Remember me
▼ Content

The Data Mine



Page 5 of 8<<<34567>>>
25-10-2015 21:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Thank you, Into the Night, for confirming that the discussion did not start with me demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes. You were lying. If you could just stop lying, we might be able to have a sensible conversation.

By the way, didn't the first rule for your Data Mine demand that posters name the sources of their data? Why are you so concerned that I am trying to enforce your rule?
Edited on 25-10-2015 21:49
25-10-2015 22:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote:
Thank you, Into the Night, for confirming that the discussion did not start with me demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes. You were lying. If you could just stop lying, we might be able to have a sensible conversation.

By the way, didn't the first rule for your Data Mine demand that posters name the sources of their data? Why are you so concerned that I am trying to enforce your rule?


A strong Pacific hurricane. Decline in Atlantic hurricanes.

So which is it? Proof of Global Cooling or falsification of Global Warming?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-10-2015 23:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Surface Detail wrote:
Thank you, Into the Night, for confirming that the discussion did not start with me demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes. You were lying. If you could just stop lying, we might be able to have a sensible conversation.

By the way, didn't the first rule for your Data Mine demand that posters name the sources of their data? Why are you so concerned that I am trying to enforce your rule?


Still accusing people using some twisted view of yours, eh? You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by moving the goalposts, accusing me of lying, demanding data to be formatted in a particular way, dissolving into useless discussions about the meaning of Cherry Picking, trying to claim I am worried about you enforcing the rules I set up, etc.

You want to prove me wrong about your attitude? Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

IBdaMann is waiting for you to have this discussion. You keep going half cocked in some other direction. I don't know what your problem is, but you seem to not realize the implications of what you are doing. Start the discussion about the hurricane activity.
26-10-2015 00:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Thank you, Into the Night, for confirming that the discussion did not start with me demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes. You were lying. If you could just stop lying, we might be able to have a sensible conversation.

By the way, didn't the first rule for your Data Mine demand that posters name the sources of their data? Why are you so concerned that I am trying to enforce your rule?


Still accusing people using some twisted view of yours, eh? You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by moving the goalposts, accusing me of lying, demanding data to be formatted in a particular way, dissolving into useless discussions about the meaning of Cherry Picking, trying to claim I am worried about you enforcing the rules I set up, etc.

You want to prove me wrong about your attitude? Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!

IBdaMann is waiting for you to have this discussion. You keep going half cocked in some other direction. I don't know what your problem is, but you seem to not realize the implications of what you are doing. Start the discussion about the hurricane activity.

Why should I not accuse you of lying when you are, in fact, lying? I did not, as you claimed, start the discussion by demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes. It's simply not true. You were lying.

As a matter of fact, the initial evidence I cited to support my contention that the frequency of intense storms was increasing was this paper:

Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment

Other papers supporting this view are, for example:

The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones
Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years
Trend Analysis with a New Global Record of Tropical Cyclone Intensity

These papers confirm that the intensity (though not the frequency) of tropical cyclones appears to be increasing, and that this is likely due to the higher ocean surface temperatures observed over the last few decades.

Edit: Links added.
Edited on 26-10-2015 00:33
26-10-2015 00:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote:These papers confirm that the intensity (though not the frequency) of tropical cyclones appears to increasing, and that this is likely due to the higher ocean surface temperatures observed over the last few decades.

So is it your contention that Global Warming is causing hurricane power to be combined into fewer hurricanes of greater power? Is that what Global Warming does?


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
26-10-2015 00:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:These papers confirm that the intensity (though not the frequency) of tropical cyclones appears to increasing, and that this is likely due to the higher ocean surface temperatures observed over the last few decades.

So is it your contention that Global Warming is causing hurricane power to be combined into fewer hurricanes of greater power? Is that what Global Warming does?

That is suggested by theory and does, indeed, appear to be the case. Though it should be noted that the level of certainty for this is relatively low.

Edit: Actually not fewer hurricanes, rather the roughly the same number, but with a higher proportion of powerful ones.
Edited on 26-10-2015 00:30
26-10-2015 01:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote:That is suggested by theory and does, indeed, appear to be the case.

So is it your contention or not.

Surface Detail wrote: Though it should be noted that the level of certainty for this is relatively low.

Does this then mean it is not your contention?

What is your contention? What specifically do you believe is true concerning Global Warming and hurricanes?

[note: I don't care what anyone else thinks]


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
26-10-2015 10:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The data sets of the lower troposphere are for the surface temperature. That is the temperature as measured just above the ground by weather staions and the like. All over the earth.

The point of saying that it has not warmed since 1998 is that this is true.

That it warmed between 1970 and 1998 is also true.

I fail to see why you have trouble with these factual statements.

The evidence for these statements is from the data sets produced by the respected bodies used by the IPCC. That they don't supply the numbers you would like them to is unlucky.


Ceist wrote:Because they aren't factual statements.


Which of those statements do you consider wrong and why?
26-10-2015 10:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:The fact that you seriously 'believe' you found an 'obvious flaw in it', says it all.

More bulverism, and more EVASION on your part of Tim's points. You still have not addressed any of the concerns raised.

Tim, on the other hand, apparently has found obvious flaws, and you apparently won't refute Tim's concerns, so Tim's concerns stand and whole "Energy Budget" remains "dismissed" as are your bulverist posts.


It is not actually the energy budget I am argueing about with him. Altough, having looked at the diagram I see that the thermal up that goes to TOA and is bounced back down by greenhouse gasses does not add up. I have seen other similar energy budget things which did not have this problem so I think it must just be a typo..... I have not looked at it closely though.....
26-10-2015 12:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote: It is not actually the energy budget I am argueing about with him.


