Remember me
▼ Content

the atmosphere is a blanket, traps heat



Page 1 of 212>
the atmosphere is a blanket, traps heat22-09-2016 00:44
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
A blanket can delay cooling by conduction between the surface of an object and the surface of the blanket, provided direct contact between the blanket and the object. Likewise, the atmosphere is mostly oxygen and nitrogen, which, by conduction, delays cooling of Earth's surface by contact between the atmosphere and Earth's surface. So, no CO2 needed. O2 and N2 is the blanket. Global warming.
22-09-2016 00:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...How does the atmosphere, by conduction, slow the cooling of the surface by conduction to the atmosphere? That doesn't make any sense.

Blankets and jackets reduce the effect of breezes and convection.
22-09-2016 01:03
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...How does the atmosphere, by conduction, slow the cooling of the surface by conduction to the atmosphere? That doesn't make any sense.

Blankets and jackets reduce the effect of breezes and convection.


The object transfers heat to the blanket by conduction. The blanket radiates some of that heat up to space and transfers back some of the heat to the object by conduction. We can assume, the blanket radiates half of the heat it picks up from the object up to space and returns the other half of the heat it picks up from the object back to the object by conduction. That means, by conduction, the object reduces its rate of heat loss because of the blanket on it. The atmosphere works the same way, reducing the heat loss of Earth's surface by conduction.

The lower the elevation, the more air, the more conduction, the higher the temperature of Earth's surface.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html
Edited on 22-09-2016 01:04
22-09-2016 01:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, that's not how it works. You can't assume that. Now, a blanket with a very low emissivity? Maybe that'd do what you're describing. But then you make a correlation/causation fallacy with how there is more air at the bottom of the atmosphere. There are also more trees. Maybe trees cause warming? (That was a joke to demonstrate how correlation =/= causation.)
22-09-2016 17:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
A blanket can delay cooling by conduction between the surface of an object and the surface of the blanket, provided direct contact between the blanket and the object. Likewise, the atmosphere is mostly oxygen and nitrogen, which, by conduction, delays cooling of Earth's surface by contact between the atmosphere and Earth's surface. So, no CO2 needed. O2 and N2 is the blanket. Global warming.


No. The atmosphere alters how the energy is transferred around via conduction/convection. The energy still radiates away per temperature.

"Insulation" does not apply to thermal radiation.

There is no "atmosphere" component to Stefan-Boltzmann. neither the atmosphere nor its composition affects the radiation off to space.



Once again:

Atmosphere affects how thermal energy is distributed around the body.

Atmosphere affects the temperature at different points at the bottom of the atmosphere (obviously).

Atmosphere has no effect on the overall total body emission or the overall average body temperature.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 18:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
A blanket can delay cooling by conduction between the surface of an object and the surface of the blanket, provided direct contact between the blanket and the object. Likewise, the atmosphere is mostly oxygen and nitrogen, which, by conduction, delays cooling of Earth's surface by contact between the atmosphere and Earth's surface. So, no CO2 needed. O2 and N2 is the blanket. Global warming.


No. The atmosphere alters how the energy is transferred around via conduction/convection. The energy still radiates away per temperature.

"Insulation" does not apply to thermal radiation.

There is no "atmosphere" component to Stefan-Boltzmann. neither the atmosphere nor its composition affects the radiation off to space.



Once again:

Atmosphere affects how thermal energy is distributed around the body.

Atmosphere affects the temperature at different points at the bottom of the atmosphere (obviously).

Atmosphere has no effect on the overall total body emission or the overall average body temperature.


YOU SAID IT

YOU FINALLY ACTUALLY SAID IT

"Atmosphere has no effect on the overall total body emission"

YESSSSSSSSSS

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Exoplanets have observed absorption lines in the spectrum of their light. The lines correspond to known absorption spectra of gases.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
22-09-2016 18:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:YOU SAID IT
YOU FINALLY ACTUALLY SAID IT

I have stated it many times. Please don't tell me that you missed all of them.

jwoodward48 wrote: WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Exoplanets have observed absorption lines in the spectrum of their light. The lines correspond to known absorption spectra of gases.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG


... and ?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 18:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
YOU ARE THE WRONGEST OF ALL WRONG PEOPLE

THE ATMOSPHERE DOES HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE OUTGOING RADIATION

WRONG WRONG WRONG
22-09-2016 19:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
YOU ARE THE WRONGEST OF ALL WRONG PEOPLE

THE ATMOSPHERE DOES HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE OUTGOING RADIATION

WRONG WRONG WRONG


I rest my case.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 01:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But you ARE wrong.
23-09-2016 01:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:But you ARE wrong.

