Remember me
▼ Content

The True Believer's Delima



Page 1 of 212>
The True Believer's Delima14-05-2017 20:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
How to guarantee the end of the world when conditions 500 times worse had NO effect?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf

This paper demonstrates that CO2 concentrations of some 20% in the atmosphere during the Jurassic Period when temperatures are thought to have been similar to today didn't destroy the Earth in a gigantic fireball.

The horror of this is nothing more than a test of the belief of the True Believers and the Church of Global Warming.

Cambridge University claims that science is immaterial - that it is fake news that is causing climate change denial. They suggest inoculating people by using reverse fake news.

The problem with this is that more and more scientists are speaking up and this destroys the plans of the high and the mighty in the fake climate change business.

Let us assume that AGW did exist - how would man fight it? Since it required 100 years of industrialization to get to the point we are today, to make any dent in the supposed cause of AGW would required the ENTIRE WORLD to shut down all of their power plants. That not one single aircraft ever fly again. That all of the Earth's automobiles to be junked immediately. Even mass transit has almost no business running.

In the San Francisco Bay Area we have an electrified mass transit system. As it approaches a climb, there are support power plants that use fossil fuel adjacent to the tracks and you can watch them start up and run full power before the transit trains get there and after they pass.

Al Gore and John Kerry have both slipped at times and stated that there is NOTHING that the US alone is able to do about climate change since the largest producers of CO2 now have no intentions of signing on to the IPCC charter.

So the SCIENCE points to this being a natural event. And the SCIENCE points to this increase in CO2 being very very good for man.

But those able to gain power by showing the BIG OIL is going to make money off of selling oil (even though BIG OIL consists of little working people owning stock) maintain full intentions of driving this into the ground with the complete and full support of a media that likes the idea of Marxism which it would take to control the world's economies to enforce the necessary cuts.
14-05-2017 22:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

Please feel free to continue with your political ranting though. It's all good entertainment.
15-05-2017 01:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

Please feel free to continue with your political ranting though. It's all good entertainment.


So you're saying that everything is great as long as we don't exceed 2,000 ppm. I've been waiting for you to say that.
15-05-2017 02:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

Please feel free to continue with your political ranting though. It's all good entertainment.


So you're saying that everything is great as long as we don't exceed 2,000 ppm. I've been waiting for you to say that.

Literacy is clearly not where your strengths lie either.
15-05-2017 04:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

Please feel free to continue with your political ranting though. It's all good entertainment.


So you're saying that everything is great as long as we don't exceed 2,000 ppm. I've been waiting for you to say that.

Literacy is clearly not where your strengths lie either.


So you're saying that in the past with .2% we had runaway global warming. It must be one of the other. You have told us that there aren't any other options.
15-05-2017 23:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

Please feel free to continue with your political ranting though. It's all good entertainment.


So you're saying that everything is great as long as we don't exceed 2,000 ppm. I've been waiting for you to say that.

Literacy is clearly not where your strengths lie either.


So you're saying that in the past with .2% we had runaway global warming. It must be one of the other. You have told us that there aren't any other options.


As you can see,the True Believers have nothing to say about actual science and actual fact.

I've been setting that trap for weeks now in many forums and SD was the first one to bite. I suppose that means that he was the only one to actually read anything contrary to his true believer's creed. Could it be that he too is slipping over to the dark side?

And also as this reference demonstrated that in the past when we have undeniable proof of the CO2 levels that were twice what they are today we did not have climate any different than we have today. Even my grandson who is 8 years old and intends to be a paleontologist knows this. And without a word from me. Only from reading books - you know - that magic means of the transfer of real knowledge?

There is this theory set forth by astrophysicists that the Sun "sputtered" into life. That it was rather cool and heating for millions of years. While the core of the Sun is 15 million degrees C. that would be the same from the time it fired off from gaining sufficient mass for it's gravity field to cause fusion. Now for a relatively short time it would be gathering addition mass making a deeper layer of insulation and taking it much longer for the core heat to work its way through to the surface.