The earth's "energy budget" is the diagram. I realize you were debating certain specifics, but the entire overarching concept (model), as presented, goes out the window until all your concerns are adequately addressed.

Citing anyone's opinions, questioning your background or simply presuming you are wrong is insufficient to save this "energy budget" model.


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
Edited on 26-10-2015 12:15
26-10-2015 19:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: It is not actually the energy budget I am argueing about with him.


The earth's "energy budget" is the diagram. I realize you were debating certain specifics, but the entire overarching concept (model), as presented, goes out the window until all your concerns are adequately addressed.

Citing anyone's opinions, questioning your background or simply presuming you are wrong is insufficient to save this "energy budget" model.


It's sort of the opposite.

The diagram is of the standard model of the energy budget of the surface of the solid earth.

It's not really disputable. The numbers are accepted and easily tested. You could even do experiments in your back yard to get a lot of the figures.

The degree to which they can be changed by CO2 rises is where the debate is.

The paper that was cited which refuted a 1905(? something like that) paper said that there was no limit to the potential heating effect of CO2. I am not aware that this is at all mainstream. It is certainly not the view presented by the IPCC.

So if that is the case the whole model of GW needs to be redone. It will have to explain why such a run away situation has never happened before in addition to actually having some sort of basic data to support it. Tall order.
26-10-2015 19:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote: It's sort of the opposite.


I don't think so. The opposite of FALSE is TRUE, and this diagram is not TRUE without a boatload of additional support. As it is depicted, it violates the 1st LoT.

Tim the plumber wrote: The diagram is of the standard model of the energy budget of the surface of the solid earth.
It's not really disputable. The numbers are accepted and easily tested.

You are going to have one heck of time supporting that statement. Check your passive voice. Who "accepts" the numbers? Who even cares who accepts those numbers? The truth is, it doesn't matter. The numbers simply don't add up. If you are going to assert that the numbers are correct in the manner they are represented, then you need to explain how they somehow still adhere to the 1st LoT (conservation of energy).

Oh, while we're on it, how can I easily test those numbers? Let me know and I'll go test them tomorrow afternoon.

Tim the plumber wrote: You could even do experiments in your back yard to get a lot of the figures.

Great, how did you go about it the last time?

Tim the plumber wrote: The degree to which they can be changed by CO2 rises is where the debate is.

Science says CO2 has zero effect on planetary temperature. What do you say?

Tim the plumber wrote: The paper that was cited which refuted a 1905(? something like that) paper said that there was no limit to the potential heating effect of CO2. I am not aware that this is at all mainstream. It is certainly not the view presented by the IPCC.

The IPCC does not present any sort of science perspective. I'm not sure why anyone would care what their official position is.

Atmospheric composition is not a factor in planetary temperature, therefore the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant. The factors in atmospheric temperature are:

1) Proximity to the sun
2) Solar output
3) Quantity of atmosphere (and resulting atmospheric pressure)
4) Transparency of atmosphere.

Composition is not an issue. If you were to replace a certain mass of atmospheric nitrogen with an equivalent mass of atmospheric CO2, the earth's surface temperature will not change.


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
26-10-2015 20:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: It's sort of the opposite.


I don't think so. The opposite of FALSE is TRUE, and this diagram is not TRUE without a boatload of additional support. As it is depicted, it violates the 1st LoT.

Tim the plumber wrote: The diagram is of the standard model of the energy budget of the surface of the solid earth.
It's not really disputable. The numbers are accepted and easily tested.

You are going to have one heck of time supporting that statement. Check your passive voice. Who "accepts" the numbers? Who even cares who accepts those numbers? The truth is, it doesn't matter. The numbers simply don't add up. If you are going to assert that the numbers are correct in the manner they are represented, then you need to explain how they somehow still adhere to the 1st LoT (conservation of energy).

Oh, while we're on it, how can I easily test those numbers? Let me know and I'll go test them tomorrow afternoon.

Tim the plumber wrote: You could even do experiments in your back yard to get a lot of the figures.

Great, how did you go about it the last time?

Tim the plumber wrote: The degree to which they can be changed by CO2 rises is where the debate is.

Science says CO2 has zero effect on planetary temperature. What do you say?

Tim the plumber wrote: The paper that was cited which refuted a 1905(? something like that) paper said that there was no limit to the potential heating effect of CO2. I am not aware that this is at all mainstream. It is certainly not the view presented by the IPCC.

The IPCC does not present any sort of science perspective. I'm not sure why anyone would care what their official position is.

Atmospheric composition is not a factor in planetary temperature, therefore the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant. The factors in atmospheric temperature are:

1) Proximity to the sun
2) Solar output
3) Quantity of atmosphere (and resulting atmospheric pressure)
4) Transparency of atmosphere.

Composition is not an issue. If you were to replace a certain mass of atmospheric nitrogen with an equivalent mass of atmospheric CO2, the earth's surface temperature will not change.


I am not at all convinced of the grrenhouse effect either but the reason I am happy to accept the IPCC's figures is that they hold no fear for me or anybody else who has ever done anything, or is emotionally able to cope with slight changes.

This position puts the onus totally onto the Ecco-communists to explain why we need to hit the panic button.

The energy budget diagram is not contestable because something of that sort happens. It's just a diagram of what happens.

We can measure the energy of the sun's rays in space (not personally but..).

