman, (posts)has a solid argument here against the newer meaning of "Greenhouse Effect":
there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

There is no 'newer' or 'older' version of the 'greenhouse' effect. The 'greenhouse' effect simply is not possible according to known physical laws. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet by using the light emitted from the surface of that planet. They certainly can absorb light from the Sun, but the surface is far more effective at that.
tmiddles wrote:
My understanding of it is that you have to compare the same atmospheric pressures on Venus and Earth, which means comparing the surface of earth with an altitude above the surface of Venus, which has a much denser atmosphere with all that CO2. If you do that the temperature is what you would expect to find based on the distance from the sun.


You are attempting to ignore Kirchoff's law again. You are also attempting to make yet another divisional error fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
That of course a heavier blanket is warmer,

No. A heavier blanket will not heat a rock.
tmiddles wrote:
but CO2 doesn't seem to be influencing the temperature dramatically.

It has absolutely zero effect. None. Nada. Zilch. Neoni. Ole. Kore. Jelo. Nul.

No gas or vapor can warm a planet using the surface light emitted by that planet.

tmiddles wrote:
He is of course not refuting the original "Greenhouse Effect" as described by Fourier, which is obvious to anyone, but instead the newer meaning of "Greenhouse Effect" as commonly used today to describe the CO2 factor in planetary temperature.

CO2, like any other gas in the atmosphere absorbs infrared light and converts that to thermal energy. The surface is much better at it, which is why the surface is warmer than the atmosphere.
tmiddles wrote:
No one in the global warming camp thinks we will generate so much CO2 that it will cause the density of our atmosphere to change significantly. Huffman makes a solid argument that it's simply the weight of the atmosphere that makes it a "warmer blanket" (my words).

A blanket is not 'warmer'. A blanket simply reduces heat.
tmiddles wrote:
Disagree?

Yes.


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2019 21:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You can't create or destroy energy, only transform it. ..any global warming crap


A distinction needs to be made between the blanket effect of an atmosphere and the separate "global warming crap" theory (that CO2 is struck by sunlight and it's presence is a significant factor in the temperature).

A planet gets hot and the heat is shared with it's atmosphere which can retain the heat.

Do you disagree with that?

Yes. It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Blankets reduce heat, as correctly described by HarveyH55.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not thermal energy itself. Heat has no temperature.

EVERYTHING that is above absolute zero in temperature converts that thermal energy into light. It radiates. The hotter the object, the more it radiates. You are STILL trying to ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law by preventing light from radiating from an object.

The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work.


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2019 21:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
What scientists need to find out is if more CO2 and less O2 has any appreciable effect on our atmosphere's ability to retain heat or the density of our atmosphere.


It's O3 and looks like it doesn't:
Nasa on O3 not causing warming

Also the theory of modern "Global Warming Greenhouse Effect" is not that the gases in our atmosphere block light or heat. It's simply first off that, as everyone sane agrees, the atmosphere can absorb thermal energy, and the theoretical part is that CO2 specifically can be heated up directly by sun light.

Here it seems to claim that 99% of the atmosphere does not absorb either sunlight or infrared radiation as the earth releases its heat:
global warming crap
That only CO2 and water vapor do.

Again this is far beyond simply believing an atmosphere acts like a blanket.


All gases are heated directly by sunlight. Nothing special about CO2.


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2019 21:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Also, heat always rises.

If heat always rises then you should be able to make a frying pan searing hot over open flame and then set the pan on top of your head with no threat of being burned.

You absolutely need to define what you mean by "heat".

If "heat" is thermal radiation then heat travels in all directions equally.
If "heat" is conduction then heat travels in all directions equally.

Bouyancy from temperature increase causes an "upward" movement.

Increasing the temperature of a fluid causes its pressure to increase which causes it to expand until its pressure matches the lower pressure of the surrounding cooler fluid. The expansion increases the warmer fluid's bouyancy, causing it to rise relatively within the cooler fluid.


He's conflating hot air with heat. He also does not understand that hot air does not always rise.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-07-2019 21:46
14-07-2019 21:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[your post:..Completely devoid of any science


What link?

The one he gave you here.
tmiddles wrote:
So you still don't think an atmosphere or lack there off can change the surface temperature on a planet?

Are you planning to destroy the atmosphere of Earth to cool it down?
tmiddles wrote:
If you don't find one bit of research to back that up.

Science isn't 'research' or a 'study'. It is not a web site. It is not a book. It is not a scientists. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
tmiddles wrote:
I already gave you numbers and 100% of the scientific community, without exception, agrees on that.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are just making up wild numbers now. Science does not use consensus. It is not a 'community'. There is no voting in science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2019 21:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:NASA also said that the ozone layer is recovering when it isn't. It's actually still declining.

Aren't you both correct?

Doesn't the ozone replenish and then recede ... on a daily basis?


Yes. Ozone is an unstable molecule. Some of it will revert to O2 on it's own given time (typically a few hours or so for measurable changes to be seen in the ozone layer).


The Parrot Killer
14-07-2019 22:13
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
Into the Night wrote:
Science isn't 'research' or a 'study'. It is not a web site. It is not a book. It is not a scientists. It is not a 'community'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting in science. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


A bit of a sideways question, but I've been curious about something...

What is the difference between a theory and a law? Does a theory become a law? If so, how?

Thanks!


This statement of yours helps you meet your obligation to bash Trump and stick your tongue up Obama's netherpipe in one efficient sentence. Well done.

~IBdaMann~
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How climate change is sinking an Indian island.317-03-2019 21:17
Stream of thought poem re: London snow storms/Garbage Island002-02-2019 13:41
COP21 - Political Fantasy Island206-12-2015 02:11
▲ 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