The present day surface temperature is a mere 5500 degrees C. Because OH NO - the almost entirely hydrogen and helium components of the sun act as a blanket or insulator. Imagine that. And yet on Earth the True Believers are telling us that the only insulating effect is from H2O and CO2.

Because radiation of heat is 360 degrees the heat from the core takes a million years or more to work its way to the surface of the Sun. This is also why radiation of heat could never work in the Earth's troposphere. So instead it is transmitted into the stratosphere via conduction and convection.

I'd accept millions of years but the True Believers have converted this to "Billions of years" in order to support their CO2 causing runaway warming effects and how it didn't occur on Earth when the atmosphere contained 40% CO2.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the True Believers nor in their ability to find any excuse no matter how far fetched to explain the inexplicable.
16-05-2017 15:28
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:
Surface Detail wrote:
2000 ppm is 0.2%, not 20%, you innumerate fool.

So you're saying that everything is great as long as we don't exceed 2,000 ppm. I've been waiting for you to say that.

No, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" toted his science & mathematics background & promptly erred numerous times in its use of mathematics. Surface Detail states that you, again, foist off error & untruth in your mathematics, this time by 100+ times.
Your answer is to err again, putting words in AGW advocate mouths that isn't correct. Your ego is so big, you are even proud of your errors, instead of admitting your poor mathematical abilities.
Edited on 16-05-2017 15:29
16-05-2017 15:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote: How to guarantee the end of the world when conditions 500 times worse had NO effect?

The bottom line is that there is no "atmospheric composition" component to Stefan-Boltzmann, hence the earth will have the same radiance regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This lays waste to the warmizombie claim that CO2 somehow REDUCES earth's radiance. Clearly it does not. It cannot.

There is no "greenhouse effect" that any person can falsifiably express that doesn't violate physics and that is thus not FALSE.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
16-05-2017 15:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote: How to guarantee the end of the world when conditions 500 times worse had NO effect?

The bottom line is that there is no "atmospheric composition" component to Stefan-Boltzmann, hence the earth will have the same radiance regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This lays waste to the warmizombie claim that CO2 somehow REDUCES earth's radiance. Clearly it does not. It cannot.

There is no "greenhouse effect" that any person can falsifiably express that doesn't violate physics and that is thus not FALSE.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
17-05-2017 23:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: How to guarantee the end of the world when conditions 500 times worse had NO effect?

The bottom line is that there is no "atmospheric composition" component to Stefan-Boltzmann, hence the earth will have the same radiance regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This lays waste to the warmizombie claim that CO2 somehow REDUCES earth's radiance. Clearly it does not. It cannot.

There is no "greenhouse effect" that any person can falsifiably express that doesn't violate physics and that is thus not FALSE.


And I've been trying to tell you that the emissivity correction factor (epsilon) is just that.
18-05-2017 00:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote:And I've been trying to tell you that the emissivity correction factor (epsilon) is just that.

Emissivity is not a "correction value."

Tell me what you think Emissivity is

Read the following statement and keep it in mind:

There is no "greenhouse effect" that any person can falsifiably express that doesn't violate physics."


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
18-05-2017 01:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:And I've been trying to tell you that the emissivity correction factor (epsilon) is just that.

Emissivity is not a "correction value."

Tell me what you think Emissivity is

Read the following statement and keep it in mind:

There is no "greenhouse effect" that any person can falsifiably express that doesn't violate physics."


Sorry, but I gave you references and you simply ignore them. You are nothing more than the same thing on the different heal as all the other True Believers.
18-05-2017 01:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote: Sorry, but I gave you references and you simply ignore them.

It's a sad state when you need others to do your thinking for you. I asked you what *you* think Emissivity is. You should have just admitted that you don't know.

I tried to explain Emmisivity to you. I know what it is. You clearly don't even want to know.

Wake wrote: You are nothing more than the same thing on the different heal as all the other True Believers.

What beliefs do you claim I have?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
18-05-2017 04:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Sorry, but I gave you references and you simply ignore them.

