Remember me
▼ Content

The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist



Page 1 of 4123>>>
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist25-02-2020 21:35
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure. Adiabatic processes, although well understood in classical Thermodynamics, are not part of the current climate theory, which focuses almost exclusively on diabatic radiative processes. As a result of this conceptual bias, climate-science classes taught at Universities do not properly explain the direct effect of pressure as a force on the temperature of thermodynamic systems. Instead, pressure is only discussed as a factor affecting the atmospheric IR optical depth assumed to control surface temperature through a purported "trapping" of radiant heat, which is not observed in the open, convective atmosphere.



You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
25-02-2020 22:02
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1775)
None of it makes any logical sense. If 'greenhouse' gasses could trap heat, they would also block it from getting in to begin with. There could be no warming, since energy required, would be blocked.
25-02-2020 22:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
Harry C wrote: [quote]In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure.


Harry, what you posted is what I call an Oliver North maxim. The conclusion/hypothesis/thesis statement is absolutely spot on ... but for heinously wrong reasons that do nothing but undercut the credibility of the conclusion. For example, if I were to tell you that we should lower taxes ... because if we don't, men from Mars will burn my hair! ... if you were previously in agreement that we should lower taxes, you now might be inclined to vote to increase them based on my rationale.

Yes, there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... but the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. Your article is full of gibber-babble that does not support the thesis.


.


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
26-02-2020 00:06
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: [quote]In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure.


Harry, what you posted is what I call an Oliver North maxim. The conclusion/hypothesis/thesis statement is absolutely spot on ... but for heinously wrong reasons that do nothing but undercut the credibility of the conclusion. For example, if I were to tell you that we should lower taxes ... because if we don't, men from Mars will burn my hair! ... if you were previously in agreement that we should lower taxes, you now might be inclined to vote to increase them based on my rationale.

Yes, there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... but the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. Your article is full of gibber-babble that does not support the thesis.


.

Thank you for the feedback. Your objection has been duly noted.

I'm still seeking. You could help me or give me credit for trying to support your message.

On a more serious note, there's a large contingent of people that don't believe in a threat of AGW/CC. However they arrive at their conclusion by different means. What the realists need is a great unifier. Any ideas on who that could be?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
26-02-2020 00:36
Bode
☆☆☆☆☆
(21)
Correct the atmosphere does not increase the surface temperature of the earth, it's passive in the exchange of energy. The concept of "back radiation" heating the surface is complete nonsense.
26-02-2020 02:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Harry C wrote:
In conclusion, ...

Not that it invalidates any points made but this is basically a private blog post by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. It is not in a journal, and was not reviewed in any way. omicsonline.org is a pay to play aggregator (sometimes called a predatory publisher) of anything anyone wants to slap online. The appearance there is more to the article than private blogging is dishonest in my opinion. Nothing wrong with private blogging just don't have the pretense of corroboration (directed at Ned and Karl not you Harry).

FYI Harry your link had an "x" in the wrong place:
fixed link

IBdaMann wrote:...the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface.
IBD is currently hell bent of pretending we know nothing about Venus to avoid debating this issue (because he will lose):
venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

"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
26-02-2020 02:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
tmiddles wrote:
IBD is currently hell bent of pretending we know nothing about Venus to avoid debating this issue (because he will lose):


I'm not aware of any point that we are debating. You refuse to say unless you can be cryptic.




.


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
26-02-2020 02:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not aware ...
Well you should be. I responded to you here:
venus-is-hotter-than-mercury Still waiting. Nothing cryptic about it.
Edited on 26-02-2020 02:25
26-02-2020 02:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
Harry C wrote:I'm still seeking ...
... validation for your religious beliefs.

I, however, don't have any message for you to support.


Harry C wrote: On a more serious note, there's a large [congregation] that don't believe in a threat of AGW/CC [yet still believe in Global Warming]. However they arrive at their [faith] by different means. What the [Realist Congregation] need is a great unifier. Any ideas on who that could be?


I have no doubt that will be you. There's a great deal of money to be made. I wish you the best.


.


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
26-02-2020 03:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: [quote]In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure.


Harry, what you posted is what I call an Oliver North maxim. The conclusion/hypothesis/thesis statement is absolutely spot on ... but for heinously wrong reasons that do nothing but undercut the credibility of the conclusion. For example, if I were to tell you that we should lower taxes ... because if we don't, men from Mars will burn my hair! ... if you were previously in agreement that we should lower taxes, you now might be inclined to vote to increase them based on my rationale.

Yes, there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... but the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. Your article is full of gibber-babble that does not support the thesis.


.

Thank you for the feedback. Your objection has been duly noted.

I'm still seeking. You could help me or give me credit for trying to support your message.

On a more serious note, there's a large contingent of people that don't believe in a threat of AGW/CC. However they arrive at their conclusion by different means. What the realists need is a great unifier. Any ideas on who that could be?


Not a who. A what. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 03:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Into the Night wrote:
Not a who. A what. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Are you confident of that ITN? Why won't you debate it? RQAA got your tongue? Come on it'll be fun.
26-02-2020 03:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
In conclusion, ...

Not that it invalidates any points made but this is basically a private blog post by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. ...deleted Mantras 36d...36a...36b...37...29...25c...4a...

No arguments presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 03:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not aware ...
...deleted repetitious post...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 03:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Into the Night wrote:RQAA.
I guess not. I mean I know you'll lose ITN because you're wrong. I'm just surprised you also think you'll lose.
26-02-2020 03:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Not a who. A what. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
...deleted Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b...6...29...6...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 03:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 7...20a1...20a2...20b...7...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 03:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Into the Night wrote:..deleted
Why do you mention the 1st LTD ITN? That's got nothing to do with it.
26-02-2020 03:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantra 29...26...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 05:31
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: [quote]In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure.


Harry, what you posted is what I call an Oliver North maxim. The conclusion/hypothesis/thesis statement is absolutely spot on ... but for heinously wrong reasons that do nothing but undercut the credibility of the conclusion. For example, if I were to tell you that we should lower taxes ... because if we don't, men from Mars will burn my hair! ... if you were previously in agreement that we should lower taxes, you now might be inclined to vote to increase them based on my rationale.

Yes, there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... but the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. Your article is full of gibber-babble that does not support the thesis.


.

Thank you for the feedback. Your objection has been duly noted.

I'm still seeking. You could help me or give me credit for trying to support your message.

On a more serious note, there's a large contingent of people that don't believe in a threat of AGW/CC. However they arrive at their conclusion by different means. What the realists need is a great unifier. Any ideas on who that could be?


Not a who. A what. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


ITN. You seem to be a decent guy. I'll try to make a reasoned appeal to you.

Most people do not have fundamental knowledge of physics, much less the ability to apply the principles to solve a complex problem such as the climate controversy.

And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board. As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation. There is no one that I can find that is holding the same conclusion.

So to think that your pat answer is satiating the need to resolve the issue in a scientifically sound way is untrue. And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message. You offer no other corroboration. It starts to make me doubt that I've not joined a certain cult.

If you want to control the narrative, you guys are going to have to do something more. Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you. You would think for something that's so simple, everyone on the skeptics or realists side could take refuge in that answer, such that you do.

Unless we can reconcile terms and position, the anti- AGW/CC contingent is losing the battle for the minds and souls of the people. We, and yes I include myself, can't deliver a simple unified response to the alarmists. Instead we are bickering about science and the two of you won't get out of your way to help resolve it. It is maddening to me.

Thanks for hearing me out.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
26-02-2020 05:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
Harry C wrote: And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board.

Because the laws of physics simply don't change on a daily basis ... and the warmizombies like to stick to their preferred physics violations. Hence the same errors being pointed out over and over again.

