Remember me
▼ Content

The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist



Page 3 of 4<1234>
05-03-2020 03:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 20a2...25k...25f...29...20a1...20a2...20b...20f...16b...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
05-03-2020 18:13
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: What is the universe expanding into?

Many among us presume the universe is expanding into absolutely nothing, i.e. not into a vacuum as we understand it but into nothing, which we have never had in our experience.

However, there are others who believe in a "continuum" that isn't necessarily expanding. I am not an expert in that theory.

In both cases, the universe is "closed" in the sense that energy is not being exchanged with anything beyond it.


.



Space not filled with something is considered to be a vacuum. As has been said by Aristotle, nature abhors a vacuum.
05-03-2020 18:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
James___ wrote: Space not filled with something is considered to be a vacuum.

We humans have no experience of a "nothing." We can only ponder the nature of that which is nothing ... and it is not a vacuum because a vacuum is a something, a something loaded with gravitons and electromagnetic radiation and time-passage and three observable dimensions and perhaps stuff of which we are unaware.

No human has ever experienced complete "nothing" much less studied it.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
05-03-2020 21:42
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Space not filled with something is considered to be a vacuum.

We humans have no experience of a "nothing." We can only ponder the nature of that which is nothing ... and it is not a vacuum because a vacuum is a something, a something loaded with gravitons and electromagnetic radiation and time-passage and three observable dimensions and perhaps stuff of which we are unaware.

No human has ever experienced complete "nothing" much less studied it.



.



It is like "defining" an isolated system. We could consider there are other universes as a possibility just as we can consider that we live in the only universe.
And to define a vacuum, it is an area with less volume than the field it is in.
An example is if you have a cube 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter, it is an area of 1 m^3. It's volume depends on what is inside the defined area. If nothing, then it has no volume. If it has gases, then the number of molecules would determine volume and not the area of space occupied by the volume.
With that said, if there are no other universes then the area that creates a field around our universe has no volume, it is a vacuum. If it's volume allows for less density than our universe, it is a vacuum.
And as such it would be an opposing force to the energy contained in our universe. With that said, our universe is not an isolated system. Something outside of its boundaries is having an effect on it.
This is also the difference between science and philosophy. With philosophy you could say that the self is isolated because it does not recognize its environment or that which is not of the self. It only recognizes itself. Why I don't bother with philosophy.
05-03-2020 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Space not filled with something is considered to be a vacuum.

We humans have no experience of a "nothing." We can only ponder the nature of that which is nothing ... and it is not a vacuum because a vacuum is a something, a something loaded with gravitons and electromagnetic radiation and time-passage and three observable dimensions and perhaps stuff of which we are unaware.

No human has ever experienced complete "nothing" much less studied it.



.



It is like "defining" an isolated system.

Non-sequitur fallacy.
James___ wrote:
We could consider there are other universes as a possibility just as we can consider that we live in the only universe.

If there is 'more than one universe', then none of them are a universe.
James___ wrote:
And to define a vacuum, it is an area with less volume than the field it is in.
An example is if you have a cube 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter, it is an area of 1 m^3. It's volume depends on what is inside the defined area. If nothing, then it has no volume. If it has gases, then the number of molecules would determine volume and not the area of space occupied by the volume.
With that said, if there are no other universes then the area that creates a field around our universe has no volume, it is a vacuum. If it's volume allows for less density than our universe, it is a vacuum.
And as such it would be an opposing force to the energy contained in our universe. With that said, our universe is not an isolated system. Something outside of its boundaries is having an effect on it.

A universe has no boundaries. If there is something 'outside' the universe, it is not the universe.
James___ wrote:
This is also the difference between science and philosophy. With philosophy you could say that the self is isolated because it does not recognize its environment or that which is not of the self. It only recognizes itself. Why I don't bother with philosophy.

Word salad is not philosophy.


The Parrot Killer
06-03-2020 01:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
James___ wrote: It is like "defining" an isolated system.

No. It's not.

It's like comprehending something for which we have no comprehension.