It's a sad state when you need others to do your thinking for you. I asked you what *you* think Emissivity is. You should have just admitted that you don't know.

I tried to explain Emmisivity to you. I know what it is. You clearly don't even want to know.

Wake wrote: You are nothing more than the same thing on the different heal as all the other True Believers.

What beliefs do you claim I have?


I gave you references.

You know what? You and I agree on most things but you have a completely incorrect idea of what you're talking about. If you don't understand the difference between radiance and temperature there's no point in talking about it.
18-05-2017 06:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote:I gave you references.

I didn't want any references.

Wake wrote:I You know what? You and I agree on most things but you have a completely incorrect idea of what you're talking about.

You are the one who is greatly mistaken, and you are an intellectual coward. You EVADE easy, straightforward questions.

Try not misstating my position.

I'll give you a chance. Do you believe in "greenhouse effect"?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
18-05-2017 17:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:I gave you references.

I didn't want any references.

Wake wrote:I You know what? You and I agree on most things but you have a completely incorrect idea of what you're talking about.

You are the one who is greatly mistaken, and you are an intellectual coward. You EVADE easy, straightforward questions.

Try not misstating my position.

I'll give you a chance. Do you believe in "greenhouse effect"?


.


But you don't have any idea of the Stefan-Boltzmann law as stated in every reference I gave. That certainly proves your superior intellect. Do you also believe that science is only science if it can "falsifiable" theorems? You know - like a duck is not a duck unless YOU agree it is?
18-05-2017 22:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote: But you don't have any idea of the Stefan-Boltzmann law as stated in every reference I gave.

Hey loser, there aren't flavors of Stefan-Boltzmann. There's just one law and if you have any questions then ask. Judging by your understanding, you MUST have a bajillion.


Wake wrote: Do you also believe that science is only science if it can "falsifiable" theorems?

Moron, science doesn't have theorems ... it has models/theories and they must all be falsifiable.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
18-05-2017 23:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: But you don't have any idea of the Stefan-Boltzmann law as stated in every reference I gave.

Hey loser, there aren't flavors of Stefan-Boltzmann. There's just one law and if you have any questions then ask. Judging by your understanding, you MUST have a bajillion.


Wake wrote: Do you also believe that science is only science if it can "falsifiable" theorems?

Moron, science doesn't have theorems ... it has models/theories and they must all be falsifiable.
.


So what you're saying is that psychology isn't a science. Nor astrophysics since none of their "non-science" is "falsifiable".
19-05-2017 02:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote: So what you're saying is that psychology isn't a science.

Correct. Psychology, mixology, cosmetology, etc... are all arts, complete with their own terminology/jargon/vocabulary.

Wake wrote: Nor astrophysics since none of their "non-science" is "falsifiable".

Astrophysics is science. It is compromised of falsifiable models that predict nature.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
19-05-2017 05:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So what you're saying is that psychology isn't a science.

Correct. Psychology, mixology, cosmetology, etc... are all arts, complete with their own terminology/jargon/vocabulary.

Wake wrote: Nor astrophysics since none of their "non-science" is "falsifiable".

Astrophysics is science. It is compromised of falsifiable models that predict nature.


Tell you what - after that posting just try to get a job above street sweeper. You aren't aware that companies always check social media before hiring people don't you?
19-05-2017 06:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote: Tell you what - after that posting just try to get a job above street sweeper. You aren't aware that companies always check social media before hiring people don't you?

That was one LAME attempt to bully/intimidate me.

Too funny.

So I threaten you? Wow. It's because of the science, isn't it?

All you have to do is ask. I'm more than happy to explain.

However, if you prefer to be picked apart, I can oblige as well.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
19-05-2017 17:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Tell you what - after that posting just try to get a job above street sweeper. You aren't aware that companies always check social media before hiring people don't you?

That was one LAME attempt to bully/intimidate me.

Too funny.

So I threaten you? Wow. It's because of the science, isn't it?

All you have to do is ask. I'm more than happy to explain.

However, if you prefer to be picked apart, I can oblige as well.