Nope....and I was able to rest my case.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 04:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Atmosphere has no effect on the overall total body emission


but... but this is the wrong

this is all of the wrong
23-09-2016 05:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Atmosphere has no effect on the overall total body emission


but... but this is the wrong

this is all of the wrong


I'm the one sciencing here.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 05:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, you aren't. You don't have a monopoly on science.
23-09-2016 05:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:No, you aren't. You don't have a monopoly on science.

As far as you are concerned I do.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 11:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
I rest my case.

You have no case to rest. Observations show that you are simply wrong. The radiation from exoplanets as well as from regular planets with atmospheres, such as Mars, exhibits atmospheric absorption. As does the radiation from the Earth when measured by satellites.
23-09-2016 13:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote:You have no case to rest.

In a sense you are correct. jwoodward48 and yourself are the affirmative asserters who bear the full burden of proof.

Then on the side of science I reside. I question, I doubt and I insist you meet your burden.

Well, you have failed outright. Repeatedly. Anytime I read a post like jwoodward48's then I'm done. Nothing remains to be discussed.

Does any "climate" science exist? You've been insisting such for over a year. Needless to say you haven't been able to produce.

I rest my case.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 13:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You have no case to rest.

In a sense you are correct. jwoodward48 and yourself are the affirmative asserters who bear the full burden of proof.

Then on the side of science I reside. I question, I doubt and I insist you meet your burden.

Well, you have failed outright. Repeatedly. Anytime I read a post like jwoodward48's then I'm done. Nothing remains to be discussed.

Does any "climate" science exist? You've been insisting such for over a year. Needless to say you haven't been able to produce.

I rest my case.

The greenhouse effect, which leads to climate change, certainly exists. It's an inevitable consequence of the radiative behaviour of gases. The fact that you are either unwilling or unable to understand any explanations of the greenhouse effect means nothing other than that you will remain ignorant and your opinion will therefore remain worthless.
Edited on 23-09-2016 13:25
23-09-2016 13:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote:The greenhouse effect, which leads to climate change, certainly exists.

There is no certainty of that. In fact, it most certainly does not exist if we go by your support for it.

But you are weaseling here, which shouldn't be necessary for someone of your British educational magnificence. I don't ask Christians if they believe God exists. I can guarantee that they will tell me that God certainly exists. I don't waste my time asking Muslims if Allah exists. They will tell me that He certainly exists. I don't ask warmizombies or climate lemmings if "greenhouse effect" exists because they will all tell me that it certainly exists. Religious people always insist their deities "certainly exist."

I asked you a specific question about the existence of "climate" science, i.e.

IBdaMann wrote:Does any "climate" science exist? You've been insisting such for over a year. Needless to say you haven't been able to produce.


What is certain is that no "climate" science exists because "Climate" is just a deity of the "Climate" family of religions.

IBdaMann wrote: It's an inevitable consequence of the radiative behaviour of gases.

So your deity thrives on the endless cycle of energy changing form. Your religion is the story line of the Lion King. There's still no "climate" science here, just WACKY "climate" dogma. Is this your final answer? Can I rest my case?

IBdaMann wrote: The fact that you are either unwilling or unable to understand any explanations of the greenhouse effect means nothing other than that you will remain ignorant and your opinion will therefore remain worthless.

Christians say the exact same thing to me when I tell them that their God is not real and probably doesn't exist. They tell me that I am stubbornly remaining ignorant and that my opinion is worthless. Ditto for Muslims.

So this is all your transcendent superlative British education can muster? A personal insult for those not getting drawn into the same scam that sucked you in and an atrociously overinflated perception of your level of education?

I'm glad I was educated here in the US. Thank you for opening my eyes to that often overlooked benefit of my American heritage.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 14:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Test it! Test your claims. How do they work with observed exoplanet spectra?
23-09-2016 16:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:Test it! Test your claims. How do they work with observed exoplanet spectra?

How are those bodies any different in their non-application of Planck's law that applies to bodies?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 16:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
... Could you rephrase that? "In their non-application" doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you mean "how are exoplanets any different from other objects that Planck's law doesn't apply to"?
23-09-2016 17:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The fact that you are either unwilling or unable to understand any explanations of the greenhouse effect means nothing other than that you will remain ignorant and your opinion will therefore remain worthless.

Christians say the exact same thing to me when I tell them that their God is not real and probably doesn't exist. They tell me that I am stubbornly remaining ignorant and that my opinion is worthless. Ditto for Muslims.

Biologists will tell you the same thing if you insist that evolution isn't real. Likewise astronomers if you maintain that the sun goes round the Earth. Same with physicians if you deny that disease is caused by viruses.

So how do we tell the difference between religion and science? Easy. Science is supported by evidence; religion isn't. Your dismissal of the evidence does not make climate science a religion; it makes you a religious zealot.
23-09-2016 17:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:... Could you rephrase that? "In their non-application" doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm not sure how to correct that. That problem seems to be on your end.

jwoodward48 wrote: Maybe you mean "how are exoplanets any different from other objects that Planck's law doesn't apply to"?

No, that is not what I meant. Thank you, though, for asking for clarification instead of misrepresenting my position.

You specifically referenced exoplanets, which are bodies, and asserted that they don't adhere to Planck's law, which applies to bodies. (do you see an inherent contradiction in your question?)



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 18:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, but we have physical evidence. The spectrum of light from exoplanets does not fit any black-body spectrum - it has dips in the light that correspond to absorption lines.
23-09-2016 20:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I rest my case.

You have no case to rest. Observations show that you are simply wrong. The radiation from exoplanets as well as from regular planets with atmospheres, such as Mars, exhibits atmospheric absorption. As does the radiation from the Earth when measured by satellites.


Observations also show atmospheric radiation.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 20:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You have no case to rest.

In a sense you are correct. jwoodward48 and yourself are the affirmative asserters who bear the full burden of proof.

Then on the side of science I reside. I question, I doubt and I insist you meet your burden.

Well, you have failed outright. Repeatedly. Anytime I read a post like jwoodward48's then I'm done. Nothing remains to be discussed.

Does any "climate" science exist? You've been insisting such for over a year. Needless to say you haven't been able to produce.

I rest my case.

The greenhouse effect, which leads to climate change, certainly exists. It's an inevitable consequence of the radiative behaviour of gases. The fact that you are either unwilling or unable to understand any explanations of the greenhouse effect means nothing other than that you will remain ignorant and your opinion will therefore remain worthless.


There must be a lot of hot coffee made with ice at the Church of Global Warming. It's more prevalent than Holy Water.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 20:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You have no case to rest.

In a sense you are correct. jwoodward48 and yourself are the affirmative asserters who bear the full burden of proof.

Then on the side of science I reside. I question, I doubt and I insist you meet your burden.

Well, you have failed outright. Repeatedly. Anytime I read a post like jwoodward48's then I'm done. Nothing remains to be discussed.

Does any "climate" science exist? You've been insisting such for over a year. Needless to say you haven't been able to produce.

I rest my case.

The greenhouse effect, which leads to climate change, certainly exists. It's an inevitable consequence of the radiative behaviour of gases. The fact that you are either unwilling or unable to understand any explanations of the greenhouse effect means nothing other than that you will remain ignorant and your opinion will therefore remain worthless.


There must be a lot of hot coffee made with ice at the Church of Global Warming. It's more prevalent than Holy Water.

What are you talking about?
23-09-2016 20:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
He's talking about the 2nd LoT.
23-09-2016 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The fact that you are either unwilling or unable to understand any explanations of the greenhouse effect means nothing other than that you will remain ignorant and your opinion will therefore remain worthless.

Christians say the exact same thing to me when I tell them that their God is not real and probably doesn't exist. They tell me that I am stubbornly remaining ignorant and that my opinion is worthless. Ditto for Muslims.

Biologists will tell you the same thing if you insist that evolution isn't real.
Guess why?
Surface Detail wrote:
Likewise astronomers if you maintain that the sun goes round the Earth.
The sun DOES go around the Earth. The Earth also goes around the sun. Thanks Einstein.
Surface Detail wrote:
Same with physicians if you deny that disease is caused by viruses.
THAT particular theory is easily falsified. All you need is one virus.
Surface Detail wrote:

So how do we tell the difference between religion and science? Easy. Science is supported by evidence; religion isn't.
Religion is supported by evidence in EXACTLY the same way. The books of the Bible exist. What they say is supporting evidence. The stories of spirits in objects as described by Shinto and other religions exist. What they say is supporting evidence. I have pink bunnies in my yard. What I just said is supporting evidence. Some random number coming from someone who claims to have done a statistical analysis says the globe is warming. That is supporting evidence.