Do you see how that works? ... even though I don't have any "message" whatsoever! ... even though I am not selling anything!

Harry C wrote: As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation.

No you don't. I think we can safely lay this claim of yours to rest. You refuse to demand science from anyone ... and you somehow blame me for it. You willingly bend over furniture so that climate lemmings can most easily ream mind-numbing religious dogma into you and then you rush back here to ask me to "prove" some unspecified argument that I am not making.

The burden of support is entirely on you: Why do you believe that some atmospheric gas can magickally create energy? Do you believe because some climate scientist or other religious told you to believe or else you would be called a "TROLL" and be cast out of your church and of civilized society?

Harry C wrote: And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message.

What message would that be?

Actually, I had no "message" before today but I'm thinking of making one. Right now it only has one line: Harry C is a moron.

"To all posters of Climate-Debate, I come hither to herald the news that Harry C is a moron!"

Harry C wrote: You offer no other corroboration.

Of what, ye most exhalted of morons? ... corroboration for what, exactly? Are you seriously asking for corroboration of science? Are you that much of a bonehead? Are you effectively blaming me because you are scientifically illiterate?

Harry C wrote: If you want to control the narrative, ...

I won't speak for Into the Night but I have no desire to control anyone or anything beyond my wife's spending. If there is anyone that would like to be set free then I'm happy to help. If clinging to a WACKY religion affords more comfort then so be it. Enjoy!

Harry C wrote: Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

You would be wise to not delude yourself into believeing that you are somehow a judge of credibility. I'll leave it at that.

Harry C wrote:There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you.

You can't find anyone who accepts science? I submit that you aren't looking.


.


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
26-02-2020 06:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
IBdaMann wrote:...the laws of physics simply don't change on a daily basis ...
All of which can be applied in this applied science to check against real research and data.

You'll know someone is dead wrong in their assertion of what they claim the laws of physics dictate because they will run away from any such test. As IBD does here: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury and here: 2nd-law

IBdaMann wrote:The burden of support is entirely on you...
For someone to reject every textbook, youtube video, website AND real research presented and to claim the burden of proof is on everyone else is just a joke. Spoken like a Flat Earther IBD.

IBdaMann wrote:...Harry C is a moron...
The jig is up and you get mean so you can now pretend Harry thinks your full of it because you insulted him.

Harry if you are wondering what prompted this emotional crisis for IBD it's right here: IBD caught being totally full of it (not the first time, but like it's never been so dramatic as right here)

"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 26-02-2020 06:29
26-02-2020 15:14
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
IBDM. You can think whatever you want of me. You don't know and it drives you crazy. I won't yield to your mania and stoop to your level. Go ahead and keep trying to provoke me because it makes you look bad and I couldn't do better for myself.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
26-02-2020 16:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
Harry C wrote: ...[exact same cut-n-paste post deleted] ...

Adding to the list of things you cannot do well: craft a post.


.


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
26-02-2020 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: [quote]In conclusion, the "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist. The atmosphere warms the surface thermodynamically through a form of adiabatic compression that only depends on total pressure.


Harry, what you posted is what I call an Oliver North maxim. The conclusion/hypothesis/thesis statement is absolutely spot on ... but for heinously wrong reasons that do nothing but undercut the credibility of the conclusion. For example, if I were to tell you that we should lower taxes ... because if we don't, men from Mars will burn my hair! ... if you were previously in agreement that we should lower taxes, you now might be inclined to vote to increase them based on my rationale.

Yes, there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... but the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere. Your article is full of gibber-babble that does not support the thesis.


.

Thank you for the feedback. Your objection has been duly noted.

I'm still seeking. You could help me or give me credit for trying to support your message.

On a more serious note, there's a large contingent of people that don't believe in a threat of AGW/CC. However they arrive at their conclusion by different means. What the realists need is a great unifier. Any ideas on who that could be?


Not a who. A what. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


ITN. You seem to be a decent guy. I'll try to make a reasoned appeal to you.

Most people do not have fundamental knowledge of physics, much less the ability to apply the principles to solve a complex problem such as the climate controversy.

The so-called 'climate controversy' is not a problem, complex or simple. It is nothing more than the Church of Global Warming spewing the same religion over and over.
Harry C wrote:
And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board. As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation. There is no one that I can find that is holding the same conclusion.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics haven't changed. Neither has the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Anyone can use these equations. What you are making is an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because YOU can't find them, doesn't mean they don't exist out there.
Harry C wrote:
So to think that your pat answer is satiating the need to resolve the issue in a scientifically sound way is untrue.

Nonsense statement. I cannot decipher the meaning. Please clarify.
Harry C wrote:
And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message.

Not my message, and not IBdaMann's message. Neither of us created the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Neither of us created the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. These are all you need.
Harry C wrote:
You offer no other corroboration.

None needed.
Harry C wrote:
It starts to make me doubt that I've not joined a certain cult.

Science is not a cult. Neither is mathematics.
Harry C wrote:
If you want to control the narrative, you guys are going to have to do something more. Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

It's not about credibility. It's about these laws of science and statistical mathematics.
Harry C wrote:
There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.
Harry C wrote:
You would think for something that's so simple, everyone on the skeptics or realists side could take refuge in that answer, such that you do.

Irrelevant.
Harry C wrote:
Unless we can reconcile terms and position, the anti- AGW/CC contingent is losing the battle for the minds and souls of the people.

Not a bit of it. There are fewer and fewer faithful in the Church of Global Warming all the time. They're just loud.
Harry C wrote:
We, and yes I include myself, can't deliver a simple unified response to the alarmists.

I just gave it to you. It is a simple unified response.
Harry C wrote:
Instead we are bickering about science

No, the Church of Global Warming denies science. Nothing has changed about these three theories of science.
Harry C wrote:
and the two of you won't get out of your way to help resolve it.

Nothing to resolve.
Harry C wrote:
It is maddening to me.

Perhaps because you can't yet absorb the ramifications of what these three theories mean.
Harry C wrote:
Thanks for hearing me out.

Sure. But that only goes to a point.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...the laws of physics simply don't change on a daily basis ...
...deleted Mantras 25...32...10 (science<->data, science<->research)...22...25...25c...4a...4c...4b...4b...10...evasion...attempted force of negative proof fallacy...35b1...30...25c...30...

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2020 22:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Into the Night wrote:
The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics haven't changed. Neither has the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Anyone can use these equations....Neither of us created the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Neither of us created the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. These are all you need....
ITN and IBD are currently dodging examples of how their interpretation (weird and unique) of the application of these three laws is entirely wrong.
Venus proves them wrong and
a human in a room, living or dead, proves them wrong

I do believe it was very well said:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

It should be elaborated for ITN/IBD that this principle of the scientific method applies ugly theories by stupid people too.

"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
26-02-2020 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 7...20e1...25c...7...25c...4c...22...20e2...25f...29...TMSa3...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-02-2020 23:07
01-03-2020 03:45
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Most people do not have fundamental knowledge of physics, much less the ability to apply the principles to solve a complex problem such as the climate controversy.

The so-called 'climate controversy' is not a problem, complex or simple. It is nothing more than the Church of Global Warming spewing the same religion over and over.


You totally ignored the context of my sentence in the rush to stamp your prepackaged rebuttal. There is a controversy with most people due to their lack of the same knowledge you possess. Don't presume the lack of knowledge automatically makes people a member of the global warming church.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board. As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation. There is no one that I can find that is holding the same conclusion.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics haven't changed. Neither has the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Anyone can use these equations. What you are making is an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because YOU can't find them, doesn't mean they don't exist out there.