.


Hey dumbass - I fought in a war. Do you think some feckless jerk COULD threaten me? I raced cars. I raced motorcycles. I raced bicycles. I raced on-shore and off-shore sailboats. I climbed to the masthead of a 50 foot sloop in heavy winds to free the jib halyard. I did high energy nuclear research with a device that used 20 million volts.

You are nothing more than a big mouth small time student. But your supreme lack of knowledge of science just put you in the do-not-hire bucket. Do you really believe that advertising ignorance is good for your career?
19-05-2017 18:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Tell you what - after that posting just try to get a job above street sweeper. You aren't aware that companies always check social media before hiring people don't you?

That was one LAME attempt to bully/intimidate me.

Too funny.

So I threaten you? Wow. It's because of the science, isn't it?

All you have to do is ask. I'm more than happy to explain.

However, if you prefer to be picked apart, I can oblige as well.


.


Hey dumbass - I fought in a war. Do you think some feckless jerk COULD threaten me? I raced cars. I raced motorcycles. I raced bicycles. I raced on-shore and off-shore sailboats. I climbed to the masthead of a 50 foot sloop in heavy winds to free the jib halyard. I did high energy nuclear research with a device that used 20 million volts.

You are nothing more than a big mouth small time student. But your supreme lack of knowledge of science just put you in the do-not-hire bucket. Do you really believe that advertising ignorance is good for your career?


Like either of you senile fools are still working.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
19-05-2017 20:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Tell you what - after that posting just try to get a job above street sweeper. You aren't aware that companies always check social media before hiring people don't you?

That was one LAME attempt to bully/intimidate me.

Too funny.

So I threaten you? Wow. It's because of the science, isn't it?

All you have to do is ask. I'm more than happy to explain.

However, if you prefer to be picked apart, I can oblige as well.


.


Hey dumbass - I fought in a war. Do you think some feckless jerk COULD threaten me? I raced cars. I raced motorcycles. I raced bicycles. I raced on-shore and off-shore sailboats. I climbed to the masthead of a 50 foot sloop in heavy winds to free the jib halyard. I did high energy nuclear research with a device that used 20 million volts.

You are nothing more than a big mouth small time student. But your supreme lack of knowledge of science just put you in the do-not-hire bucket. Do you really believe that advertising ignorance is good for your career?


Like either of you senile fools are still working.


I could go to work tomorrow if I would commute down to silicon valley. But I have no intentions of spending 4 hours a day behind a wheel. I have had job offers from all over the US but I own my home and my step-children all live here.

We all realize that your claim to fame is "would you like fries with that".
21-05-2017 02:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So what you're saying is that psychology isn't a science.

Correct. Psychology, mixology, cosmetology, etc... are all arts, complete with their own terminology/jargon/vocabulary.

Wake wrote: Nor astrophysics since none of their "non-science" is "falsifiable".

Astrophysics is science. It is compromised of falsifiable models that predict nature.


OK, let's start from the top again with cooler tempers:

You ask what I believe "emissivity" to be - it is the difference between the bandwidth of the total flux emitted from a received amount of energy with a specific material as compared to a perfect black body.

NOTHING is a perfect black body and so everything has an emissivity of less than 1.

And the flux of a perfect black body is over an entire band of wavelengths and in the case of a perfect black body that flux would be emitted in the wavelengths around a center point and reducing to either higher or lower wavelengths in the shape of a bell curve.

Your mistake in reading the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is that you understand it only to mean a dimensionless quantity without understanding what that means. It is TOTAL flux of energy emitted. The wavelength at which that energy is emitted is important in the real world where we actually measure it.

For instance - we CAN treat the Earth as a near perfect blackbody since it contains so many different materials. And yet you and I know that the applied energy from the Sun is centered around the visual bands and that the emitted energy from the Earth is centered around Thermal Infrared or 3 to 100 uM (AKA "microns") with only a very rough bell curve since after all the Earth really is not a perfect blackbody.