We can measure the energy of the sun's rays in our back yard. If you really want to do this wait for a sunny day then get a black bucket of water, allow it to reach the same temperature as the surroundings, then put it into the sunshine. Have a cover over it so that it cannot evaporate, maybe a black 1 gallon container with a screw top would be best, maybe an ex-Castrol oil thingy... Then test how it warms up, how long it takes etc. If you know it's heat capacity and the efficency of the amount of heat energy it absorbs you can work out the strength of the sun's rays in Watts per square meter. You will get an answer. To get another answer do it on the top of a mountain so that you have less cloud and stuff and this will allow you to work out how the cloud effects the result. Keep doing it and you will eventually get a decent understanding of the effects of atmosphere on the sunshine...

What law of thermodynamics do you see as being violated in the diagram?

If the amount of heat coming in is more than the amount of heat going out the earth will warm up a bit. The oceans will take a lot of heating.

Of course the degree of accuracy of the satelite measuring the out-going radient heat energy has to be very dependable and could easily be getting a very slightly wrong number.... Or not seeing the occaisional hot spot..... Or having it's data corrected...
26-10-2015 21:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote: I am not at all convinced of the grrenhouse effect either but the reason I am happy to accept the IPCC's figures is that they hold no fear for me or anybody else who has ever done anything, or is emotionally able to cope with slight changes.


Would it be accurate to characterize your position as "there might be a 'greenhouse effect' going on but I don't care because it's nothing of any noticeable impact"?

Tim the plumber wrote:
This position puts the onus totally onto the Ecco-communists to explain why we need to hit the panic button.


So you're disagreement is mostly with the "catastrophist" crowd, yes? You probably don't care a whole heck of a lot whether there are such things as "greenhouse gases" or not, or whether the oceans are rising because any rise is completely unnoticeable, yes?

Tim the plumber wrote: The energy budget diagram is not contestable because something of that sort happens. It's just a diagram of what happens.

I'm fine with your acceptance of the diagram for the purposes of debating a particular issue depitced therein.

However the diagram is completely contestable because that is not what happens. There needs to be two top level arrows, like the bottom line numbers on a balance sheet, ...one arrow showing the total energy entering earth's atmosphere and one arrow showing total energy leaving earth's atmosphere, and those two numbers must match. We'll call that the balance value. All the breakdown arrows spawning from the one incoming solar arrow obviously must add up to the balance value. Similarly all the component arrows combining into the outgoing arrow must add to the balance value.

Tim the plumber wrote: [color=blue] We can measure the energy of the sun's rays in our back yard.
.
Yes. Granted. My main focus is on the top level numbers (incoming vs. outgoing) not matching. I was really referring to testing/verifying the non-matching values which would confirm the "greenhouse effect"...which would be truly an amazing accomplishment!


Tim the plumber wrote: What law of thermodynamics do you see as being violated in the diagram?

The 1st LoT, conservation of energy.

Tim the plumber wrote:
If the amount of heat coming in is more than the amount of heat going out the earth will warm up a bit. The oceans will take a lot of heating.


I'd be interested in discussing this point with you.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-10-2015 22:55
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The effects of global warming will be, if the IPCC is right, noticable. They just won't be bad.

They will in fact be good. I can see no real likelyhood of any significant actual down side. The wrost thing I have so far come across is if you have built your house in some African desert close to the river that has not flowed for 20 years the increased rainfall that will fill the river will probably wash your shack away. You will have your choice of highly fertile land to go and farm though.

The energy budget for the surface of the earth can be out of balance. If it is there is more heat going in than coming out which will cause the place to warm up.

If you measure the heat coming out of a kettle when it is warming up it is less than the 2kW of electricity going in untill it hits boiling. Then you will burn your hand if you put it in front of the spout.

Often alarmists talk about Zeta Joules of energy going into the oceans. I have come across 1 who knew what a zeta joule is and was able to understand what happens when it goes into the oceans.

That a Zeta joul is 10 to the 21 Joules sunds vast.

A Joule is the amount of energy it would take to heat 1mg of a substance with a specific heat capacity of 1, 1 degree c.

There are 1000 mg in a liter, 1000 liters in a cubic meter of water or tonne, same thing and water has a heat capacity of 4.2. Each cubic meter of water needs 4.2 x 10^6 Joules per degree to heat up.

There are 1,000,000 square meters in a square kilometer and generally they talk about a depth of 700m, so 7 x 10^8. Multiplied by the 4.2 x 10^6 is 3 x 10^14.

The world's oceans cover 360,000,000 square Km. x the above is 1 x 10^23 Joules needed to heat the oceans by 1 degree.

So each Zeta Joule will cause about 1/100th of a degree of warming.

The best data we can get for the temperature of the worlds oceans is nowhere near accurate enough to get this kind of precision and I don't actually care if it did manage it. It is going to take a heck of a lot of Zetas to cause any change anybody will notice.
26-10-2015 23:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:These papers confirm that the intensity (though not the frequency) of tropical cyclones appears to increasing, and that this is likely due to the higher ocean surface temperatures observed over the last few decades.

So is it your contention that Global Warming is causing hurricane power to be combined into fewer hurricanes of greater power? Is that what Global Warming does?

That is suggested by theory and does, indeed, appear to be the case. Though it should be noted that the level of certainty for this is relatively low.

Edit: Actually not fewer hurricanes, rather the roughly the same number, but with a higher proportion of powerful ones.


Frankly, I don't see it. The number of intense storms (greater than or equal to cat 4) even as a percentage of all category level storms doesn't seem to have any pattern to it.

Notice the years 2015 (60%), 2013 (0%), 2012 (10%), 2010 (30%), 1990 (25%), 1977 (0%) in the Eastern Pacific data summary. This is the same ocean basin Patrician itself formed in.