Again you ignore the premise. I know chapter and verse what you're writing. Not just anyone can use these laws or even understand them. I'm not arguing that the science you are relying upon doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that as far as the world at large knows, the truth as you know it is not out there.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
So to think that your pat answer is satiating the need to resolve the issue in a scientifically sound way is untrue.

Nonsense statement. I cannot decipher the meaning. Please clarify.


Oh come on. The scientific answers that you keep replying with are contained solely in this forum. Therefore it is not aiding anyone else to resolve the truth of the matter.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message.

Not my message, and not IBdaMann's message. Neither of us created the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Neither of us created the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. These are all you need.

It is your message. Messaging is independent of fact.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
You offer no other corroboration.

None needed.

Right, Not if you want to remain belligerent. If you want to be a paragon of leadership, information and virtue.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It starts to make me doubt that I've not joined a certain cult.

Science is not a cult. Neither is mathematics.


The cult is not science or mathematics. The cult is repeating the same verses over and over without regard to any other externalities.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
If you want to control the narrative, you guys are going to have to do something more. Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

It's not about credibility. It's about these laws of science and statistical mathematics.


I have no idea why you want to remain so obtuse. What are you afraid of?

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.


Guilty as charged. Please help me. Why are two individuals on a forum that have a answer to a contrived emergency not winning a Nobel Prize?

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
You would think for something that's so simple, everyone on the skeptics or realists side could take refuge in that answer, such that you do.

Irrelevant.


Absolutely not irrelevant. It's my post and it's relevant to me!

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Unless we can reconcile terms and position, the anti- AGW/CC contingent is losing the battle for the minds and souls of the people.

Not a bit of it. There are fewer and fewer faithful in the Church of Global Warming all the time. They're just loud.

My evidence is mainstream online media sources. Look at the number of stories touting Global Warming. No stories against. I read the comments almost daily to maintain an informal poll. What do you offer?

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
We, and yes I include myself, can't deliver a simple unified response to the alarmists.

I just gave it to you. It is a simple unified response.


I'll give you "simple" but not unified as to the anti-AGW, skeptic, realist crowd. There's many prominent scientist that do not believe that CO2 has the claimed effect on long term temperature change (with which I agree) but will be non-committal about whether there is any effect of CO2 on temperature.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Instead we are bickering about science

No, the Church of Global Warming denies science. Nothing has changed about these three theories of science.


This is one I really wanted to get to. I'm not denying science, because I continue to profess my ignorance. But I have to choose to accept what I'm being told. Because I don't know, don't have the background, I have to ask questions. That is why I'm here. I get answers and then I analyze the answers. It's a Catch-22 for me for you to continue to recite the same verses and expect me to take it at face value. I've been attacked anytime I express anything less than confidence and ask follow up questions. So that erodes my confidence in what I've been told.

I'm an expert in some fields and a professional in others. When I help someone I bridge the gap between what I know and what the individual needing help knows.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
and the two of you won't get out of your way to help resolve it.

Nothing to resolve.

If you still feel that way after this appeal, I guess we are done with the subject.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It is maddening to me.

Perhaps because you can't yet absorb the ramifications of what these three theories mean.

True.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Thanks for hearing me out.

Sure. But that only goes to a point.


Hopefully I haven't passed the point. I don't belong to the Church of Global Warming and don't want to. Thanks again!


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
01-03-2020 06:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:... Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.
It's not about credibility....
...What are you afraid of?
ITN and IBD both know they are wrong. Not about the ultimate conclusion that climate change is BS, but about the means by which they have arrived at it. Their use of the 1st and 2nd LTD, the weird definition of science, and much of what they employ in making their points is total BS. Neither of them are stupid as is clear from their posts. So this behavior is intentional and they know what they are doing. Hence the fear and constant running away.

"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
01-03-2020 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Most people do not have fundamental knowledge of physics, much less the ability to apply the principles to solve a complex problem such as the climate controversy.

The so-called 'climate controversy' is not a problem, complex or simple. It is nothing more than the Church of Global Warming spewing the same religion over and over.


You totally ignored the context of my sentence in the rush to stamp your prepackaged rebuttal. There is a controversy with most people due to their lack of the same knowledge you possess. Don't presume the lack of knowledge automatically makes people a member of the global warming church.

As long as you believe that CO2 has some magick power to warm the Earth, you belong to the Church of Global Warming. If you truly want to leave this religion, you must first discard this belief.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board. As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation. There is no one that I can find that is holding the same conclusion.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics haven't changed. Neither has the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Anyone can use these equations. What you are making is an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because YOU can't find them, doesn't mean they don't exist out there.


Again you ignore the premise. I know chapter and verse what you're writing. Not just anyone can use these laws or even understand them. I'm not arguing that the science you are relying upon doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that as far as the world at large knows, the truth as you know it is not out there.

It is out there. You just refuse to see it. Equations are not a chapter or a verse. Neither is science, and neither is mathematics.

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t)=E(t+1)+U where E is energy, 't' is time, and U is work.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time.
Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance, C is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

There are the three theories of science that are denied by the Church of Global Warming.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't reduce entropy in any system.
* No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. Not CO2, not methane, not water vapor, NOTHING.

Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
So to think that your pat answer is satiating the need to resolve the issue in a scientifically sound way is untrue.

Nonsense statement. I cannot decipher the meaning. Please clarify.


Oh come on. The scientific answers that you keep replying with are contained solely in this forum. Therefore it is not aiding anyone else to resolve the truth of the matter.

WRONG. These theories are published. Their histories of how they came about is published. They each stand on their own. None of them have yet been falsified.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message.

Not my message, and not IBdaMann's message. Neither of us created the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Neither of us created the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. These are all you need.

It is your message. Messaging is independent of fact.

Neither of us created these theories. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. They are not a 'message'. They are theories of science you choose to continue to ignore and deny.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
You offer no other corroboration.

None needed.

Right, Not if you want to remain belligerent. If you want to be a paragon of leadership, information and virtue.

I already am, but that claim is irrelevant here, just as your bringing up such a comment is irrelevant here.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It starts to make me doubt that I've not joined a certain cult.

Science is not a cult. Neither is mathematics.


The cult is not science or mathematics. The cult is repeating the same verses over and over without regard to any other externalities.

These theories stand on their own. They don't need 'externalities'.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
If you want to control the narrative, you guys are going to have to do something more. Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

It's not about credibility. It's about these laws of science and statistical mathematics.


I have no idea why you want to remain so obtuse. What are you afraid of?

These theories are plain and simple. There is nothing obtuse about any of them. The requirements of statistical math are plain and simple. There is nothing obtuse about them either.
* You must use raw data. The raw data must be available.
* You must select from that raw data by randN, which is the same type of random number as used in a deck of cards.
* You must declare the variance used. In the case of temperature, I have already shown that temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile and how such a steep gradient can be obtained.
* You must normalize that data by paired randR. This is the same type of random number as on a pair (or more) or dice. This is how you discard out of band selected data.
* You must calculate the margin of error from the variance used, and the average of the selected data used. One without the other is a meaningless answer.
* We don't have enough thermometers on Earth to measure a global temperature, which necessarily requires the use of statistics. The margin of error is too great to give any meaningful answer.
* It is not possible to measure the absolute temperature of anything by using light. The emissivity of what you are measuring (the Earth) is unknown. It can only be measured by FIRST knowing accurately the temperature of the Earth. Therefore, no satellite can measure the temperature of the Earth.
* Similarly, there are not enough atmospheric CO2 monitoring stations to provide a global average CO2 measurement of the atmosphere. The oft-quoted Mauna Loa station is cooking their data. It is not available for use in statistical math.
* Measurements require a zero reference point (what we call 'zero' is up to us...as Einstein said, it's all relative. It is relative to what we ourselves decide to call 'zero'. There is no valid reference point for measuring global sea level. The current reference points are mounted on land, which moves, and even has a tide like the ocean. Therefore, it is not possible to measure the global sea level.
* No one is measuring the total ice and snow amount on Earth, as that constantly changes. However, one can look at the winter ice extents of polar ice by satellite (the area covered by polar ice during a winter). Both poles are showing larger ice extents for past couple of years. In 2014, the Antarctic recorded the largest ice extent ever recorded. This information is at the snow and ice data center, in Boulder, CO.
* Hurricane activity has not significantly changed (other than the usual variances from year to year). This data can be found at the hurricane data center located in Miami, FL.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.