The nature of this is because most of the radiation from the Sun to the Earth is transported via different routes than direct radiation. Hence the energy being directly radiated to and from the Earth's surface is proportionally smaller. The flux is lower and the center point is lower.

Despite your demand that science be perfect it isn't. Very, very few ideas in science survive as much as a generation. Even the Stefan-Boltzmann law has been changed. And it is only an idealization.

So saying that science can only be predicated on the possibility of falsification is nothing more than saying "I should be able to prove you wrong".

Well, that isn't possible for most of science. Astrophysics is almost totally theoretical. Most particle physics can NEVER be proven. We CANNOT prove the components that comprise dark matter. We cannot even prove the real motions of the universe. Are you aware that the Big Bang Theory is known not to be true? That as the universe expands it is accelerating?

We presently have an entire society founded on electricity and it's only a theoretical property of matter?

In fact, most of the things you use every day at their very basis have no real explanation. We suppose that fossil fuels are comprised of a chemical storage of sunlight. Prove it.
22-05-2017 03:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote: You ask what I believe "emissivity" to be - it is the difference between the bandwidth of the total flux emitted from a received amount of energy with a specific material as compared to a perfect black body.

Emissivity is a percentage, not a difference.

With 1.00 (100%) as an upper limit reference point. Emissivity is the efficiency percentage of a body to absorb and to radiate.

... an no, it's not for a "material" or "substance" but for a "body." The reason it is called BLACKBODY science is because the atomic unit is the "body."

As far as terminology goes ... I don't care what terms you use. Just tuck away in the back of your mind that "greybody" is not the correct term. All bodies with an emissivity greater than 0.0 are black bodies, with those of emissivity 1.0 are "ideal" black bodies. Now you are wiser than most of the people with whom you will discuss the matter.

Wake wrote: And the flux of a perfect black body is over an entire band of wavelengths and in the case of a perfect black body that flux would be emitted in the wavelengths around a center point and reducing to either higher or lower wavelengths in the shape of a bell curve.

We refer to the peak as the "peak wavelength." As temperature increases, the curve, or "signature" shifts to higher temperatures with the peak shifting as well, and the amplitude increases as well, and the shape of the curve changes as it shifts.

Wake wrote: Your mistake in reading the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is that you understand it only to mean a dimensionless quantity without understanding what that means.

Emissivity is a dimensionless constant and is exactly what I wrote above.

Wake wrote: Despite your demand that science be perfect it isn't.

Would you kindly point to the post in which I insisted this?


Wake wrote: Even the Stefan-Boltzmann law has been changed. And it is only an idealization.

Why is any of that relevant?

Has Stefan-Boltzmann been shown to be false?

Wake wrote:
So saying that science can only be predicated on the possibility of falsification is nothing more than saying "I should be able to prove you wrong".

This is a simple matter of you not knowing what "falsifiability" is.

I will correct this.

Falsifiability is an inherent quality that indicates that *IF* an argument is false then one will know how to demonstrate that it is false.

Falsifiability does not mean an argument is false or that it can be shown to be false by anyone. It is strictly an "If it is false then ..."

... and fossils don't burn. There are no fossil fuels.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
22-05-2017 06:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: You ask what I believe "emissivity" to be - it is the difference between the bandwidth of the total flux emitted from a received amount of energy with a specific material as compared to a perfect black body.

Emissivity is a percentage, not a difference.

With 1.00 (100%) as an upper limit reference point. Emissivity is the efficiency percentage of a body to absorb and to radiate.

... an no, it's not for a "material" or "substance" but for a "body." The reason it is called BLACKBODY science is because the atomic unit is the "body."

As far as terminology goes ... I don't care what terms you use. Just tuck away in the back of your mind that "greybody" is not the correct term. All bodies with an emissivity greater than 0.0 are black bodies, with those of emissivity 1.0 are "ideal" black bodies. Now you are wiser than most of the people with whom you will discuss the matter.

Wake wrote: And the flux of a perfect black body is over an entire band of wavelengths and in the case of a perfect black body that flux would be emitted in the wavelengths around a center point and reducing to either higher or lower wavelengths in the shape of a bell curve.