James___ wrote: And to define a vacuum, it is an area with less volume than the field it is in.

Not only is that not an acceptable definition of a vacuum, but "vacuum" is not the topic.

James___ wrote: An example is if you have a cube 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter, it is an area of 1 m^3. It's volume depends on what is inside the defined area.

James__, I unfortunately have some very bad news for you. Regardless of whatever is inside the 1 m^3 volume, the volume is still 1 m^3.

Exactly how were you convinced that a 1 m^3 volume could have some volume other than 1 m^3?

James___ wrote: If it has gases, then the number of molecules would determine volume and not the area of space occupied by the volume.

James__, you know this is not correct. You are well aware of the Ideal Gas Law:

PV = nRT

If you change the number of molecules, you change the pressure and the volume V remains the same.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
06-03-2020 04:04
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: It is like "defining" an isolated system.

No. It's not.

It's like comprehending something for which we have no comprehension.

James___ wrote: And to define a vacuum, it is an area with less volume than the field it is in.

Not only is that not an acceptable definition of a vacuum, but "vacuum" is not the topic.

James___ wrote: An example is if you have a cube 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter, it is an area of 1 m^3. It's volume depends on what is inside the defined area.

James__, I unfortunately have some very bad news for you. Regardless of whatever is inside the 1 m^3 volume, the volume is still 1 m^3.

Exactly how were you convinced that a 1 m^3 volume could have some volume other than 1 m^3?

James___ wrote: If it has gases, then the number of molecules would determine volume and not the area of space occupied by the volume.

James__, you know this is not correct. You are well aware of the Ideal Gas Law:

PV = nRT

If you change the number of molecules, you change the pressure and the volume V remains the same.



.


You say; James__, I unfortunately have some very bad news for you. Regardless of whatever is inside the 1 m^3 volume, the volume is still 1 m^3.

This is where science requires a more stringent definition than which philosophy requires. As such, 1 m^3 can be either space or area. We are discussing atmospheric physics, right?
As such, the volume of our atmosphere would actually be the number of molecules and not the cubic area of the space it occupies. If you have a cubic area that is empty, then it has no volume. Since you have no real desire to understand stand, basic terms are acceptable. And because of that, your understanding of science will always be limited.
06-03-2020 16:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
James___ wrote: As such, the volume of our atmosphere would actually be the number of molecules and not the cubic area of the space it occupies.


You imply that the Ideal Gas Law is false. It has separate, independent Volume and Amount_of_Matter variables.

You, however, claim that the Volume variable is dependent upon the Amount_of_Matter variable.

James___ wrote: If you have a cubic area that is empty, then it has no volume.

Actually, it's a volume of the same size, it just has no contents. The volume of your closet doesn't change as you remove a coat or hang up a jacket. Only "the contents" change.

Within our atmosphere, this is why we track pressure changes because that leads to winds and storms and hail and tornadoes and other things.


James___ wrote:Since you have no real desire to understand stand, basic terms are acceptable. And because of that, your understanding of science will always be limited.


At least I have you to teach me and to keep me on track.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
06-03-2020 17:14
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: As such, the volume of our atmosphere would actually be the number of molecules and not the cubic area of the space it occupies.


You imply that the Ideal Gas Law is false. It has separate, independent Volume and Amount_of_Matter variables.

You, however, claim that the Volume variable is dependent upon the Amount_of_Matter variable.

James___ wrote: If you have a cubic area that is empty, then it has no volume.

Actually, it's a volume of the same size, it just has no contents. The volume of your closet doesn't change as you remove a coat or hang up a jacket. Only "the contents" change.

Within our atmosphere, this is why we track pressure changes because that leads to winds and storms and hail and tornadoes and other things.


James___ wrote:Since you have no real desire to understand stand, basic terms are acceptable. And because of that, your understanding of science will always be limited.


At least I have you to teach me and to keep me on track.


.