Guilty as charged. Please help me. Why are two individuals on a forum that have a answer to a contrived emergency not winning a Nobel Prize?

Because the laws of thermodynamics already exist. We are not creating any new theory. The Stefan-Boltzman law already exists. We didn't invent that one either. What you are trying to do here is justify a fallacy known as an attempt to force a negative proof. It is literally an attempt to force an argument of ignorance fallacy upon another. It is this fallacy that makes 'guilty until proven innocent' a fallacious argument in and of itself. The fallacy often results from an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I do not have to prove that I have an answer to any emergency, contrived or otherwise. YOU have to show why it's an emergency at all. So far, the Church of Global Warming simply says that CO2 can warm the Earth. I object to this claim by means of applying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Various claims that there is data confirming CO2's magick behavior. I object to this claim by means of statistical mathematics. There is no data. Anyone telling you there is is lying. Yes, that includes NOAA and NASA, both government agencies, with agendas that have little to do with anything but increasing and enhancing government power.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
You would think for something that's so simple, everyone on the skeptics or realists side could take refuge in that answer, such that you do.

Irrelevant.


Absolutely not irrelevant. It's my post and it's relevant to me!

It is irrelevant, despite the fact that you posted it.

Science does not use consensus. Neither does mathematics. Only religions and politics use consensus.

Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Unless we can reconcile terms and position, the anti- AGW/CC contingent is losing the battle for the minds and souls of the people.

Not a bit of it. There are fewer and fewer faithful in the Church of Global Warming all the time. They're just loud.

My evidence is mainstream online media sources.

Another word for 'propaganda'. Newspapers are not evidence of anything. The sooner you can discard this notion that they are, the better off you'll be. No newspaper can override the requirements of statistical mathematics or falsify any theory of science.
Harry C wrote:
Look at the number of stories touting Global Warming. No stories against.

Irrelevant. Consensus is not used in science. It is only used in religions and politics. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. It is based on the initial circular argument that the global is somehow warming, and all of its other arguments extend from that initial circular argument. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'. Attempting to prove a circular argument is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.
Harry C wrote:
I read the comments almost daily to maintain an informal poll. What do you offer?

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the rules and requirements demanded by statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics.

If you want to know why any of theory of science exists and how the theory was developed, read up on the history of that theory. That itself is often a fascinating tale, usually involving several scientists, not just the those that came up with the theory itself. Here you will find how the theory was tested for validity, and how tests for falsification were applied to the theory. The theory still survives today despite tests applied against it to try to destroy it. It is that fact which makes a theory a theory of science. Nothing else.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
We, and yes I include myself, can't deliver a simple unified response to the alarmists.

I just gave it to you. It is a simple unified response.


I'll give you "simple" but not unified as to the anti-AGW, skeptic, realist crowd. There's many prominent scientist that do not believe that CO2 has the claimed effect on long term temperature change (with which I agree) but will be non-committal about whether there is any effect of CO2 on temperature.

Science isn't scientists. It is just the theories themselves. The only requirement is that a theory must be falsifiable. That is to say, a theory must have available a test designed to destroy the theory. That test must be available to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result. If the theory survives such a test, it is automatically part of the body of science. No scientist or group of scientists vote on a theory. Once the theory is part of science, the scientist no longer matters. The theory stands on it's own.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Instead we are bickering about science

No, the Church of Global Warming denies science. Nothing has changed about these three theories of science.


This is one I really wanted to get to. I'm not denying science, because I continue to profess my ignorance.

Actually, you are denying science. I have already answered why. I have answered again here in this post. You continue to ask the same questions over and over. This I mark with the acronym RQAA (repetitious question already answered). It is also marked as Mantra 29.
Harry C wrote:
But I have to choose to accept what I'm being told.

That you do, but first you MUST discard the notion that CO2 or any other gas or vapor has the magick ability to get around the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

I you examine the so-called 'greenhouse effect', it violates each of these laws.
Harry C wrote:
Because I don't know, don't have the background, I have to ask questions.

You have already asked the questions, and they have already been answered several times. You continue to ask the same questions, because your religion tells you that you cannot accept the answer.
Harry C wrote:
That is why I'm here.

I have my doubts.
Harry C wrote:
I get answers and then I analyze the answers.

I will call this a lie. It is even a lie to yourself. You are not analyzing the answers at all. You are discarding them and asking the same questions over and over due to your religion.
Harry C wrote:
It's a Catch-22 for me for you to continue to recite the same verses and expect me to take it at face value.

I have described to you these theories of science. If you want to know why they are theories of science, you will have to do your own footwork looking up the histories of these theories, how they came to be, and how they were tested for falsification. There is no room to describe that here.
Harry C wrote:
I've been attacked anytime I express anything less than confidence and ask follow up questions.

No, you are being attacked because you ask the SAME questions repetitiously.
Harry C wrote:
So that erodes my confidence in what I've been told.

No, your belief in the Church of Global Warming erodes your confidence in what you've been told. Nothing else.
Harry C wrote:
I'm an expert in some fields and a professional in others.

Irrelevant. Credential claims, 'expertness' claims, and 'professional' claims mean nothing on blind forums such as this. It is only the arguments themselves that matter here.
Harry C wrote:
When I help someone I bridge the gap between what I know and what the individual needing help knows.

Basic learning process. If you want to learn, perhaps you could describe your background and I will work from that. If you give me an accurate description of what you know, perhaps I can reword this in terms you are more familiar with.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
and the two of you won't get out of your way to help resolve it.

Nothing to resolve.

If you still feel that way after this appeal, I guess we are done with the subject.

I do not have to prove anything. I am not making any claim the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same. I am not making any claim the ocean levels are rising, falling, or just staying the same. I point out fallacies in arguments and areas that disagree with certain theories of science or areas of mathematics. A fallacy is an error in logic (a closed functional system, like mathematics), just like an arithmetic error is an error in mathematics. Unfortunately, very few schools teach logic. Almost none of them teach philosophy (they tend to regard phenomenology as the entirety of philosophy, and spend a fair amount of time wasted on presenting paradoxes as 'philosophy').
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It is maddening to me.

Perhaps because you can't yet absorb the ramifications of what these three theories mean.

True.

Perhaps the difficulty you are having in leaving the comfort of your belief in the Church of Global Warming, the newspaper articles, and what the government is telling as 'the Truth'; is leaving you in a position where you cannot view anything about this from a neutral point of view. Also, people are not talk to think for themselves. They are not taught to use philosophy, a powerful tool.

Philosophy is the reasoning behind an argument. An argument is a conclusion and a set of predicates. The only real rule in philosophy is that the reasoning must come from the individual making the argument. You cannot borrow predicates from others or use the arguments of others as your own.

It is philosophy that defines words like 'science', 'religion', 'reality', etc. For each word so defined, there is a reasoning behind each of their definitions. Philosophy has had many arguments trying to discriminate the meaning of 'science' and 'religion'. A good place to start with these is the philosophies presented by Karl Popper. Others have refined them since then, but the basic premise is well presented there.

Note, tmiddles often misquotes Karl Popper. Be aware of it.

Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Thanks for hearing me out.

Sure. But that only goes to a point.


Hopefully I haven't passed the point. I don't belong to the Church of Global Warming and don't want to. Thanks again!

Actually, you do. As long as you hold the notion that CO2 has some magick property that can warm the Earth, you do.

If you truly want to leave this religion, you MUST first discard the notion that CO2 or any other gas or vapor has any such magick property.

The 1st law of thermodynamics shows why.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-03-2020 21:19
01-03-2020 21:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:... Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.
It's not about credibility....
...What are you afraid of?
...deleted Mantra 5...7...20e1...20a1...20a2...24...17...


No argument presented. Still waiting for your example that falsifies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
02-03-2020 08:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2534)
Into the Night wrote:...CO2 has some magick power to warm the Earth, you belong to the Church of Global Warming...
This is classic straw manning. No one argues that CO2 generates energy or does anything water vapor doesn't also do. ITN refuses to clarify what he is objecting to. Is it that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiance as Tyndall discovered? Well ITN? What is your objection?

That's a question I'm sure you'll ignore.

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:...the truth as you know it is not out there...
It is out there. You just refuse to see it...These theories are published. Their histories of how they came about is published. They each stand on their own....
No ITN you refuse to cite it or link to it (because it's NOT out there). The pretense that it's out there but you can spend hours on here repeating yourself but don't have the time to cite anything is a joke. You and IBD will never site a source covering thermodynamics because it will go on to contradict you.

Into the Night wrote:...three theories of science that are denied...
Your missapplication and misuse is denied by me and you dodge debating that.

Into the Night wrote:1st law of thermodynamics...You can't create energy out of nothing.
ITN is currently ducking my disproving his application of the 1st LTD here: link

Into the Night wrote:* You must use raw data....The oft-quoted Mauna Loa station is cooking their data.
Quoted and presentd by ITN as an example of "reliable data". Just check this out:
ITN caught lying about his "Valid Data" BS
Total hypocracy and a made up standard that is BS. ITN has never done what he claims is required and neither has IBD. They can cite ZERO examples of that they claim is standard. Their discription of what it is is incoherent at best (I think deliberately dishonest).

Into the Night wrote:...We don't have enough thermometers on Earth to measure a global temperature, which necessarily requires the use of statistics...
Always remember the context here:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....
This is the false statement made by ITN/IBD over and over again. There are three statements:
1- You can not know it.
2- You can not know it exactly/within a margin of ____/ect.
3- You can not know it at all.
They deliberately play a game of saying #1 and pretending no clarification is needed as to if that's in the category of #2 or #3.
Into the Night wrote:The margin of error is too great to give any meaningful answer.
This is the first time I can remember ITN admitting there even IS a margin of error. So what is it ITN? 1,000,000 degrees? What?

Into the Night wrote:BWe are not creating any new theory.
Yes they are. The 1st LTD applied to Earth, or Venus, which are not isolated systems is dead wrong. See here: link
This is just total BS, TOTALLY made up and you'll find ZERO out there to support it:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

It remains the most used argument by ITN/IBD in their 2nd law objections.

Into the Night wrote:...attempt to force a negative proof....I do not have to prove that I have an answer to any...
Venus disproves your use of the 1st LTD.
No you're not obliged to offer a rebuttal to being debunked. You remain debunked.

Into the Night wrote:Science isn't scientists...Consensus is not used...The theory still survives today despite tests applied against it...
Because Science is all about research so that theories can be tested and applied. ITN/IBD have never, in 5 years, offerend any research or any published work at all for that matter (Other than ITN citing Moana Loa and a few other bits here: ITN and the DATA MINE ).

Into the Night wrote:...a theory must be falsifiable.
And your theory here:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot increase temperature of any planet without additional energy.
Has been falsified here:
Venus proves ITN is wrong.

Into the Night wrote:If you give me an accurate description of what you know, perhaps I can reword this...
What you will never get is a textbook or ANYTHING that's ever been published. This is because basic thermodynamics contradicts what ITN/IBD are saying. ITN can't recommend a book that teaches the basic laws because it will go on to clarify things and contradict what he's been saying (Pierre Provost and Max Planck in my sig for example). And: TWELVE REFERENCES

Into the Night wrote:I do not have to prove anything.
No you don't. No one MUST rise to a challenge. No one MUST offer a rebuttal. Being debunked and dead wrong is a comfortable place for many.

Into the Night wrote:I am not making any claim the Earth is warming,

But you ARE making claims. LOTS of them. Those claims have been debunked. You have had no response.(other than to dodge with RQAA).

Into the Night wrote:Note, tmiddles often misquotes Karl Popper. Be aware of it.

Yet he offers no argument to support this.

Into the Night wrote:Still waiting for your example that falsifies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It's not possible to falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics as far as I know. Why would you be waiting for that?

I have shown that your bastardization of the law, the claim that radiance from a cooler object cannot be absorbed a warmer one, is false. In my sig. You've had no response to that.

"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 02-03-2020 08:58
02-03-2020 15:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6270)
Harry C wrote: You totally ignored the context of my sentence in the rush to stamp your prepackaged rebuttal.

You totally ignored the context of Into the Night's sentence in your rush to blame him for your bogus faith. I see that you haven't fooled him either.

Harry C wrote: There is a controversy with most people due to their lack of the same knowledge you possess. Don't presume the lack of knowledge automatically makes people a member of the global warming church.

You aren't fooling anyone by pretending that there is no Church of Global Warming. You operate under the same warmizombie dogma and attack others who do not believe as you do. Your wandering Buddha approach of "I just want to find the truth" is lame as well.


Harry C wrote:Again you ignore the premise. I know chapter and verse what you're writing. Not just anyone can use these laws or even understand them. I'm not arguing that the science you are relying upon doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that as far as the world at large knows, the truth as you know it is not out there.

... yet you remain HERE pestering members on this board rather than spreading your supposed enlightened understanding to the "world at large." You aren't seeking more information; you are seeking to convert members here to your faith.

You still have not even begun to use wording that reflects what you need to do, which is to publicly demand science from the warmizombies operating in the "world at large." Why haven't you started doing that? Because your whole act is a sham.

Your whole schtick is item 6) of The Official List:

6) Feigning Partnership or Offer to Work Together or Insincere Desire to Work Through the Math


Harry C wrote: Oh come on. The scientific answers that you keep replying with are contained solely in this forum.

If you would stop whining and pouting like a baby, and were to take your enlightenment to "the world at large" then that would not be the case, right? You have that under your full control, right? Yet you don't. You remain here and pester those who give you the correct answers because they don't believe in Greenhouse Effect as you do.

Did I mention that I am not fooled? You are not aiding anyone else to resolve the truth of the matter.



.


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
02-03-2020 18:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 8...lie...20a1...lie...29...29...29...30...36c...36c...36c...7...20e1..20a1...20m...20a1...20m...7...25c...4c...30...25e...4e...24...25c...25c...7...30...16...25c...16...30...30...29...25c...20a1...20i...20a1...20e1...4e...35b1...20e1...denial of quantum mechanics...20a2...7...20a1...20m...7...20l...20m...lie...30...20j...37c...38a...4c...20a1...7...20e1...25c...4e...30...20a...20e1...31...4e...37a...4c...7...22...7...29...4c...
36e...30...20a2...paradox...16...20a2...denial of quantum mechanics...7...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
02-03-2020 19:23
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(438)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 8...lie...20a1...lie...29...29...29...30...36c...36c...36c...7...20e1..20a1...20m...20a1...20m...7...25c...4c...30...25e...4e...24...25c...25c...7...30...16...25c...16...30...30...29...25c...20a1...20i...20a1...20e1...4e...35b1...20e1...denial of quantum mechanics...20a2...7...20a1...20m...7...20l...20m...lie...30...20j...37c...38a...4c...20a1...7...20e1...25c...4e...30...20a...20e1...31...4e...37a...4c...7...22...7...29...4c...
36e...30...20a2...paradox...16...20a2...denial of quantum mechanics...7...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.

Wow, tmiddles sure loves falling back on his mantras!!
02-03-2020 19:41
James___
★★★★★
(2472)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...CO2 has some magick power to warm the Earth, you belong to the Church of Global Warming...
This is classic straw manning. No one argues that CO2 generates energy or does anything water vapor doesn't also do. ITN refuses to clarify what he is objecting to. Is it that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiance as Tyndall discovered? Well ITN? What is your objection?

That's a question I'm sure you'll ignore.




If the surface and atmosphere are warmed by 341 w/m^2, CO2's absorption at 15 angstroms is about 8 w/m^2. In going from 300 to 400 ppm that's like going from 6 w/m^2 to 8 w/m^2 and since the temperature in kelvins is about 287, that means that 1 w/m^2 is less than 1º C.
And from 1950 to 1980 when CO2 emissions went through the roof https://images.app.goo.gl/nmX4H2uPocbAMp7M7 there was no warming
https://images.app.goo.gl/fiAfPhVe8ZtsaEAdA.
The 2 links I showed are very much accepted. There is nothing that shows that the 15 angstrom absorption spectrum of CO2 causes heat to stay in our atmosphere.
02-03-2020 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 8...lie...20a1...lie...29...29...29...30...36c...36c...36c...7...20e1..20a1...20m...20a1...20m...7...25c...4c...30...25e...4e...24...25c...25c...7...30...16...25c...16...30...30...29...25c...20a1...20i...20a1...20e1...4e...35b1...20e1...denial of quantum mechanics...20a2...7...20a1...20m...7...20l...20m...lie...30...20j...37c...38a...4c...20a1...7...20e1...25c...4e...30...20a...20e1...31...4e...37a...4c...7...22...7...29...4c...
36e...30...20a2...paradox...16...20a2...denial of quantum mechanics...7...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.

Wow, tmiddles sure loves falling back on his mantras!!

That he does. I haven't seen a valid argument out of him for quite awhile now. He just keeps repeating himself and asking the same questions over and over.


The Parrot Killer
02-03-2020 21:11
Bode
☆☆☆☆☆
(21)
For the radiative greenhouse effect to exist show how Q/A is negative where Te>Ta for Q/A=sigma*(Te^4 - Ta^4)
03-03-2020 03:17
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Most people do not have fundamental knowledge of physics, much less the ability to apply the principles to solve a complex problem such as the climate controversy.

The so-called 'climate controversy' is not a problem, complex or simple. It is nothing more than the Church of Global Warming spewing the same religion over and over.


You totally ignored the context of my sentence in the rush to stamp your prepackaged rebuttal. There is a controversy with most people due to their lack of the same knowledge you possess. Don't presume the lack of knowledge automatically makes people a member of the global warming church.

As long as you believe that CO2 has some magick power to warm the Earth, you belong to the Church of Global Warming. If you truly want to leave this religion, you must first discard this belief.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
And here sit you and IBDM in a protective cocoon and recite the same set of responses to everyone who comes on this board. As much as I want to believe, because I don't know, I keep looking for external validation. There is no one that I can find that is holding the same conclusion.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics haven't changed. Neither has the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Anyone can use these equations. What you are making is an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because YOU can't find them, doesn't mean they don't exist out there.


Again you ignore the premise. I know chapter and verse what you're writing. Not just anyone can use these laws or even understand them. I'm not arguing that the science you are relying upon doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that as far as the world at large knows, the truth as you know it is not out there.

It is out there. You just refuse to see it. Equations are not a chapter or a verse. Neither is science, and neither is mathematics.

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t)=E(t+1)+U where E is energy, 't' is time, and U is work.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time.
Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance, C is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

There are the three theories of science that are denied by the Church of Global Warming.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't reduce entropy in any system.
* No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. Not CO2, not methane, not water vapor, NOTHING.

Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
So to think that your pat answer is satiating the need to resolve the issue in a scientifically sound way is untrue.

Nonsense statement. I cannot decipher the meaning. Please clarify.


Oh come on. The scientific answers that you keep replying with are contained solely in this forum. Therefore it is not aiding anyone else to resolve the truth of the matter.

WRONG. These theories are published. Their histories of how they came about is published. They each stand on their own. None of them have yet been falsified.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
And then you both take position that you aren't going to do anything but preach your very own message.

Not my message, and not IBdaMann's message. Neither of us created the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Neither of us created the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. These are all you need.

It is your message. Messaging is independent of fact.

Neither of us created these theories. Neither of us created statistical mathematics either. They are not a 'message'. They are theories of science you choose to continue to ignore and deny.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
You offer no other corroboration.

None needed.

Right, Not if you want to remain belligerent. If you want to be a paragon of leadership, information and virtue.

I already am, but that claim is irrelevant here, just as your bringing up such a comment is irrelevant here.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It starts to make me doubt that I've not joined a certain cult.

Science is not a cult. Neither is mathematics.


The cult is not science or mathematics. The cult is repeating the same verses over and over without regard to any other externalities.

These theories stand on their own. They don't need 'externalities'.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
If you want to control the narrative, you guys are going to have to do something more. Put yourself out a little bit for credibility's sake.

It's not about credibility. It's about these laws of science and statistical mathematics.


I have no idea why you want to remain so obtuse. What are you afraid of?

These theories are plain and simple. There is nothing obtuse about any of them. The requirements of statistical math are plain and simple. There is nothing obtuse about them either.
* You must use raw data. The raw data must be available.
* You must select from that raw data by randN, which is the same type of random number as used in a deck of cards.
* You must declare the variance used. In the case of temperature, I have already shown that temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile and how such a steep gradient can be obtained.
* You must normalize that data by paired randR. This is the same type of random number as on a pair (or more) or dice. This is how you discard out of band selected data.
* You must calculate the margin of error from the variance used, and the average of the selected data used. One without the other is a meaningless answer.
* We don't have enough thermometers on Earth to measure a global temperature, which necessarily requires the use of statistics. The margin of error is too great to give any meaningful answer.
* It is not possible to measure the absolute temperature of anything by using light. The emissivity of what you are measuring (the Earth) is unknown. It can only be measured by FIRST knowing accurately the temperature of the Earth. Therefore, no satellite can measure the temperature of the Earth.
* Similarly, there are not enough atmospheric CO2 monitoring stations to provide a global average CO2 measurement of the atmosphere. The oft-quoted Mauna Loa station is cooking their data. It is not available for use in statistical math.
* Measurements require a zero reference point (what we call 'zero' is up to us...as Einstein said, it's all relative. It is relative to what we ourselves decide to call 'zero'. There is no valid reference point for measuring global sea level. The current reference points are mounted on land, which moves, and even has a tide like the ocean. Therefore, it is not possible to measure the global sea level.
* No one is measuring the total ice and snow amount on Earth, as that constantly changes. However, one can look at the winter ice extents of polar ice by satellite (the area covered by polar ice during a winter). Both poles are showing larger ice extents for past couple of years. In 2014, the Antarctic recorded the largest ice extent ever recorded. This information is at the snow and ice data center, in Boulder, CO.
* Hurricane activity has not significantly changed (other than the usual variances from year to year). This data can be found at the hurricane data center located in Miami, FL.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
There's no one that I can find that holds the same position as you.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy.


Guilty as charged. Please help me. Why are two individuals on a forum that have a answer to a contrived emergency not winning a Nobel Prize?

Because the laws of thermodynamics already exist. We are not creating any new theory. The Stefan-Boltzman law already exists. We didn't invent that one either. What you are trying to do here is justify a fallacy known as an attempt to force a negative proof. It is literally an attempt to force an argument of ignorance fallacy upon another. It is this fallacy that makes 'guilty until proven innocent' a fallacious argument in and of itself. The fallacy often results from an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I do not have to prove that I have an answer to any emergency, contrived or otherwise. YOU have to show why it's an emergency at all. So far, the Church of Global Warming simply says that CO2 can warm the Earth. I object to this claim by means of applying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Various claims that there is data confirming CO2's magick behavior. I object to this claim by means of statistical mathematics. There is no data. Anyone telling you there is is lying. Yes, that includes NOAA and NASA, both government agencies, with agendas that have little to do with anything but increasing and enhancing government power.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
You would think for something that's so simple, everyone on the skeptics or realists side could take refuge in that answer, such that you do.

Irrelevant.


Absolutely not irrelevant. It's my post and it's relevant to me!

It is irrelevant, despite the fact that you posted it.

Science does not use consensus. Neither does mathematics. Only religions and politics use consensus.

Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Unless we can reconcile terms and position, the anti- AGW/CC contingent is losing the battle for the minds and souls of the people.

Not a bit of it. There are fewer and fewer faithful in the Church of Global Warming all the time. They're just loud.

My evidence is mainstream online media sources.

Another word for 'propaganda'. Newspapers are not evidence of anything. The sooner you can discard this notion that they are, the better off you'll be. No newspaper can override the requirements of statistical mathematics or falsify any theory of science.
Harry C wrote:
Look at the number of stories touting Global Warming. No stories against.

Irrelevant. Consensus is not used in science. It is only used in religions and politics. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. It is based on the initial circular argument that the global is somehow warming, and all of its other arguments extend from that initial circular argument. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'. Attempting to prove a circular argument is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.
Harry C wrote:
I read the comments almost daily to maintain an informal poll. What do you offer?

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the rules and requirements demanded by statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics.

If you want to know why any of theory of science exists and how the theory was developed, read up on the history of that theory. That itself is often a fascinating tale, usually involving several scientists, not just the those that came up with the theory itself. Here you will find how the theory was tested for validity, and how tests for falsification were applied to the theory. The theory still survives today despite tests applied against it to try to destroy it. It is that fact which makes a theory a theory of science. Nothing else.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
We, and yes I include myself, can't deliver a simple unified response to the alarmists.

I just gave it to you. It is a simple unified response.


I'll give you "simple" but not unified as to the anti-AGW, skeptic, realist crowd. There's many prominent scientist that do not believe that CO2 has the claimed effect on long term temperature change (with which I agree) but will be non-committal about whether there is any effect of CO2 on temperature.

Science isn't scientists. It is just the theories themselves. The only requirement is that a theory must be falsifiable. That is to say, a theory must have available a test designed to destroy the theory. That test must be available to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result. If the theory survives such a test, it is automatically part of the body of science. No scientist or group of scientists vote on a theory. Once the theory is part of science, the scientist no longer matters. The theory stands on it's own.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Instead we are bickering about science

No, the Church of Global Warming denies science. Nothing has changed about these three theories of science.


This is one I really wanted to get to. I'm not denying science, because I continue to profess my ignorance.

Actually, you are denying science. I have already answered why. I have answered again here in this post. You continue to ask the same questions over and over. This I mark with the acronym RQAA (repetitious question already answered). It is also marked as Mantra 29.
Harry C wrote:
But I have to choose to accept what I'm being told.

That you do, but first you MUST discard the notion that CO2 or any other gas or vapor has the magick ability to get around the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

I you examine the so-called 'greenhouse effect', it violates each of these laws.
Harry C wrote:
Because I don't know, don't have the background, I have to ask questions.

You have already asked the questions, and they have already been answered several times. You continue to ask the same questions, because your religion tells you that you cannot accept the answer.
Harry C wrote:
That is why I'm here.

I have my doubts.
Harry C wrote:
I get answers and then I analyze the answers.

I will call this a lie. It is even a lie to yourself. You are not analyzing the answers at all. You are discarding them and asking the same questions over and over due to your religion.
Harry C wrote:
It's a Catch-22 for me for you to continue to recite the same verses and expect me to take it at face value.

I have described to you these theories of science. If you want to know why they are theories of science, you will have to do your own footwork looking up the histories of these theories, how they came to be, and how they were tested for falsification. There is no room to describe that here.
Harry C wrote:
I've been attacked anytime I express anything less than confidence and ask follow up questions.

No, you are being attacked because you ask the SAME questions repetitiously.
Harry C wrote:
So that erodes my confidence in what I've been told.

No, your belief in the Church of Global Warming erodes your confidence in what you've been told. Nothing else.
Harry C wrote:
I'm an expert in some fields and a professional in others.

Irrelevant. Credential claims, 'expertness' claims, and 'professional' claims mean nothing on blind forums such as this. It is only the arguments themselves that matter here.
Harry C wrote:
When I help someone I bridge the gap between what I know and what the individual needing help knows.

Basic learning process. If you want to learn, perhaps you could describe your background and I will work from that. If you give me an accurate description of what you know, perhaps I can reword this in terms you are more familiar with.
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
and the two of you won't get out of your way to help resolve it.

Nothing to resolve.

If you still feel that way after this appeal, I guess we are done with the subject.

I do not have to prove anything. I am not making any claim the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same. I am not making any claim the ocean levels are rising, falling, or just staying the same. I point out fallacies in arguments and areas that disagree with certain theories of science or areas of mathematics. A fallacy is an error in logic (a closed functional system, like mathematics), just like an arithmetic error is an error in mathematics. Unfortunately, very few schools teach logic. Almost none of them teach philosophy (they tend to regard phenomenology as the entirety of philosophy, and spend a fair amount of time wasted on presenting paradoxes as 'philosophy').
Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It is maddening to me.

Perhaps because you can't yet absorb the ramifications of what these three theories mean.

True.

Perhaps the difficulty you are having in leaving the comfort of your belief in the Church of Global Warming, the newspaper articles, and what the government is telling as 'the Truth'; is leaving you in a position where you cannot view anything about this from a neutral point of view. Also, people are not talk to think for themselves. They are not taught to use philosophy, a powerful tool.

Philosophy is the reasoning behind an argument. An argument is a conclusion and a set of predicates. The only real rule in philosophy is that the reasoning must come from the individual making the argument. You cannot borrow predicates from others or use the arguments of others as your own.

It is philosophy that defines words like 'science', 'religion', 'reality', etc. For each word so defined, there is a reasoning behind each of their definitions. Philosophy has had many arguments trying to discriminate the meaning of 'science' and 'religion'. A good place to start with these is the philosophies presented by Karl Popper. Others have refined them since then, but the basic premise is well presented there.

Note, tmiddles often misquotes Karl Popper. Be aware of it.

Harry C wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
Thanks for hearing me out.

Sure. But that only goes to a point.


Hopefully I haven't passed the point. I don't belong to the Church of Global Warming and don't want to. Thanks again!

Actually, you do. As long as you hold the notion that CO2 has some magick property that can warm the Earth, you do.

If you truly want to leave this religion, you MUST first discard the notion that CO2 or any other gas or vapor has any such magick property.