We refer to the peak as the "peak wavelength." As temperature increases, the curve, or "signature" shifts to higher temperatures with the peak shifting as well, and the amplitude increases as well, and the shape of the curve changes as it shifts.

Wake wrote: Your mistake in reading the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is that you understand it only to mean a dimensionless quantity without understanding what that means.

Emissivity is a dimensionless constant and is exactly what I wrote above.

Wake wrote: Despite your demand that science be perfect it isn't.

Would you kindly point to the post in which I insisted this?


Wake wrote: Even the Stefan-Boltzmann law has been changed. And it is only an idealization.

Why is any of that relevant?

Has Stefan-Boltzmann been shown to be false?

Wake wrote:
So saying that science can only be predicated on the possibility of falsification is nothing more than saying "I should be able to prove you wrong".

This is a simple matter of you not knowing what "falsifiability" is.

I will correct this.

Falsifiability is an inherent quality that indicates that *IF* an argument is false then one will know how to demonstrate that it is false.

Falsifiability does not mean an argument is false or that it can be shown to be false by anyone. It is strictly an "If it is false then ..."

... and fossils don't burn. There are no fossil fuels.


.


I wish you would learn to actually know something before posting. Your entire intent is to argue and nothing more.

If you do not know an exact percentage it is a differentiation - a difference.

The term "greybody" is the standard term and you are again inventing your own science.

By "we" exactly WHO are you referring to? You and Albert Einstein? Is that the sort of company you see yourself in?

Now it's time for you to run off and read the Stefan-Boltzmann law again since you are saying "emissivity" when you mean radiation loss.

Again why do you want nothing more than to argue no matter how stupid you sound?
22-05-2017 06:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote: I wish you would learn to actually know something before posting. Your entire intent is to argue and nothing more.

I very politely taught you a bunch of stuff. You apparently are nothing more than a scientifically illiterate, argumentative ashsole.

I guess it's back to mocking you.

Wake wrote: If you do not know an exact percentage it is a differentiation - a difference.

Got it. You don't know the difference between a percentage and subtraction. You are mathematically illiterate as well.

Wake wrote: The term "greybody" is the standard term and you are again inventing your own science.

You obviously didn't read the part about how I don't care what you believe. You simply insist on being an argumentative ashsole.

Who is going to believe that a scientifically illiterate moron, such as yourself, has any clue whatsoever of what standards are.

Again why do you want nothing more than to argue no matter how stupid you appear?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
22-05-2017 17:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: I wish you would learn to actually know something before posting. Your entire intent is to argue and nothing more.

I very politely taught you a bunch of stuff. You apparently are nothing more than a scientifically illiterate, argumentative ashsole.

I guess it's back to mocking you.

Wake wrote: If you do not know an exact percentage it is a differentiation - a difference.

Got it. You don't know the difference between a percentage and subtraction. You are mathematically illiterate as well.

Wake wrote: The term "greybody" is the standard term and you are again inventing your own science.

You obviously didn't read the part about how I don't care what you believe. You simply insist on being an argumentative ashsole.

Who is going to believe that a scientifically illiterate moron, such as yourself, has any clue whatsoever of what standards are.

Again why do you want nothing more than to argue no matter how stupid you appear?
.


Since I helped develop the method of detecting HIV I had to be around homosexuals a great deal and you argue exactly like they do. I don't care what your anger is from being different - if you don't know what you're talking about cease and desist.
23-05-2017 13:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote: Since I helped develop the method of detecting HIV I had to be around homosexuals a great deal and you argue exactly like they do. I don't care what your anger is from being different - if you don't know what you're talking about cease and desist.

Yet you keep blathering.

Is the "effect" of "greenhouse effect" an increase in the average global temperature? Yes or no? That should be the EASIEST of all questions.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
23-05-2017 14:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Since I helped develop the method of detecting HIV I had to be around homosexuals a great deal and you argue exactly like they do. I don't care what your anger is from being different - if you don't know what you're talking about cease and desist.

Yet you keep blathering.

Is the "effect" of "greenhouse effect" an increase in the average global temperature? Yes or no? That should be the EASIEST of all questions.


.


Wow, now you're supporting wade. The experiment is a demonstration of the physics behind the science. If they and by they "Duh_Mann" I don't mean you and wade in shallow water then if they read the 1st link I posted then they'll understand how soot and ash help to warm the Arctic.
BTW "Duh_Mann" can't you say something besides Stefan-Boltzmann ? If anyone plants a sensor about 2 or 3 feet deep in the ground they will notice year round that it will be the sa
me temperature. This means when it's snowing or if they're sun bathing the temperature in the ground won't change. THAT is the heat the Earth is radiating according to Stefan-Boltzmann. Our atmosphere has high and low pressure systems and it's composition varies so the Stefan-Bolzmann radiation would change. An example of this is that increased levels of CO2 might decrease the amount of electromagnetic radiation that our atmosphere emits, right "Duh-Mann" ?

@All, as I have mentioned Stefan-Bolzmann applies to surface radiation. With our atmosphere there are 2 layers that are warmer than the layer below it. I am not sure why a person would quote Stefan-Bolzmann when it's obvious that something else is at play.
Edited on 23-05-2017 14:42
23-05-2017 16:29
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Posted that in the wrong thread, sorry for any confusion that has caused anyone.
23-05-2017 16:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
James_ wrote: The experiment is a demonstration of the physics behind the science.

Ergo, it SHOULD be a simple matter for you to just express, in your own words, how you believe soot increases temperature.

Why is it proving to be an impossible task?

James_ wrote: BTW "Duh_Mann" can't you say something besides Stefan-Boltzmann ?

Can't you avoid violating it? How is it my fault that you are a science denier?

So while we're on the topic, here's Stefan-Boltzmann for you:

Radiance (Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

What about it specifically do you deny? I know you HATE it because it clearly shows that Radiance follows Temp, i.e. Radiance can never decrease while Temp increases, yet your WACKY religious dogma proclaims just that, i.e. that earth's Radiance decreases while earth's Temp increases.

Your religion is based on science denial and requires you to HATE those who offer science for consideration.

Enjoy the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It's on the house.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
23-05-2017 17:00
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: The experiment is a demonstration of the physics behind the science.

Ergo, it SHOULD be a simple matter for you to just express, in your own words, how you believe soot increases temperature.

Why is it proving to be an impossible task?

James_ wrote: BTW "Duh_Mann" can't you say something besides Stefan-Boltzmann ?

Can't you avoid violating it? How is it my fault that you are a science denier?

So while we're on the topic, here's Stefan-Boltzmann for you:

Radiance (Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

What about it specifically do you deny? I know you HATE it because it clearly shows that Radiance follows Temp, i.e. Radiance can never decrease while Temp increases, yet your WACKY religious dogma proclaims just that, i.e. that earth's Radiance decreases while earth's Temp increases.

Your religion is based on science denial and requires you to HATE those who offer science for consideration.

Enjoy the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It's on the house.


.


You really don't have anything, do you ? I almost feel like I am kicking a beaten dog right now. That's something I don't believe in.
As for your Stefan-Boltzmann, this link references a depth of 30 ft. for soil temperature not influenced by the atmosphere. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-24/news/ct-wea-0924-asktom-20110924_1_soil-temperatures-warmest-depth

And this link shows that the thermosphere is warmer than the troposphere.
https://goo.gl/images/0R4LtZ

And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser. At the moment I am a science denier. I know this must be true because that's what you said.
23-05-2017 17:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: The experiment is a demonstration of the physics behind the science.

Ergo, it SHOULD be a simple matter for you to just express, in your own words, how you believe soot increases temperature.

Why is it proving to be an impossible task?

James_ wrote: BTW "Duh_Mann" can't you say something besides Stefan-Boltzmann ?

Can't you avoid violating it? How is it my fault that you are a science denier?

So while we're on the topic, here's Stefan-Boltzmann for you:

Radiance (Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

What about it specifically do you deny? I know you HATE it because it clearly shows that Radiance follows Temp, i.e. Radiance can never decrease while Temp increases, yet your WACKY religious dogma proclaims just that, i.e. that earth's Radiance decreases while earth's Temp increases.

Your religion is based on science denial and requires you to HATE those who offer science for consideration.

Enjoy the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It's on the house.


.


You really don't have anything, do you ? I almost feel like I am kicking a beaten dog right now. That's something I don't believe in.
As for your Stefan-Boltzmann, this link references a depth of 30 ft. for soil temperature not influenced by the atmosphere. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-24/news/ct-wea-0924-asktom-20110924_1_soil-temperatures-warmest-depth

And this link shows that the thermosphere is warmer than the troposphere.
https://goo.gl/images/0R4LtZ

And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser. At the moment I am a science denier. I know this must be true because that's what you said.


Soil is a greater insulator than air. Who would have thought. But it does not retain a constant temperature no matter how much you would desire it.

And if you do not understand WHY the upper stratosphere and the thermosphere are "warm" than perhaps you should look it up.

Do you suppose that the thinning atmosphere exposing all gases to direct solar radiation just might have something to do with it?
23-05-2017 17:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
James_ wrote: You really don't have anything, do you ? I almost feel like I am kicking a beaten dog right now.

It's more like you are running away from a Maltese.

What is it, exactly, that I am supposed to "have"? I am not the one making any claims.

You are the one who cannot clearly explain any basis for your WACKY beliefs beyond claiming that you read them on the internet.

James_ wrote: And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser.

... but it wouldn't be so easy to explain the apparent violation of the 2nd LoT.

James_ wrote: At the moment I am a science denier. I know this must be true because that's what you said.

... and you can take that to Vegas.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
23-05-2017 18:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Wake wrote: Do you suppose that the thinning atmosphere exposing all gases to direct solar radiation just might have something to do with it?

It does not. A "thinning atmosphere," i.e. a reduction in pressure, results in a temperature decrease.

There are various locations within the atmosphere where temperature increases with altitude but that's due to other factors in those instances, none of which involve CO2 or methane or water vapor.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
23-05-2017 18:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote: And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser.


Don't you understand chemistry? O2 and Carbon plus heat combine to make CO2. The size of an O2 molecule is 152 picometers and the size of a carbon atom is 170 pm. The size of a CO2 molecule is 232 pm so to those with a little knowledge we know that increasing CO2 actually reduces atmospheric density but not pressure since the weight is the same.
23-05-2017 21:00
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser.


Don't you understand chemistry? O2 and Carbon plus heat combine to make CO2. The size of an O2 molecule is 152 picometers and the size of a carbon atom is 170 pm. The size of a CO2 molecule is 232 pm so to those with a little knowledge we know that increasing CO2 actually reduces atmospheric density but not pressure since the weight is the same.


I agree with whatever you say. You should post why climate change is happening so everybody will know. And if it's not changing you need to let us know.
24-05-2017 01:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: And yet it would be easy enough to say that increased levels of CO2 is causing the troposphere to warm merely because it is making our environment in the troposphere denser.


Don't you understand chemistry? O2 and Carbon plus heat combine to make CO2. The size of an O2 molecule is 152 picometers and the size of a carbon atom is 170 pm. The size of a CO2 molecule is 232 pm so to those with a little knowledge we know that increasing CO2 actually reduces atmospheric density but not pressure since the weight is the same.


I agree with whatever you say. You should post why climate change is happening so everybody will know. And if it's not changing you need to let us know.


You don't agree with diddly-squat because you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You just shoot off these stupid ideas without one single seconds thought.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The True Believer's Delima:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What if everything alarmist say is true.6704-02-2020 20:57
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
It's not true leftists are climate advocates201-05-2019 00:24
How is this even true? CO2e is now over 500 ppm this year?508-02-2019 23:42
The True Believers Revealed120-11-2017 20:03
▲ 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