When you go to the store to buy a gallon of milk, is that the amount of milk in the container or the area/space the container has? If you notice, the container isn't full. So which volume does gallon refer to?

https://images.app.goo.gl/7jMathkYkMj1tTTj6
Attached image:

06-03-2020 17:21
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
Or how about if you want 2 liters of soda? Is that the volume of soda in the container or the area/space the container occupies?

https://images.app.goo.gl/YrVAitCNyghVkTg78

With atmospheric gases, volume refers to the number of molecules. If you want to change accepted scientific definitions then you are falling back on philosophy because it is your "self" that is defining it's environment rather than seeking a balance with it. You can expect yourself to be in conflict with the established order by which most other people live. That's your problem.
Attached image:

06-03-2020 18:02
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1775)
The planet is not sealed inside plastic bottle! There is no physical barrier to define the volume of the atmosphere. It can expand and contract, which is why we have wind, and waves, the Norwegian jet stream. There is no container. The content of the atmosphere changes constantly. We add evil CO2, 'at an alarming rate'. Water vapor changes constantly. Water evaporates, or it rains. Not sure what you were trying to express, but you are are just plain wrong.
06-03-2020 18:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
James___ wrote: When you go to the store to buy a gallon of milk, is that the amount of milk in the container or the area/space the container has?

Correct. One gallon of MILK is sufficient milk to fill a one-gallon volume.

So we then ask, what is the volume of a one-gallon milk jug that is empty? The answer is that it is a one gallon volume ... that has no contents within the volume.




.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
06-03-2020 21:42
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: When you go to the store to buy a gallon of milk, is that the amount of milk in the container or the area/space the container has?

Correct. One gallon of MILK is sufficient milk to fill a one-gallon volume.

So we then ask, what is the volume of a one-gallon milk jug that is empty? The answer is that it is a one gallon volume ... that has no contents within the volume.




.



We are different. I have interests that I enjoy pursuing while you have a belief that you want to preach. Your definitions would only hinder me. It'd be like if I went to kindergarten, then you could teach me. I simply don't have the need.
07-03-2020 03:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: IBD's rebuttal to that statement:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
Anytime you're ready to debate that let me know.
So, go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.

tmiddles wrote:
Without question, if you take a 10 watt light bulb and place it next to a 100 watt light bulb, the radiance from the 10 watt light bulb will move just as fast, in the exact same quantity, toward the 100 watt light bulb as it does in every other direction. Radiance WILL BE absorbed by the 100 watt light bulb from the 10 watt light bulb. The 100 watt light bulb will have a higher temperature because it's next to a 10 watt light bulb.
Did you agree with that assertion? It would seem to contradict yours.

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. You insist ....
Try quoting me and you'll what I've actually said.

IBdaMann wrote:As long as you insist the temperature increases

The temperature is higher. Only the Sun causes it to increase. The greenhouse effect comes into play in how much thermal energy is present.
Did you think a sponge creates water?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
07-03-2020 16:20
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1775)
If you powered the 100 watt bulb, and set a 10 watt bulb hooked to a meter, how much electrical energy is transferred to the 10 watt bulb?

If you run the 100 watt bulb through a watt meter, then turn on the 10 watt bulb, will it only use 90 watts of power?

If the 100 watt bulb is absorbing energy from the 10 watt bulb, what happened to that energy? Where did it go?

If you put a 100 watt bulb, next to a 10 watt bulb, in a 70 F room, would the dead body putrefy faster?
08-03-2020 12:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
HarveyH55 wrote:
If the 100 watt bulb is absorbing energy from the 10 watt bulb, what happened to that energy?
Light bulbs don't convert radiance back into electricity Harvey.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/485508/a-heat-flow-generalized-problem-featuring-light-bulb-and-oven

"If an incandescent light bulb under constant power is taken from room temperature 25 deg C to an oven at 75 deg C, does the filament temperature increase by 50 C?" What do you think Harvey? I mean the filament of a light bulb is crazy hot! Like 3000C/3300K (source)

So if a hotter object cannot absorb radiance from cooler objects, as IBD claims, how on Earth could a 3000C filament of a light bulb get hotter being in a 75C enclosure vs. a 25C enclosure?