The Atlantic basin is likewise not showing any pattern. The years 2015 (50%), 2013 (0%), 2012 (0%), 1990 (0%), and 1977 (20%) are the same years in the Atlantic basin.
Edited on 26-10-2015 23:50
27-10-2015 00:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The effects of global warming will be, if the IPCC is right, noticable. They just won't be bad.

They will in fact be good. I can see no real likelyhood of any significant actual down side. The wrost thing I have so far come across is if you have built your house in some African desert close to the river that has not flowed for 20 years the increased rainfall that will fill the river will probably wash your shack away. You will have your choice of highly fertile land to go and farm though.

The energy budget for the surface of the earth can be out of balance. If it is there is more heat going in than coming out which will cause the place to warm up.

If you measure the heat coming out of a kettle when it is warming up it is less than the 2kW of electricity going in untill it hits boiling. Then you will burn your hand if you put it in front of the spout.

Often alarmists talk about Zeta Joules of energy going into the oceans. I have come across 1 who knew what a zeta joule is and was able to understand what happens when it goes into the oceans.

That a Zeta joul is 10 to the 21 Joules sunds vast.

A Joule is the amount of energy it would take to heat 1mg of a substance with a specific heat capacity of 1, 1 degree c.

There are 1000 mg in a liter, 1000 liters in a cubic meter of water or tonne, same thing and water has a heat capacity of 4.2. Each cubic meter of water needs 4.2 x 10^6 Joules per degree to heat up.

There are 1,000,000 square meters in a square kilometer and generally they talk about a depth of 700m, so 7 x 10^8. Multiplied by the 4.2 x 10^6 is 3 x 10^14.

The world's oceans cover 360,000,000 square Km. x the above is 1 x 10^23 Joules needed to heat the oceans by 1 degree.

So each Zeta Joule will cause about 1/100th of a degree of warming.

The best data we can get for the temperature of the worlds oceans is nowhere near accurate enough to get this kind of precision and I don't actually care if it did manage it. It is going to take a heck of a lot of Zetas to cause any change anybody will notice.


I wonder if you are even getting 1/100th of a degree of warming. Here's why:

While you can certainly measure the amount of energy reaching the surface of the Earth in your back yard, quite a bit of that energy does not go into heating anything. It just reflects back out again. How much reflects depends on the color of the surface it is striking and it's texture. Ocean water is quite reflective. The color of the water varies also. Even more so on land. Is it possible to get an accurate idea at all of how much actual energy is being absorbed by the Earth when reflectivity is constantly changing and nonuniform like it is? Even with measured data showing the level of energy arriving from the sun?
Edited on 27-10-2015 00:02
27-10-2015 04:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote: The effects of global warming will be, if the IPCC is right, noticable. They just won't be bad.


I was, above all else, trying to ascertain your position. There are three major positions (and several esoteric variants): 1) the catastrophists, 2) the Global Warmers and 3) the science purists. You seem to be a #2, willing to accept the tenets of Global Warming, i.e. "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gases," "forcings are real", etc...under the belief that they are backed by science, yes?

Additionally, you think the IPCC is a science organization, yes?

As to your assertion above, it carries the same relevance to humanity as does the assertion that Rapture will be, if the fundamentalist Christians are right, noticeable. It just won't be bad...if you're one of the faithful.

Tim the plumber wrote: They will in fact be good. I can see no real likelyhood of any significant actual down side.

To the Global Warmers, Global Warming is appealing, i.e. the earth becoming closer to a tropical paradise with richer, lusher plant life from enhanced CO2. Who wouldn't want that?

Tim the plumber wrote: The wrost thing I have so far come across is if you have built your house in some African desert close to the river that has not flowed for 20 years the increased rainfall that will fill the river will probably wash your shack away. You will have your choice of highly fertile land to go and farm though.

This is where you run into trouble. If you are going to accept the belief that Global Warming is real without any Global Warming science, then you have no basis for claiming the catastrophists are somehow mistaken. They no longer need to prove anything. You already accept the tenets of their faith. At this point, you both believe the boxing match is going on and you are merely taking bets on the outcome.

I don't see any boxers and I don't believe any fight is occurring.

Tim the plumber wrote:The energy budget for the surface of the earth can be out of balance.

No, it cannot. Yes, the solar output can increase raising the temperature of the earth, but that is a function of the sun only. At the new higher temperature the EM leaving the earth will exactly equal the inbound solar EM. There is no such thing as some atmospheric composition that can render a non-equilibrium/non-equivalence.

Tim the plumber wrote: If it is there is more heat going in than coming out which will cause the place to warm up.

There is no atmospheric composition that can cause this to happen. There is no atmospheric composition that can affect the equilibrium. Only changes in solar output can so affect the balance figures.

Tim the plumber wrote:
A Joule is the amount of energy it would take to heat 1mg of a substance with a specific heat capacity of 1, 1 degree c.

I appreciate the effort you put in to render the explanation. I understand all that. The oceans are already included in the thermal equilibrium. The fact that the earth's surface has oceans does not change the fact that the solar output is the only factor in that equation. The oceans don't play a role.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-10-2015 10:39
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IB,

When the sun comes up at dawn your back yard is cold. The energy going out of it is higher than the energy coming in, it is still cooling. This is reversed as soon as the sun gets high enough in the sky for the energy coming in from sunshine to be higher than the energy going out. Then it starts to warm up. It is soaking up heat energy.

Eventually the energy balance of the earth must be in equilibrium but this is only true over long periods. It can constantly warm and cool.

You say that the only variable in the whole system is the sun's input. I don't know if that is true. My feeling is probably 5% agree with you 1% agree that there is a GW effect and 94% I don't know.

Thus I cannot really debate the point.