NONE of it proves anything. NONE of it makes anything more legitimate.

Surface Detail wrote:
Your dismissal of the evidence does not make climate science a religion; it makes you a religious zealot.

Then...following THAT logic, YOU are also a religious zealot, because you have dismissed the evidence of one religion or another.

Oops.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-09-2016 20:31
23-09-2016 20:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote:Biologists will tell you the same thing if you insist that evolution isn't real.

Not fundamentalist Christian biologists. Biology is science. Genetics is science. Evolution is an unfalsifiable theory about events that transpired in the past.

Surface Detail wrote: Likewise astronomers if you maintain that the sun goes round the Earth.

Astronomy is science. It is comprised of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Surface Detail wrote: Same with physicians if you deny that disease is caused by viruses.

Medical science is science. It is comprised of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Surface Detail wrote: So how do we tell the difference between religion and science?

We ask to see the falsifiable models that predict nature.

I'd like to see the falsifiable "climate" models that predict nature if you wouldn't mind.

Surface Detail wrote: Easy. Science is supported by evidence;

There is no evidence in science. Look at the Planck's law that you posted. Tell me what evidence it contains.

Surface Detail wrote: religion isn't.

False. "Evidence" is the stuff of religion and politics. This is why "evidence" is all Global Warming has; it's all "climate change" has. They have no science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 20:41
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Not all evidence is created equal.
23-09-2016 20:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Not all evidence is created equal.

...because all "evidence" is subjective.

Science is not subjective. Science is not determined by democratic vote.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 20:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If all evidence is subjective, then "how will I [science] now arseholes?"

(It's a quote. I'm not actually calling you an arsehole.)
Edited on 23-09-2016 20:48
23-09-2016 21:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:If all evidence is subjective, then "how will I [science] now arseholes?"

Divorce yourself from "evidence," leave the religion side of the fence and come over to the science side.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 21:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But without evidence, there's no way to make sure that models or theories accurately reflect reality.
23-09-2016 21:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:But without evidence, there's no way to make sure that models or theories accurately reflect reality.

False. You should pay attention.

1. Science contains no evidence, no data and no observations

2. The scientific method ensures models reflect reality, and they use falsifying evidence. Supporting evidence has no role in science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 21:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If a model is tested and falsified, it has been proven false.
If a model is not tested, it has not been put through the test of fire. That is, it hasn't been proven.
If a model is tested and not falsified, it has been supported. That is, a model that has been tested and not falsified, it is more likely to be more correct than a model that has not been tested at all.

Now, what do we call data that does not falsify a model, but agrees with it? Since it supports the model, we call it supporting data.
23-09-2016 21:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If a model is tested and falsified, it has been proven false.
If a model is not tested, it has not been put through the test of fire. That is, it hasn't been proven.
If a model is tested and not falsified, it has been supported. That is, a model that has been tested and not falsified, it is more likely to be more correct than a model that has not been tested at all.

Now, what do we call data that does not falsify a model, but agrees with it? Since it supports the model, we call it supporting data.


False equivalence.

Data is an observation. Data is data.

Data means nothing unless we know where it comes from, how it was collected, who collected it and when.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 21:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote: If a model is tested and not falsified, it has been supported.

Depending on the test that has been passed, that can mean anything from "convincing beyond reasonable doubt" to not meaning anything at all.

jwoodward48 wrote: That is, a model that has been tested and not falsified, it is more likely to be more correct than a model that has not been tested at all.

Nope. You have not provided enough information.

Evolution and Big Bang are models that have never been directly tested, owing to the fact that we cannot travel back in time. How likely are they to be correct? How likely are they to be close if not correct?

I happen to be convinced that Evolution is very close and that Big Bang is just pretty close. However, I know some Christians who are less than fully convinced that either are "close." How does one go about gauging something that cannot be tested?

jwoodward48 wrote: Now, what do we call data that does not falsify a model, but agrees with it? Since it supports the model, we call it supporting data.

Yes, that is what we call it. Science cares nothing for it. Religion and politics, however, can't get enough of it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Join the debate the atmosphere is a blanket, traps heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N225413-12-2019 10:54
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
Blanket does not warm an object underneath it. So why would air warm surface?524-05-2019 19:44
▲ 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