But those experts seem to think that : "Yes, it will increase by 50C " using something along the lines of (T^4-T0^4). aka Net Thermal Radiation (12 references here)

Could it be that even if you're really really hot you're hotter when around warmer things than around colder things? Let me ask my dog, or a baby, or look it up in the journal DUH!



Yup! Being by something warmer will mean you have a higher temperature than if you're by something colder. Even if you are hotter than what is near you!

This is why you're seeing IBD and ITN duck this debate like a hot potato.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 08-03-2020 12:37
08-03-2020 16:42
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
If the 100 watt bulb is absorbing energy from the 10 watt bulb, what happened to that energy?
Light bulbs don't convert radiance back into electricity Harvey.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/485508/a-heat-flow-generalized-problem-featuring-light-bulb-and-oven

"If an incandescent light bulb under constant power is taken from room temperature 25 deg C to an oven at 75 deg C, does the filament temperature increase by 50 C?" What do you think Harvey? I mean the filament of a light bulb is crazy hot! Like 3000C/3300K (source)

So if a hotter object cannot absorb radiance from cooler objects, as IBD claims, how on Earth could a 3000C filament of a light bulb get hotter being in a 75C enclosure vs. a 25C enclosure?

But those experts seem to think that : "Yes, it will increase by 50C " using something along the lines of (T^4-T0^4). aka Net Thermal Radiation (12 references here)

Could it be that even if you're really really hot you're hotter when around warmer things than around colder things? Let me ask my dog, or a baby, or look it up in the journal DUH!



Yup! Being by something warmer will mean you have a higher temperature than if you're by something colder. Even if you are hotter than what is near you!

This is why you're seeing IBD and ITN duck this debate like a hot potato.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN



And yet O2 and O combined to absorb heat in a cold area and release it in a warm area. With the light bulbs, the filament of a warmer light bulb probably would not have light emitted from a lower wattage bulb reach it.
Chances are that the gases in the higher wattage bulb would refract it if it made it through the bulb itself. This is because energy moving through the bulb might have polarized the bulb so energy would flow in the direction of greatest amplitude.
What you're making an argument for is that oxygen (O2) depletion in our atmosphere would reduce the amount of heat that our atmosphere can radiate either through radiance or convection (O2 + O = O3) into the stratosphere.
I'll check;
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

Global temperatures during January - August 2011 were the third coldest on record in the lower stratosphere, according to the National Climatic Data Center, and have been generally declining in recent decades (Figure 1). Why is this important? Well, the stratosphere is that layer of the upper atmosphere approximately 14-22 km (9-14 miles) above the surface that contains our protective ozone layer. The main reason for the recent stratospheric cooling is due to the destruction of ozone by human-emitted CFC gases. Ozone absorbs solar UV radiation, which heats the surrounding air in the stratosphere. Loss of ozone means that less UV light gets absorbed, resulting in cooling of the stratosphere. Cooling of the stratosphere results in the formation of more polar stratospheric clouds, which require very cold temperatures to form. The presence of these clouds allows even more ozone destruction to occur, since the reactions responsible for ozone destruction occur much faster in clouds than in dry air. Thus, the recent cooling of the stratosphere allows high levels of harmful UV light to reach the surface. As CFC gases begin to decline in coming years thanks to banning of these substances in 1987, the stratosphere should start to warm, and ozone levels will recover.

As for this statement in the same article;
However, this recovery of the ozone layer is being delayed. A significant portion of the observed stratospheric cooling is also due to human-emitted greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane.

The IPCC itself states that record levels of both CO2 and CH4 (methane) are responsible for ozone recovery.