So I must use the accepted "consensus" to work with. That would be the IPCC's figures which are so wide that almost any possibility is covered.

But looking at the worste case scenario I see nothing to worry about. Whilst it would be noticable it would be noticable in a small way. And a nice way. Not tropical paridise but a tiny step towards it. Like moving 150 miles towards the equator. Slightly warmer. Mostly of accademic interest.

On to the absorption rate of oceans; The degree by which a beach side sea becomes warmer during the day is fairly predictable. So the albedo, the degree of reflectivity, of the sea moust be fairly predictable. So you can work out the amount of heating it is doing etc....
27-10-2015 15:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote: When the sun comes up at dawn your back yard is cold. The energy going out of it is higher than the energy coming in, it is still cooling.

If I were reading a book, I would appreciate this type of first person perspective. However, we are talking about the planet. Pan out all the way to the view of the sun heating the earth. Let's use this perspective since differing relative positions on the planet's surface matter not (or do you prefer "naught"?).

We have the side that is facing the sun and the side that is not facing the sun. It does not matter whether the planet is rotating or not rotating. Your "from the back yard" perspective involving night and day confuses the issue. The sun is not turning off, turning on, turning off, turning on, etc.

So you have the sun heating the earth. Exactly the same amount of solar energy that is absorbed by planet earth is radiated away by planet earth. If you change the composition of the atmosphere, the earth will still radiate away exactly the amount it is absorbing. The composition of the atmosphere is meaningless.

Albedo is also meaningless. If you do something to planet earth such that it reflects more solar energy away and ends up absorbing less solar energy, then earth will radiate away less solar energy. The two will be equivalent.

So, how can earth's temperature increase?

Well, the earth's orbital distance from the sun isn't going to change noticeably anytime soon.

We can't make the atmosphere any more transparent that it is.

I don't forsee the atmosphere doubling anytime soon.

All that's left is an increase in solar output. That increases the earth's temperature which increases the earth's thermal radiation to exactly match the amount of absorbed energy. Remember when the topic of "greenhouse effect" arises that temperature is the only determinant in the amount of thermal radiation. Many will try to tell you that temperature is somehow increased by decreasing the rate of thermal emission. Not possible. If the temperature increases then the rate of thermal radiation will increase...to ensure the outgoing energy matches the incoming.


Tim the plumber wrote: You say that the only variable in the whole system is the sun's input. I don't know if that is true. My feeling is probably 5% agree with you 1% agree that there is a GW effect and 94% I don't know. Thus I cannot really debate the point.

Above, I have now explained it to you. You now do, in fact, know. The question now is to what extent does this rub against your beliefs.

I noticed that you previously avoided my questions involving science. I'll post them again for you:

1) You seem to willing to accept the tenets of Global Warming, i.e. "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gases," "forcings are real", etc...under the belief that they are backed by science, yes?

2) Additionally, you think the IPCC is a science organization, yes?

Tim the plumber wrote: So I must use the accepted "consensus" to work with. That would be the IPCC's figures which are so wide that almost any possibility is covered.

This is a testament of faith. Consensus has no role in science; it is everything in religion. Your statement is equivalent to "I must listen to my conscience." The IPCC is the Vatican of the Global Warming faith. If that is your chosen church the great! If you have found a religion that affords you comfort, then all the power to you. However, if you are also trying to convince yourself that your religion is science, then your happiness will rest in your ability to delude yourself.

Tim the plumber wrote: But looking at the worste case scenario I see nothing to worry about.

Right, your Global Warming faith certainly has a much more benign "worst case" than the catastrophist denomination's.

From the point of view of a scientist who doesn't see Global Warming as anything real, the worst case scenario is the same as the best case scenario...that what we have is what we have.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-10-2015 16:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The argument from the "standard" model is that high energy EM gets through the atmosphere better than th elower energy IR that the earth radiates away so if that is true then I can see there can be a greenhous eeffect. It si after all similar to how the glass in agreenhouse works.

I don't know enough to debate the point as I am unable to show any evidence for or against it. I don't know.

If it's a statement of faith to rely on science to be honest and as right as they can be then OK. But this is accepted and long standing. It could be wrong I have seen a paper which seemed strong to me which argued the case for the temperature of the surface of th earth not needing any such greenhouse effect to explain it's temperature but I am not able to really have astrong view on it as it's mostly beyond me.

But if you accept the IPCC's figures, just for the purpose of moving the argument on, then there needs to be no response at all. How many cities are likely to be flooded by a less than knee high sea level rise?
27-10-2015 17:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote: The argument from the "standard" model is that high energy EM gets through the atmosphere better than th elower energy IR that the earth radiates away so if that is true then I can see there can be a greenhous eeffect. It si after all similar to how the glass in agreenhouse works.

Whatever energy "gets through" and which energy "bounces around" and which energy "powers through the turns" is completely irrelevant.

The only question of relevance is "How much incoming energy is absorbed?" ...by the atmosphere, by the oceans, by the surface, ...add up all the absorbed energy. That's the amount that radiates away and is the amount that determines the temperature. Any incoming energy that is not absorbed doesn't factor into the equation. Any incoming energy that changes form to thermal energy and then to a different frequency of EM will still amount to the same amount of energy (conservation of energy).

Tim the plumber wrote: I don't know enough to debate the point as I am unable to show any evidence for or against it. I don't know.

You now know enough about the topic.

All of it completely verifiable from authoritative sources.

Tim the plumber wrote: If it's a statement of faith to rely on science to be honest and as right as they can be then OK.

The IPCC does not use science. They carefully craft every statement to ensure all falsifiability is eliminated. IPCC reports project fear and nothing more.

Tim the plumber wrote: But this is accepted and long standing.

You reveal your own faith when you write in the passive voice. Science is never settled, however you write as though you want it to be.

Tim the plumber wrote: It could be wrong I have seen a paper which seemed strong to me which argued the case for the temperature of the surface of th earth not needing any such greenhouse effect to explain it's temperature but I am not able to really have astrong view on it as it's mostly beyond me.

You are capable of walking outside and observing that the sun warms the earth. Do you really need to be convinced that there isn't anything more to it than this? Are you really asking others to prove that the unfalsifiable Global Warming god doesn't exist? To anyone who tries, could you ask him/her to also prove that the Christian God doesn't exist either.

That's not possible. If you wish to believe in the Global Warming religion then do so and enjoy it. If you are going to argue that there is any truth to it, however, then the burden of proof rests firmly with you and you can't somehow shift your burden of proof onto others to show that Global Warming is false.

Tim the plumber wrote: But if you accept the IPCC's figures, just for the purpose of moving the argument on, then there needs to be no response at all. How many cities are likely to be flooded by a less than knee high sea level rise?

That's where I am not qualified to debate/discuss. Since I don't believe in the religion, I don't accept any church member's opinion of the dogma. I believe every aspect of every square centimeter of the earth's surface will change over time. I don't believe anyone has any divine knowledge as to how, exactly, the entire globe will change. I neither believe in magical forces nor "climate" miracles. I just go by the body of science and what it has to say is all fairly clear and straightforward.


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
28-10-2015 11:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IB,

For some reason the average temperature of the moon is very much lower than the earth.

If you can account for that then you have a model which will deserve a good look at.

I have seen such a model/paper which did that without needing the greenhouse effect. That's why I am 5% swayed in that direction.

The generally accepted model needs it though. That's why I am 1% swayed in that direction.

Perhaps the reason that I am more in the direction of there being no greenhouse effect is my confirmation bias or just that it was the one I read last. But I am 94% of the opinion that I am unable to debate the finer points of it at all. But then I don't think it matters much in a political policy sense which I think is far more important.

I think that political policy should look at the IPCC's over hyped and stretched upwards numbers and have a little think about just how inconsequential they are.
28-10-2015 12:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote:For some reason the average temperature of the moon is very much lower than the earth.

Who measured the moon's temperature? We can't even get a valid average temperature for the earth. How can you even know if one is higher than the other?

Tim the plumber wrote:
I have seen such a model/paper which did that without needing the greenhouse effect.

Same question as before: Why do you or I need such a model? We already don't need any "greenhouse effect."

(Recommendation: look into Occam's Razor)

Tim the plumber wrote:The generally accepted model needs it though.

Nope. There is no model in the body of science that somehow needs a "greenhouse effect." In fact, nothing in science even mentions "greenhouse effect."

...but don't think I didn't notice your return to the passive voice, i.e. Who accepts this model? Why should you and I care? Passive voice is a keen indicator of religious faith.

Tim the plumber wrote: But I am 94% of the opinion that I am unable to debate the finer points of it at all.

So why would one just presume a position that one cannot defend if not for religious/political reasons?

Tim the plumber wrote:I think that political policy should look at the IPCC's over hyped and stretched upwards numbers and have a little think about just how inconsequential they are.

I don't see why either the Vatican, the IPCC, Mecca or the Anglican Church House need to be brought into this.


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
28-10-2015 13:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
We can measure the average temperature of the moon. To what degree of accuracy is a different question. But it's, on average, a much colder place than here.

Your theological attack on any idea of measuring anuthing which might make you think that the other side has a point is desturbing. I find it as fixed and dogmatic as the other side often is.
28-10-2015 16:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote: To what degree of accuracy is a different question.

Agreed. I don't believe we can achieve the accuracy required make the assertion you are making.

Tim the plumber wrote: But it's, on average, a much colder place than here.

Please, enlighten me as to how you know this. Does the moon have daytime snow and ice?


Tim the plumber wrote: Your theological attack on any idea of measuring anuthing which might make you think that the other side has a point is desturbing. I find it as fixed and dogmatic as the other side often is.

It's not just disturbing, it really pisses off the religious believers. I understand that. You have adopted a particularly nasty religion that teaches that it is not a religion (in fact, it teaches that it is science). Hence, your religious sensitivities become offended when someone like me points out that your religion is a religion.

Unfortunately, that is your problem and there is nothing I can do about it. I do not share your religious faith yet you somehow need me to accept your religious dogma, particularly the part about it being science. You have a problem there, and it should serve as a huge red flag to you.

Anyway, as long as you cling to this particular religion, plan on a future full of frustration as you find that anyone wielding science is going spank your most precious beliefs. If you would just admit that you believe what you believe as a matter of faith and not because you have any sort of science basis, you will feel a huge burden lifted off your shoulders and you will no longer find science to be a threat.

Also, don't get angry at me. It's not like science is somehow just my subjective opinion. This should be another big red flag for you. Why don't you just tell me with which science you disagree? Why don't you just tell me where I am mistaken? We both know the answer. There is nothing wrong with what I am writing and you don't want to be seen as being a science "denier." The end result is that you get angry at me for posting the science that runs counter to the dogma. I get it. I just don't know what you expect me to do about it.

Please advise.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-10-2015 13:45
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

Given that I put myself at 94% don't know about the greenhouse effect I don't think I can be accused of being religious about it.

You however KNOW about it despite not being able to present any evidence about it. That is religious.

I care only in a accademic sense about the effects of increased CO2 if they are not going to be noticable. If care a lot about public policy. Icare that the present mis-use of bad science is killing tens of millions of people per year.
29-10-2015 17:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote: If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

I admit that there exist some rather expensive atronomy IR meters. I don't believe you or anyone have the capability to point five such synchronized devices such that the entirety of the moon's surface is measured at the same instant. Can you?

Tim the plumber wrote: Given that I put myself at 94% don't know about the greenhouse effect I don't think I can be accused of being religious about it.

You most certainly can. You're playing semantic games. Belief is not what you "know" but rather what you "believe." The concept of God is completely unfalsifiable, hence no one can literally know whether God exists, but that doesn't prevent many millions of people from holding a very strong belief in such. There's no way you can "know" anything about the unfalsifiable Global Warming dogma in which you believe. There is nothing wrong with your belief beyond your own irritation at it being correctly called a faith.

I hope you realize that if you are bothered by the true nature of your faith being revealed then you probably shouldn't be reading posts in a forum discussing all aspects of Global Warming.

If you don't mind me asking a question, you have me a tad confused. Why do you, on the one hand, announce that you don't know enough math and science to debate a particular point, but then get all pissy when someone like me simply explains that point to you? I'd be happy to discuss science with you all day. I think you can understand why I would expect you to not get angry at the messenger who simply alerts you to the fact that you've been lied to?

Tim the plumber wrote: You however KNOW about it despite not being able to present any evidence about it. That is religious.

The sure sign of a religious person who is struggling to defend his dogma is the intentional misrepresentation of the positions of others.

I have made it clear that I am an atheist. I don't have any theology, so I don't share yours (and that's what pisses you off). I have never claimed to "know" anything about any unfalsifiable dogma except that it is unfalsifiable, and thus it cannot involve science.

Tim the plumber wrote: I care only in a accademic sense about the effects of increased CO2 if they are not going to be noticable.

Will you be disappointed when you learn that the only effect from additional atmospheric CO2 is that plants around the world will grow better? Will you be disappointed to learn that there are no heat/thermal/temperature/warming properties to CO2 that all other gases don't have?

Tim the plumber wrote: If care a lot about public policy. Icare that the present mis-use of bad science is killing tens of millions of people per year.

You have made this clear. Obviously this is a very noble and worthy effort on your part. It has nothing to do with Global Warming or atmospheric CO2. I wish you the best in your drive.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-10-2015 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

I admit that there exist some rather expensive atronomy IR meters. I don't believe you or anyone have the capability to point five such synchronized devices such that the entirety of the moon's surface is measured at the same instant. Can you?


You can only accurately measure something like the IR from the moon from an orbital platform. The Earth's atmosphere (and it's water vapor, ozone, etc., all of which varies) gets in the way of any surfaced based IR meter.
29-10-2015 20:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

Given that I put myself at 94% don't know about the greenhouse effect I don't think I can be accused of being religious about it.

You however KNOW about it despite not being able to present any evidence about it. That is religious.

I care only in a accademic sense about the effects of increased CO2 if they are not going to be noticable. If care a lot about public policy. Icare that the present mis-use of bad science is killing tens of millions of people per year.

Look, Tim, if IBdaMann says the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist, OK? And don't let anyone convince you it does, least of all those sneaky, low-down scientists with their lousy experiments and evidence. IBdaMann knows what's good for you - listen to him and to him alone.
29-10-2015 20:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote:Look, Tim, if IBdaMann says the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist, OK?

Look, I know you're still pouting from your last smackdown, but you don't have to misrepresent my position out of spite.

I have never claimed any unfalsifiable deity to not exist...not the Christian God, not the Global Warming "greenhouse effect," not the Muslim Allah, not the Norse Odin, et. al.

I am an atheist. I simply don't have that theology. Not believing in a WACKY religious fantasy is not asserting that something does not exist.

For your part, you haven't provided any falsifiability. It seems like you are the one insisting that the "greenhouse effect" doesn't exist.


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
30-10-2015 00:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Look, Tim, if IBdaMann says the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist, OK?

Look, I know you're still pouting from your last smackdown, but you don't have to misrepresent my position out of spite.

I have never claimed any unfalsifiable deity to not exist...not the Christian God, not the Global Warming "greenhouse effect," not the Muslim Allah, not the Norse Odin, et. al.

I am an atheist. I simply don't have that theology. Not believing in a WACKY religious fantasy is not asserting that something does not exist.

For your part, you haven't provided any falsifiability. It seems like you are the one insisting that the "greenhouse effect" doesn't exist.

Sorry, but you seem unable to differentiate between science and religion. It's not hard though: science (e.g. the greenhouse effect) is underpinned by evidence as set out in academic journals; religion (e.g. Christianity) is underpinned by faith as set out in holy books. If you are still unable to distinguish between science and scripture, then I recommend you take a course in basic philosophy before posting more of your idiocy on here.
30-10-2015 04:44
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Surface detail - I'll agree with IB on this because I think I kniw what he'll say. Religions also make use of evidence to support their beliefs, so unless you expand a bit your definition of science, you're wrong.
30-10-2015 09:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - I've always seen religion and science as two sides of the same coin. Both are trying to interpret the world we live in.

Religion approaches it by attributing everything to a higher power (the unknown).

Science approaches it by attributing everything to natural causes (the known or yet to be known).

In some ways, religion was our first attempt at scratching out organized thought about our surroundings and, in that sense, can be considered a proto-science.

Unfortunately, by today's standards, the people who created the foundations of our major religions (the Torah, the Koran, the Bible, etc.) had, by today's standards, about a third grade education. Now, I think we can do better than that, and that's why I prefer science, though I stay conscious of religion.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 30-10-2015 09:54
30-10-2015 10:16
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@tranf - That's an interesting thought. The search to understanding the world we live in isn't the only they science and religion share, and that's why I asked SF to provide a more specific definition as it was to broad to be correct.
In religion, someone could provide evidence that Jesus exists and answers their prayers because they found a Jesus-shaped toast, wouldn't you agree?
30-10-2015 10:33
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - Jesus has been found in many unexpected places (this showed up on the internet a few years back):



To read about this, go to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/dog-butt-looks-like-jesus-photo_n_3436086.html


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 30-10-2015 11:24
30-10-2015 10:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

I admit that there exist some rather expensive atronomy IR meters. I don't believe you or anyone have the capability to point five such synchronized devices such that the entirety of the moon's surface is measured at the same instant. Can you?


You can only accurately measure something like the IR from the moon from an orbital platform. The Earth's atmosphere (and it's water vapor, ozone, etc., all of which varies) gets in the way of any surfaced based IR meter.


I don't know about this.

You do.

You are however on weak ground because humans have gone to the moon and found the temperature to be what was expected.

Also we now have space based observational instruments.

Also why would the spectrum of light from the moon be altered by passing through the atmosphere? Any light absorbed would then be scattered when/if re-emitted. We get light from distant galaxies through and work out how hot the stars are...

We can measure the temperature of the moon.
30-10-2015 11:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

Given that I put myself at 94% don't know about the greenhouse effect I don't think I can be accused of being religious about it.

You however KNOW about it despite not being able to present any evidence about it. That is religious.

I care only in a accademic sense about the effects of increased CO2 if they are not going to be noticable. If care a lot about public policy. Icare that the present mis-use of bad science is killing tens of millions of people per year.

Look, Tim, if IBdaMann says the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist, OK? And don't let anyone convince you it does, least of all those sneaky, low-down scientists with their lousy experiments and evidence. IBdaMann knows what's good for you - listen to him and to him alone.


There are those here who think that I am aggressive, rude, trollish and without a clear political point.

My purpose of doing this activism, trying to get my thoughts out there, is very focused; I am of the opinion that the word/meam science is probably the most powerful mechanism for changing the behaviour of humanity. When used well, with scientific rigor, it is wonderful. When used by fraudsters it has all the power of a wild fire. Lots of destruction.

I don't care if people like me or not.

I care about humans not being unnecessarily starved to death. Or gassed by pollutants from cars optimised to reduce CO2 which is not a problem rather than to avoid the actual poisons being produced.

To this end I will attack any bad science I come across.

If any of my arguments are scientifically wrong please do your duty to truth amd smash them. This is not a coffee morning.
30-10-2015 12:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote:
We can measure the temperature of the moon.[/color]

Just to be clear, you are certainly correct that any of us can measure the average surface temperature of the entire moon.

It just won't be of any usable accuracy.

NASA has data on the daytime temperature of the moon and has separate data on the nighttime temperature. We know what to expect in sending someone to the lunar surface.

We still don't have an accurate average lunar 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
30-10-2015 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: If you use an IR camera you can measure the heat of the moon or any other heat emitting object at a distance.

This is easy and accurate to a level that is much better than 1 degree.

I admit that there exist some rather expensive atronomy IR meters. I don't believe you or anyone have the capability to point five such synchronized devices such that the entirety of the moon's surface is measured at the same instant. Can you?


I don't know about this.

You do.

You are however on weak ground because humans have gone to the moon and found the temperature to be what was expected.

Also we now have space based observational instruments.

Also why would the spectrum of light from the moon be altered by passing through the atmosphere? Any light absorbed would then be scattered when/if re-emitted. We get light from distant galaxies through and work out how hot the stars are...

We can measure the temperature of the moon.


You can only accurately measure something like the IR from the moon from an orbital platform. The Earth's atmosphere (and it's water vapor, ozone, etc., all of which varies) gets in the way of any surfaced based IR meter.


Absorption of infrared energy generally takes place during the day. That's when there is so much of it available from the sun. The effect reduces the warming of the surface by preventing that energy from ever reaching the surface in the first place.

Absorption doesn't just sit there as electromagnetic energy. It is the conversion of electromagnetic energy into mechanical energy in the form of vibrating molecules. A vibrating molecule does lose some of it's energy back into electromagnetic form again, but the frequency is changed significantly. Most of that energy is in the form of radio waves, with some extending up into the low infrared again (making it detectable by an infrared scanner). Most of the energy, though, stays with the molecule...until night.

As surrounding conditions cool, this energy in such a molecule can now flow away. The difference of energy is now outward, not inward. The grand upshot is cooler days and warmer nights...in other words, a narrowing of temperature swing. The molecule has added no energy, but it has helped to moderate it. This effect is true for all matter in the atmosphere, regardless of the actual substance. The only difference is that some components are a bit more inclined to absorption of certain frequencies than others. It is this difference that is used as the principle behind Mauna Loa's instrumentation.

Until we went to the Moon, we had no real idea of it's surface temperature. The only information we had was measuring the temperature on spacecraft in orbit. High altitude balloons gave us a vague idea of that, so we could prepare spacecraft that could handle the peak temperatures anticipated. Unmanned rockets helped to confirm this before anyone sent a man up for the first time.

Stars are high energy objects. The color of light they produce is shifted toward red, but they are still in the visible range. This gives us a fairly good idea of their surface temperature. It is more accurate in space without the problems of a fluid atmosphere messing with the measurements, but the atmosphere is less of a problem for such objects.
Page 5 of 8<<<34567>>>





Join the debate The Data Mine:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate Data Gaps?125-06-2019 13:28
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data627-05-2019 21:00
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 03:44
▲ 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