The 1st law of thermodynamics shows why.


I do not believe in global warming due to CO2. I want to understand why others do.

I know why the UN is promoting it. I'd like to be a change agent against it.

I'm not comfortable merely reciting physics laws and telling people to figure it out.

I've used this forum to try to validate outside information I have found. Evidently one is to be ridiculed if they don't fall in with the party line.

I'll keep looking and it has nothing to do with disbelief of what has been shared with me here. It has to do with reinforcing my knowledge. If this is not a place to learn I'll move along.

That's all I've ever said and what I'll continue to say until I can close the hole in my comprehension.

My most sincere wish is this issue dies quickly.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
03-03-2020 04:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11793)
Harry C wrote:
I do not believe in global warming due to CO2. I want to understand why others do.

Several reasons:

First, CO2 does absorb infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. While this does not warm the Earth (it's just another way for the warmer surface to heat the air, besides conductive heating). The mistake that is made is what I like to call the Magick Blanket argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. These are the two flavors of 'greenhouse effect'.

The Magick Blanket argument tries to argue that CO2 somehow prevents infrared light from leaving Earth at all, keeping it on the surface, like some kind of magick insulation or blanket.

Since it's not possible to trap heat (no insulator is perfect), and it's not possible to trap light, the Magick Blanket argument denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument tends to argue that photons are all equal, and since CO2 is now slightly warmer (but still colder than the surface), that it can somehow heat the warmer surface using a colder gas by 'bouncing' the photons back at the surface. It is assumed that these photons are absorbed.

This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat never flows from cold to hot. It is simply not possible for a colder gas in the atmosphere to heat the warmer surface.

Here's another way to consider things:

The International Space Station (ISS) commonly experiences on it's sunlit exterior surface temperatures around 250 deg F. The ISS has no appreciable atmosphere, no CO2, no water vapor, nothing.

The Earth, however, has an atmosphere, and it has CO2 and water vapor. If CO2 (or water vapor) warms the Earth, why is the daylit side of Earth so much colder? Nowhere have we measured any temperature on Earth anywhere near 250 deg F!

Now to the so-called 'data'.

Statistical mathematics only makes use of raw data. That data must have all biases eliminated from it or the result is obviously biased. That raw data must be available for perusal. For temperature, that means two biasing influences must be removed:

Time is significant. Storms move, atmosphere moves, the Earth moves, oceans and land even moves. Temperature measurements must be taken at the same time to eliminate this biasing influence.

Location grouping is significant. Ten thermometers in the city tell you nothing about the mountain lake just ten miles away. Thermometers must be uniformly spaced to eliminate this influence.

It has been observed that temperatures can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. I have personally seen this on a number of occasions, typically across rapidly moving storm fronts or on either side of a mountain peak on a windy day (one side gets compressing air, heating it, and the other side gets expanding air, cooling it; this phenomenon is called a compression mountain wave). I use 20 deg F per mile as my declared variance.

With the thermometers currently used by NASA (the larger number of the two agencies between NASA and NOAA), and spreading these thermometers uniformly over the surface of the Earth, this results in one thermometer for an area the size of Virginia. Since temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F, averaging those thermometers will also result in a margin of error (the plus/minus part of the statistical result) that is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures measured. This is essentially a mathematical way of saying that such an average is guessing.

Thus, anyone that tells you they know the temperature of Earth is simply lying. No one knows the temperature of the Earth, and it's not possible to measure it.

Satellites are useless in this regard because a satellite can only measure light. They must use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to get any idea of temperature at all, and the emissivity of Earth is unknown. The only way to determine it is to first accurately measure the temperature of the Earth. This chicken and egg problem makes satellites useless for measuring an absolute temperature.

Harry C wrote:
I know why the UN is promoting it. I'd like to be a change agent against it.

Learn why the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics falsify any notion of a gas or vapor being able to warm the Earth. The Church of Global Warming tries to claim science, claim bags of scientists, and claim the 'greenhouse effect' as science, all while denying science. To counter this, it is necessary to learn at least a little science.

The first law of thermodynamics is E(t)=E(t+1)+U where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. So what does this actually mean?

First, it takes energy to have a temperature. What we call temperature is the average internal kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance. There are several scales to measure it, but there is no 'right' scale. They all work.

To increase the temperature, you need additional energy. That energy is constantly streaming in from the Sun, but the Earth is emitting that energy just as fast as it comes in. Like a stone near a campfire, it warms to a certain degree, then stays there. That is the temperature of the Earth. We just don't know what it is.

To make that stone warmer, we need a bigger campfire, or we need to put the stone closer to the existing campfire. It is the same with the Earth. Assuming the Sun doesn't change, temperature will not increase on Earth unless we get closer to the Sun.

Earth's orbit is not quite circular, so we DO get close to and further away from the Sun through out each year. Our closest approach (perihelion) is during the winter in the northern hemisphere. This helps to make our winters not so harsh, but the southern hemisphere, which is in summer at this time, has a hot and short one. (Earth is moving faster when it's closer to the Sun).

Our furthest distance (aphelion) from the Sun occurs during our summer. This makes our summers a bit cooler and longer than you get in the southern hemisphere, and makes their winters colder and harsher. The difference is small, but it is there.

Overall, there is nothing providing any additional energy to the Earth. CO2 is not a source of energy and neither is water vapor.

All of this from just the first law of thermodynamics. A simple equation, but with far reaching ramifications.

I'll cover the other laws and why they are important in other posts. This is already lengthy enough.

Harry C wrote:
I'm not comfortable merely reciting physics laws and telling people to figure it out.

I understand. It is worth learning this though, since it is an argument about 'science'.
Harry C wrote:
I've used this forum to try to validate outside information I have found. Evidently one is to be ridiculed if they don't fall in with the party line.

In philosophy, there is really only one rule: you must present your own argument and your own predicates and reasoning for that argument. Using outside URLS, websites, books, or any other reference from outside is generally not accepted in philosophy, since all you are doing is stealing someone else's argument and using it as your own.

You have already noticed that anyone that disagrees with the Church of Global Warming is ridiculed, insulted, the mother is brought into question, etc. All of these are just insults, and using an insult for an argument is itself a fallacy (in Latin, the ad hominem fallacy). This in and of itself should be a good indication of where these people are coming from.

Harry C wrote:
I'll keep looking and it has nothing to do with disbelief of what has been shared with me here. It has to do with reinforcing my knowledge. If this is not a place to learn I'll move along.

Again, if you can enlighten me on where your knowledge lies, I can probably tailor my responses better for you.
Harry C wrote:
That's all I've ever said and what I'll continue to say until I can close the hole in my comprehension.

This takes time. It's not instant. Keep studying. You can understand this given time. These laws really are pretty simple, and they apply all the time, everywhere.
Harry C wrote:
My most sincere wish is this issue dies quickly.

Unfortunately, the Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. Like all religions, it is based on some initial circular argument (in this case, that the Earth is somehow warming due to the effects of magick gas). A person that tries to prove a circular argument is making the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. There are fundamentalists in any religion. Some religions, like the Church of Global Warming, are inherently fundamentalist in nature. Like many religions, it predicts doom and gloom unless outsiders all join the religion in one unified effort to prevent it.

Here I will leave it. I have covered quite a bit already. I'll let you digest the 1st law of thermodynamics and what it means, and the religious nature of the Church of Global Warming for now.

Then I shall go on with why the UN and our government is so interested in this religion, and cover the 2nd law of thermodynamics and what it means to the 'global warming' hysteria in a later post, soon to come.

Hopefully, this much will enlighten you some.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-03-2020 04:14
Page 1 of 4123>>>





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