This research article seems to support what weather underground stated.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028901

It appears that I am about the only person aware of this contradiction. This shows where I've done a lot of online research on both the tropopause and the stratosphere.
Edited on 08-03-2020 16:52
08-03-2020 20:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSa1...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
08-03-2020 20:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSa3...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
08-03-2020 21:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Into the Night wrote:RQAA.
Run Quickly Away Always



Because if you can't win it's better to stay out of the ring.
09-03-2020 00:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)



Because you can't win when there's no discussion. It's better to just run away from the preaching.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
09-03-2020 00:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
IBdaMann wrote:
...It's better to just run away...

So refreshing to hear you admit it.

So I guess you are running away here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s680.php#post_53456
3 days with no reply

And here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
4 days with no reply

And here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
11 days with no reply

It's kinda sad you are reduced to declaring Venus a socialist plot.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 09-03-2020 00:35
09-03-2020 00:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...It's better to just run away...

So refreshing to hear you admit it.

So I guess you are running away here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s680.php#post_53456
3 days with no reply

And here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
4 days with no reply

And here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
11 days with no reply

It's kinda sad you are reduced to declaring Venus a socialist plot.


Still waiting for your responses in all cases. The ball is in your court. I'm still here. See?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
09-03-2020 02:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
IBdaMann wrote:
Still waiting for your responses in all cases. The ball is in your court. I'm still here. See?
Ah ITN's old standby, the nonsense approach.

No response, no rebuttal. Not only to those 3 but past threads were more artfully dodged. It seems you finally have admitted defeat to yourself and won't be getting back up.



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
09-03-2020 02:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Still waiting for your responses in all cases. The ball is in your court. I'm still here. See?
Ah ITN's old standby, the nonsense approach.

Still waiting for your responses in all cases. The ball is in your court. I'm still here. See?


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
09-03-2020 03:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
IBdaMann wrote:
The ball is in your court.


A game of dodge ball.

Dodged post one here with NO REPLY from IBD:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s680.php#post_53456

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What raw data do we have?
Earlier in the thread. If you want to continue ducking this it's your right. I know youre smart enough to know you can't win.

IBdaMann wrote:No. The average planetary temperature does not involve the core or the mantle. We have covered this. What you call the planet's "equilibrium" temperature is the planet's average temperature.

I do not agree with you. Your definitions overlap hopelessly.

So I will adapt here just for you IBD. "Planetary temperature" and "equilibrium temperature" are both retired temporarliy. I will use a new title of my own:

SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMPERATURE
which I define as the temperature which corresponds to the emission of radiance for the entire surface area of any object with that emission of energy being equal to the energy absorbed from the Sun.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
My hypothesis is not for a value it is to say that it is greater than a value. So the margin is already there.
Nope. On this point we cannot be vague and we cannot be ambiguous.

We need an unambiguous hypothesis and your declared "acceptable" margin of error before we can begin.

My understanding of your hypothesis is:
TABA = "Temperature at the Bottom of the Atmosphere"
Mean[TABA(Venus)] - Equilibrium(Venus) > 200degC +/- ?degC
Is this correct?
.

Nah let me help you out with that. It is:

Mean[TABA(Venus)] - SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMP = 508C +/- 300 degC

So my hypothesis is that we can be confident that the answer is between 208C and 808C.

That is correct. So the "cold" end of that margin is 208C. None of this is new. I've already presented all of it.

The temperature provided by NASA and the CCCP is 462C. We put a +/-200 degree margin on that simply to set aside extreme skepticism I don't myself possess. The albedo of Venus is estimated at 0.6 which gives us a SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMP for a sphere the size of Venus of -46C, an albedo of 0.0 would give us 55C so we put a +/- 100C margin on that for the same reason.

If you want to go on to pretend "raw data" is needed for a requirement go ahead. You have been thoroughly debunked on that subject:
no data is valid for IBD
Besides which this is the reason for the +/-200 degree margin, the skepticism you presumably have about the ability of the CCCP and NASA to get it right.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I accept the measurements with a substantial margin of error.
Sure that's reasonable. So why don't you also do that with the temperature?
I did. You suggested a 200deg margin of error and I said "OK" for discussion's sake.


