Tangier Island , should it be used as an example?

tmiddles wrote:Stefan-Boltzmann law does not apply to a planet with an atmosphere. Read here:

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

tmiddles wrote: Do you believe in Dinasours?

tmiddles wrote: Because science works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

tmiddles wrote: And trust me ...

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.

Into the Night wrote:Okay. I'll go with holes are not solids.

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

tmiddles wrote: So it's not about me or you but figuring out the true facts as accurately as possible.

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

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

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

We KNOW that the atmosphere has 97% carbon dioxide

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.

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.

tmiddles wrote:
Disagree? Why is Venus so hot then?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You defined 'climate' as 'weather'. To you they are synonyms???

To the English language they are synonyms:
Thesaurus

tmiddles wrote:
We're all trying to figure things out. I don't have any more of a burden of proof than you do.

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

tmiddles wrote:
And Into the Night:
I wasn't making an equivalency between global warming and an algae bloom.

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

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.

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).

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

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

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

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

tmiddles wrote:
Look! Dude! We've been there:

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

HarveyH55 wrote:You can't create or destroy energy, only transform it. ..any global warming crap

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?

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.

tmiddles wrote:Disagree?

IBdaMann wrote:
[your post:..Completely devoid of any science

HarveyH55 wrote:Also, heat always rises.

tmiddles wrote:What link?

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

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

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

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.

James___ wrote:NASA also said that the ozone layer is recovering when it isn't. It's actually still declining.

IBdaMann wrote:
What prevents you from formally defining "Greenhouse Effect"?

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

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

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

tmiddles wrote:It would seem to be a glossary.

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

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

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.

tmiddles wrote: Thanks but "peer reviewed" is a good way to go in science. Find some backup.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

James___ wrote: The guys in here for the most part have bought into the argument that everything is CO2 or nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

James___ wrote:But would that account for global warming?

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.

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.

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?

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)

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.

tmiddles wrote:
Everyone knows first hand air can be hot.

tmiddles wrote:
The most dramatic example of the (original) greenhouse effect is Venus.

tmiddles wrote:
Venus is much hotter than it would be without an atmosphere.

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.

tmiddles wrote:
We can make accurate comparisons with Earth.

tmiddles wrote:
So what now? Does this mean global warming as currently taught is gospel?

tmiddles wrote:
Of course not.

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

tmiddles wrote:
If you question that someone should fart on you.

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.

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.

tmiddles wrote:
That of course a heavier blanket is warmer,

tmiddles wrote:
but CO2 doesn't seem to be influencing the temperature dramatically.

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.

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).

tmiddles wrote:
Disagree?

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?

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.

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.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[your post:..Completely devoid of any science

What link?

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

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

tmiddles wrote:
I already gave you numbers and 100% of the scientific community, without exception, agrees on that.

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?

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.