Dodged post two here with NO REPLY from IBD:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: IBD's rebuttal to that statement:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
Anytime you're ready to debate that let me know.
So, go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.

tmiddles wrote:
Without question, if you take a 10 watt light bulb and place it next to a 100 watt light bulb, the radiance from the 10 watt light bulb will move just as fast, in the exact same quantity, toward the 100 watt light bulb as it does in every other direction. Radiance WILL BE absorbed by the 100 watt light bulb from the 10 watt light bulb. The 100 watt light bulb will have a higher temperature because it's next to a 10 watt light bulb.
Did you agree with that assertion? It would seem to contradict yours.

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. You insist ....
Try quoting me and you'll what I've actually said.

IBdaMann wrote:As long as you insist the temperature increases

The temperature is higher. Only the Sun causes it to increase. The greenhouse effect comes into play in how much thermal energy is present.
Did you think a sponge creates water?


Dodged post three here with NO REPLY from IBD:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: No falsifiable model
Sure it is. In fact your arguments the greenhouse effect is impossible are falsified by what we've learned about Venus, which simply confirms what we are fairly certain of about Earth. All you got now is random doubt.

IBdaMann wrote:... and the best of his knowledge lacks any understanding of what Greenhouse Effect is, in any formal sense.
You keep skipping past the part where we KNOW, we KNOW!!! it's there. Venus leaves no boubt about it. Now you can talk about WHY it's happening but to pretend it's not is simply insane.

IBdaMann wrote: The religious dogma specifies a temperature increase of 33°C which requires additional energy to be created, an obvious violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... so discussion is not allowed to "go there."
You mean the discussion you're currently dodging? You've been debunked here and have no rebuttal. Because you're dead wrong. No magical nuclear reactor on Venus creating an additional 500 degrees!

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: ... its surface-temperature at about –18°C, ...

This number is completely fabricated.
No that is a temperature based on the radiance we receive from the Sun. Pretend we can't measure that too. No one can stop you.

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: ... whereas its observed actual temperature is about +15°C.

This number is completely fabricated,...
No it's an estimate and accurate enough to prove a greenhouse effect exists. Maybe not accurate enough to show a 1/4 degree shift. Oh and then there's Venus you've been dodging. 500 extra degrees IBD. But keep pretending.

IBdaMann wrote:If energy is merely recycled then "cooling" exactly equals "warming".....Greenhouse Effect, ...is considered an energy source that is creating energy....1st law is still being violated
You're still pretending Earth is an isolated system, it is not. You have been debunked here

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: The principle at work here is the same as that used in a metal-foil survival-blanket when applied to a striken mountaineer ...

In this example, the heat source is INSIDE the bag, not outside the bag.
Let's alter this scenario. Let's say that you place the survival blanket over a rock that is sitting in the sun. When does the rock's temperature increase?
Hey I got a great example for you IBD. A GREENHOUSE!

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted:The back-radiation from CO2 may be too slight to be detectable in practice,
There is no "back radiation."
Did you say that as you waved your commemorative Harry Potter wand? Because you didn't make an argument. Radiance is back, forward and side to side. You see it goes in all directions.

IBdaMann wrote:Only the 1st law is still being violated.
And you are still debunked without a rebuttal: here




Listen to your comrade ITN:
Into the Night wrote: You have the data... You no longer have an excuse to evade the conversation. Stop calling people names and proceed with your discussion.....You have been EVADING a sensible conversation by ...demanding data to be formatted in a particular way...Start having a discussion about the meaning of the data you have!
From his thread, the Data Mine

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 09-03-2020 03:26
09-03-2020 05:05
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
Anyone ever play a vinyl record with a scratch in it? with a scratch in it? with a scratch in it? with a scratch in it?

And since this thread is about the radiative greenhouse effect, oxygen in it's various forms influences this. As for Venus, it's atmospheric pressure being 92 times greater than the Earth's hasn't been explained. With the Boltzmann Ideal Gas Law, pressure influences temperature. Is not a part of the discussion. It seems 3 aspects of atmospheric temperature are simply ignored.
I do apologize for having my own opinion. An example is that we should try to understand what it is that we don't know. But this is not an Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics forum. It's a debate forum


I'll throw some numbers at you guys. 1 mol is about 22.4 m^3 of space. With Venus' temperature and pressure, according to the Ideal Gas Law, it should have about 32,500 mols of gas in the 22.4 m^3 of space.
What this suggests is that gas molecules under pressure release heat content, ie., gases under pressure cool because they release their heat. Like steam condensing into water. If I remember correctly, 1 quart of water can make 16,000 quarts of steam unless it's under pressure.
Enjoy the debate

Edited on 09-03-2020 05:43
09-03-2020 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...17...36e...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-03-2020 19:29
09-03-2020 19:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 16...17...7...29...16b...20a2...20b...25k...25j...29...20b...20a2..29...20a2...38a...16b...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
09-03-2020 19:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 29...16b...15...4a...7...


Evasion. Answer the questions put to you. No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
09-03-2020 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSa5...Mantra 1...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
09-03-2020 20:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
tmiddles wrote:So I will adapt here just for you IBD. "Planetary temperature" and "equilibrium temperature" are both retired temporarliy. I will use a new title of my own:

SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMPERATURE
which I define as the temperature which corresponds to the emission of radiance for the entire surface area of any object with that emission of energy being equal to the energy absorbed from the Sun.

Thank you ... this makes for a great lead-in to your unambiguous definition which will look like a mathematical equation.

Go ahead and lay it on me.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We need an unambiguous hypothesis and your declared "acceptable" margin of error before we can begin.

Nah let me help you out with that. It is:

Mean[TABA(Venus)] - SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMP = 508C +/- 300 degC

Great ... so once you provide that unambiguous "SOLAR ABSORPTION TEMP" definition we can insert it into this equation and get your complete unambiguous hypothesis and your target margin of error.

You are making excellent headway.

tmiddles wrote:The temperature provided by NASA and the CCCP is 462C. We put a +/-200 degree margin on that simply to set aside extreme skepticism I don't myself possess.


We have been over why this is worthless. You are on tap to provide the raw data and we cannot proceed until we have it.

tmiddles wrote: The albedo of Venus is estimated at 0.6

Where did you get that idea?

If you want to discuss Venus' emissivity then you must provide the raw data for that ... which no one has. Until humanity is able to measure something like that it remains an unknown value between 0.0 and 1.0.

The requirements haven't changed. The same ball is still in your court.




.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
10-03-2020 01:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
IBdaMann wrote:
Thank you ... The requirements haven't changed. The same ball is still in your

To respect the board's rules I'll responded in the corresponding thread here:
Venus is Hotter than Mercury
10-03-2020 01:43
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Thank you ... The requirements haven't changed. The same ball is still in your

To respect the board's rules I'll responded in the corresponding thread here:
Venus is Hotter than Mercury



Umm, ITN or IBDM, can you please explain to me the Stefan_Boltzmann Constant and how it applies to this situation? You both know that i reject the accepted mainstream ideology that you Amerikkaners accept is that it means something in astrophysics. I think you're both a couple of retards who's sisters married their brothers and had kids, ie., the 2 of you.
Butt we all know that no one uses the Stefan-Boltzmann constant for anything like the emissivity of the Sun as it relates to the solar constant. So can either of you retards make a coherent and logical statement?

p.s., I am respecting the board's rules. Any chance either of you could tell me what they are?
Edited on 10-03-2020 01:45
10-03-2020 03:02
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
@ITN and IBDM, someone posted about respecting the forum rules. And we all know that both of you accept mainstream science while I have some issues with it. Namely the Stefan-Boltzmann constant that both of you and your sister tmiddles supports.
See? I disagree with the 3 of you. I do not accept that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant applies to astrophysics because it's about electrical engineering. I just hope that you 3 guys don't have the same mother.


To help you guys (sisters) out, there is this link to the light bulb;
http://studenti.fisica.unifi.it/~carla/varie/Stefan-Boltzmann_law_in_a_light_bulb.pdf

and for the 3 of you, it's PROOF. Accept science when it provides physical evidence.
Edited on 10-03-2020 03:08
10-03-2020 03:53
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
@tmiddles, IBDM and ITN, unlike you, ITN and IBDM, I dispute openly that the Stefan_Boltzmann constant applies to celestial bodies. This is something that the people in this forum absolutely refuse to discuss.
You are an intelligent man. Can you explain why the Sun's corona is hotter than it's surface?
It's J* = бT4. But that's the emissiivity of a tungsten wire with a known source of energy. When a celestial body emanates energy, what is it's source of energy?
There is a difference between energy being refracted and it being the product of emissivity. A light bulb does not refract it's emissions but the surface of something does, like the Moon for example.
Myself, am tired of providing proof that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant applies to electrical engineering. This is why we have satellite dishes and smartphones. That is what's known as "proof of concept".


p.s., tmiddles, one thing I like about this forum is that free speech is allowed. It's nice to have my own opinion and to be able to say it is my opinion. I like that. As for ITN and IBDM? They have their opinions as well. I can deal with it because I am allowed to have an opinion as well. At the same time, I know the history of physics. I know how Planck realized both his constant and how it relates to emissivity. If you don't get it, Planck pursued his work before there was electricity. I know about that. Kind of why I have my own opinion.
Edited on 10-03-2020 04:01
11-03-2020 01:20
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
James___ wrote:And since this thread is about the radiative greenhouse effect, oxygen in it's various forms influences this. As for Venus, it's atmospheric pressure being 92 times greater than the Earth's hasn't been explained. With the Boltzmann Ideal Gas Law, pressure influences temperature. Is not a part of the discussion. It seems 3 aspects of atmospheric temperature are simply ignored.
I do apologize for having my own opinion. An example is that we should try to understand what it is that we don't know. But this is not an Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics forum. It's a debate forum


This is the information I've been chasing. CO2 is the boogeyman so there is no way to have a discussion that doesn't include It. Yet when we do, it devolves in to the "chant".

There is an observed temperature increase that has occurred over time. Why is that?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
11-03-2020 01:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Harry C wrote:
There is an observed temperature increase that has occurred over time. Why is that?
Do you mean since the last ice age Harry? or since 1850?
11-03-2020 04:01
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
Harry C wrote:
James___ wrote:And since this thread is about the radiative greenhouse effect, oxygen in it's various forms influences this. As for Venus, it's atmospheric pressure being 92 times greater than the Earth's hasn't been explained. With the Boltzmann Ideal Gas Law, pressure influences temperature. Is not a part of the discussion. It seems 3 aspects of atmospheric temperature are simply ignored.
I do apologize for having my own opinion. An example is that we should try to understand what it is that we don't know. But this is not an Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics forum. It's a debate forum


This is the information I've been chasing. CO2 is the boogeyman so there is no way to have a discussion that doesn't include It. Yet when we do, it devolves in to the "chant".

There is an observed temperature increase that has occurred over time. Why is that?



Your referring to periods like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and other cycles like those before them, right?
I think at the end of the day they'll find out that glaciers melting and then refreezing is what determines if our planet is either cooling or warming. That'll just set other things in motion. Ever hear anyone figure out how much glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age?
They sample not from near the edges or the faces of glaciers. I tend to think when they start gaining mass, it's from the bottom up. Just the way the wind blows.
11-03-2020 04:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
There is an observed temperature increase that has occurred over time. Why is that?
Do you mean since the last ice age Harry? or since 1850?


tmiddles asks a critical question, Harry, because no one knows whether there actually was an ice age (it's pure speculation) and of course 1850 is a very special time in the Global Warming religion, i.e. the publishing of the People's Democratic Bible.




.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gas and Warming11011-02-2020 17:48
Will Warm Winters Balance Out The Effects Of Greenhouse Gases?1410-02-2020 18:23
The Compound Effect and the Self-Interest of the Individual123-01-2020 16:46
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact