Remember me
▼ Content

There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2



Page 11 of 14<<<910111213>>>
23-12-2019 05:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2038)
spot wrote:
define define first

Might seem a stupid question but I don't really think we agree on what a definition is, I don't believe in Voodoo but I can define it.
That's actually an excellent point. I am surprised that never came up before.

IBdaMann wrote:
Fortunately for science,
Ha ha ha! Yes, what the man on the street tells you IBD. But no books, no research, no citations are ever allowed.

Sorry that's not science it's your own personal delusion.

spot wrote:
They seem to be practicing some form of pataphysics.

https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/pataphysics-is-dead-serious/
Oh I like it! Kind of like Dadaism. I wish these clowns were half that entertaining.

keepit wrote:
I just read the Stefan Boltzman law on Wikipedia. It says the temp of earth is higher than the SB law would indicate because earth's atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect.
Yep. Our mean temp is higher than it COULD be with Earth being a black body, which it's not. Not only is it hotter it's 30 degrees hotter. Of course an easy way to dodge this is to say "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!" ha ha.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Wiki has either falsified the Stefan Boltzman law, or they flat out deny it. Which do you think it is?
GG you have one easy option and here it is:

Stefan and Boltzmann are both references you can cite. They both cited references. An enumerable number of citations referencing their work has followed since.

If Wiki got wrong then find someone who got it right and cite them! Try finding a textbook that discusses planetary temperature or even just fundamental thermodynamics as it relates to Stefan-Boltzmann.

Here's the thing: ITN and IBD are liars. They aren't stupid but they are crazy. They are claiming EVERYTHING ever printed on the subject is wrong.

Neither of them have ever cited anything to backup their position.

So please give it a shot.
23-12-2019 06:17
keepit
★★★☆☆
(969)
And what would be Wiki's purpose in doing that Gas?
What would be a purpose for claiming Wiki is falsifying.
Is Wiki peer reviewed in any sense?
Are you peer reviewed in any sense in denying what Wiki says in this?
23-12-2019 14:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
keepit wrote:
And what would be Wiki's purpose in doing that Gas?
What would be a purpose for claiming Wiki is falsifying.
Is Wiki peer reviewed in any sense?
Are you peer reviewed in any sense in denying what Wiki says in this?

Wikipedia is a group of hard-line Marxists, like much of the MSM. Their agenda is political. Their priority is to ensure all wikis support the political party line. You can verify this by going down the list of conservative positions and "learn" from Wikipedia that they are all essentially wrong ... all under the auspices that Wikipedia is completely neutral.

Wikipedia is intentional misinformation. Not all of it, but practically every wiki is awash in errors.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
23-12-2019 15:28
James___
★★★★★
(2179)
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
define define first

Might seem a stupid question but I don't really think we agree on what a definition is, I don't believe in Voodoo but I can define it.
That's actually an excellent point. I am surprised that never came up before.

IBdaMann wrote:
Fortunately for science,
Ha ha ha! Yes, what the man on the street tells you IBD. But no books, no research, no citations are ever allowed.

Sorry that's not science it's your own personal delusion.

spot wrote:
They seem to be practicing some form of pataphysics.

https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/pataphysics-is-dead-serious/
Oh I like it! Kind of like Dadaism. I wish these clowns were half that entertaining.

keepit wrote:
I just read the Stefan Boltzman law on Wikipedia. It says the temp of earth is higher than the SB law would indicate because earth's atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect.
Yep. Our mean temp is higher than it COULD be with Earth being a black body, which it's not. Not only is it hotter it's 30 degrees hotter. Of course an easy way to dodge this is to say "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!" ha ha.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Wiki has either falsified the Stefan Boltzman law, or they flat out deny it. Which do you think it is?
GG you have one easy option and here it is:

Stefan and Boltzmann are both references you can cite. They both cited references. An enumerable number of citations referencing their work has followed since.

If Wiki got wrong then find someone who got it right and cite them! Try finding a textbook that discusses planetary temperature or even just fundamental thermodynamics as it relates to Stefan-Boltzmann.

Here's the thing: ITN and IBD are liars. They aren't stupid but they are crazy. They are claiming EVERYTHING ever printed on the subject is wrong.

Neither of them have ever cited anything to backup their position.

So please give it a shot.



I'll simplify for you T-Mid, with itn and ibcm, they both improperly reference the Stefan-Boltzman constant while rejecting Boltzmann's ideal gas law.
Since Boltzmann's constant is (I shortened it) 1.38^-23 j/k or pV = nkT or more simply just KE = 3/2kT. p = pressure, V = volume and N is Avagrado's number.
If you go with pV = nRT, R is the molar gas constant. This matters if consider how a CO2 molecule's behavior is changed when it absorbs IR. Co2 doesn't absorb IR then immediately emit emr . It's KE is increased.
How does CO2's KE increase the KE of our atmosphere? Is it's emitted emr https://binged.it/2ENccio absorbed by other atmospheric gasses? If so, then this would be an obvious increase in the KE of atmospheric gases. But neither itn or ibcm can grasp this.
23-12-2019 16:41
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
IBdaMann wrote:

You have been provided links to both on multiple occasions, so I know that you know how to find them.

.


And I believe that I provided this before:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.
23-12-2019 16:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
MarcusR wrote:And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.

Question: Are you claiming that this is the amount of energy created by having CO2 in our atmosphere?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
23-12-2019 18:03
James___
★★★★★
(2179)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

You have been provided links to both on multiple occasions, so I know that you know how to find them.

.


And I believe that I provided this before:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.



In fig. 1, it shows that H2O significantly increases the IR absorption of CO2.
With the timeline they give, ozone depletion and SO2 levels would fit their profile.
It makes me wonder if a healthy ozone layer would decrease the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. If so then CO2's potential warming effect would lessen.

Increases in water vapour in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS) lead to radiative cooling at these levels and induce warming at the surface. Recent analyses suggest that warming at the Earth's surface may be sensitive to sub- parts per million (ppm) by volume changes in water vapour in the lower stratosphere. Research has found that a 10% decrease in stratospheric water vapour between 2000 and 2009 acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over this time period by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to CO2 and other greenhouse gases.1 More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapour probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour
23-12-2019 18:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote:And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.

Question: Are you claiming that this is the amount of energy created by having CO2 in our atmosphere?


.


How do you imagine we imagine this energy is created by fusion or some chemical process.

The energy is retained not created,


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.
23-12-2019 18:28
keepit
★★★☆☆
(969)
That's it spot. One has to realize that retain and create are two different things.
23-12-2019 19:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
IBdaMann wrote:

Fortunately for science, it doesn't matter with what you agree. If you cannot unambiguously define the global climate such that physics can apply, all you have is religious dogma-babble.

It appears that you are fine leaving it at this point. I second your motion.


.


Not really if I go to the library and ask about climatology I will be directed to the "science" section also scientific bodies such as the Royal Society have made statements about climate change. I idiotically assumed from this that "science" knows what "Climate change" is.

But I learn from you that this is not true.

So what do you mean by "science"? I know you say you can put it into computers, Do you remember that daft story you told?

Going on context I seem to take it that it is something understood by you and not by me so please tell us who or what is "science"?


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.
Edited on 23-12-2019 19:07
23-12-2019 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Fortunately for science,
Ha ha ha! Yes, what the man on the street tells you IBD. But no books, no research, no citations are ever allowed.

Sorry that's not science it's your own personal delusion.

Science is not a book. It is not a research. It is not a citation. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Redefinition fallacy. RDCF RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
I just read the Stefan Boltzman law on Wikipedia. It says the temp of earth is higher than the SB law would indicate because earth's atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect.
Yep. Our mean temp is higher than it COULD be with Earth being a black body, which it's not. Not only is it hotter it's 30 degrees hotter. Of course an easy way to dodge this is to say "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!" ha ha.
Wikipedia is wrong. You cannot use it as a reference.
keepit wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Wiki has either falsified the Stefa
n Boltzman law, or they flat out deny it. Which do you think it is?
GG you have one easy option and here it is:

Stefan and Boltzmann are both references you can cite. They both cited references. An enumerable number of citations referencing their work has followed since.

If Wiki got wrong then find someone who got it right and cite them! Try finding a textbook that discusses planetary temperature or even just fundamental thermodynamics as it relates to Stefan-Boltzmann.
Stefan-Boltzmann law:
r=C*e*t^4

You need no textbook. That is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No book is a reference. Only the theory itself is the authoritative reference.
tmiddles wrote:
Here's the thing: ITN and IBD are liars. They aren't stupid but they are crazy. They are claiming EVERYTHING ever printed on the subject is wrong.

Never did. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Neither of them have ever cited anything to backup their position.
So please give it a shot.


r=C*e*t^4

Again, you keep asking the same questions that have already been answered over and over and over and over and over. RQAA


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-12-2019 21:25
23-12-2019 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
define define first

Might seem a stupid question but I don't really think we agree on what a definition is, I don't believe in Voodoo but I can define it.
That's actually an excellent point. I am surprised that never came up before.

IBdaMann wrote:
Fortunately for science,
Ha ha ha! Yes, what the man on the street tells you IBD. But no books, no research, no citations are ever allowed.

Sorry that's not science it's your own personal delusion.

spot wrote:
They seem to be practicing some form of pataphysics.

https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/pataphysics-is-dead-serious/
Oh I like it! Kind of like Dadaism. I wish these clowns were half that entertaining.

keepit wrote:
I just read the Stefan Boltzman law on Wikipedia. It says the temp of earth is higher than the SB law would indicate because earth's atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect.
Yep. Our mean temp is higher than it COULD be with Earth being a black body, which it's not. Not only is it hotter it's 30 degrees hotter. Of course an easy way to dodge this is to say "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!" ha ha.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Wiki has either falsified the Stefan Boltzman law, or they flat out deny it. Which do you think it is?
GG you have one easy option and here it is:

Stefan and Boltzmann are both references you can cite. They both cited references. An enumerable number of citations referencing their work has followed since.

If Wiki got wrong then find someone who got it right and cite them! Try finding a textbook that discusses planetary temperature or even just fundamental thermodynamics as it relates to Stefan-Boltzmann.

Here's the thing: ITN and IBD are liars. They aren't stupid but they are crazy. They are claiming EVERYTHING ever printed on the subject is wrong.

Neither of them have ever cited anything to backup their position.

So please give it a shot.



I'll simplify for you T-Mid, with itn and ibcm, they both improperly reference the Stefan-Boltzman constant while rejecting Boltzmann's ideal gas law.
Since Boltzmann's constant is (I shortened it) 1.38^-23 j/k or pV = nkT or more simply just KE = 3/2kT. p = pressure, V = volume and N is Avagrado's number.
If you go with pV = nRT, R is the molar gas constant. This matters if consider how a CO2 molecule's behavior is changed when it absorbs IR. Co2 doesn't absorb IR then immediately emit emr . It's KE is increased.
How does CO2's KE increase the KE of our atmosphere? Is it's emitted emr https://binged.it/2ENccio absorbed by other atmospheric gasses? If so, then this would be an obvious increase in the KE of atmospheric gases. But neither itn or ibcm can grasp this.


You can't create energy out of nothing.
Boltzmann did not create the ideal gas law. It has nothing to do with radiance. Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
23-12-2019 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

You have been provided links to both on multiple occasions, so I know that you know how to find them.

.


And I believe that I provided this before:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.


CO2 has nothing to do with power.


The Parrot Killer
23-12-2019 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
James___ wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

You have been provided links to both on multiple occasions, so I know that you know how to find them.

.


And I believe that I provided this before:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.



In fig. 1, it shows that H2O significantly increases the IR absorption of CO2.
With the timeline they give, ozone depletion and SO2 levels would fit their profile.
It makes me wonder if a healthy ozone layer would decrease the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. If so then CO2's potential warming effect would lessen.

Increases in water vapour in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS) lead to radiative cooling at these levels and induce warming at the surface. Recent analyses suggest that warming at the Earth's surface may be sensitive to sub- parts per million (ppm) by volume changes in water vapour in the lower stratosphere. Research has found that a 10% decrease in stratospheric water vapour between 2000 and 2009 acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over this time period by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to CO2 and other greenhouse gases.1 More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapour probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour


Absorption of IR emitted from the surface of Earth by CO2 or any other gas or vapor does not warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
23-12-2019 21:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote:And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.

Question: Are you claiming that this is the amount of energy created by having CO2 in our atmosphere?


.


How do you imagine we imagine this energy is created by fusion or some chemical process.

The energy is retained not created,

It is not possible to store, trap, or slow thermal energy.
It is not possible to store, trap, or slow heat.

You cannot reduce entropy in any system.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-12-2019 21:32
23-12-2019 21:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
keepit wrote:
That's it spot. One has to realize that retain and create are two different things.


You cannot reduce entropy in any system. RDCF.


The Parrot Killer
23-12-2019 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Fortunately for science, it doesn't matter with what you agree. If you cannot unambiguously define the global climate such that physics can apply, all you have is religious dogma-babble.

It appears that you are fine leaving it at this point. I second your motion.


.


Not really if I go to the library and ask about climatology I will be directed to the "science" section

The librarian is wrong. He cannot define 'science' by putting books in a section of a library.
spot wrote:
also scientific bodies such as the Royal Society have made statements about climate change.

That they have. Trouble is, there is no meaning to the phrase 'climate change'. Define 'climate change'. It has to be define before you can any theories about it.
spot wrote:
I idiotically assumed from this that "science" knows what "Climate change" is.

You are asking for a definition of 'science' and trying to use 'climate change' as if it had a definition at all. It doesn't.
spot wrote:
But I learn from you that this is not true.

So what do you mean by "science"?

This question has already been asked by you. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
spot wrote:
I know you say you can put it into computers,

Nope. No socket for it.
spot wrote:
Going on context I seem to take it that it is something understood by you and not by me

RQAA
spot wrote:
so please tell us who or what is "science"?

RQAA


The Parrot Killer
23-12-2019 23:05
keepit
★★★☆☆
(969)
ITN,
It's like you think people on this website know what you've said over the last periods of time. They don't and i don't.
If you have something to say, say it. And think for yourself, not some dogma from many decades ago. Move forward.
24-12-2019 00:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
[img][/img]
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Fortunately for science, it doesn't matter with what you agree. If you cannot unambiguously define the global climate such that physics can apply, all you have is religious dogma-babble.

It appears that you are fine leaving it at this point. I second your motion.


.


Not really if I go to the library and ask about climatology I will be directed to the "science" section

The librarian is wrong. He cannot define 'science' by putting books in a section of a library.
spot wrote:
also scientific bodies such as the Royal Society have made statements about climate change.

That they have. Trouble is, there is no meaning to the phrase 'climate change'. Define 'climate change'. It has to be define before you can any theories about it.
spot wrote:
I idiotically assumed from this that "science" knows what "Climate change" is.

You are asking for a definition of 'science' and trying to use 'climate change' as if it had a definition at all. It doesn't.
spot wrote:
But I learn from you that this is not true.

So what do you mean by "science"?

This question has already been asked by you. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
spot wrote:
I know you say you can put it into computers,

Nope. No socket for it.
spot wrote:
Going on context I seem to take it that it is something understood by you and not by me

RQAA
spot wrote:
so please tell us who or what is "science"?

RQAA


It is only you two and perhaps your chucklehead acolyte GasGuzler that has a problem with definitions so I am at a loss to understand how further discussion will be productive.

As for your point about it being ridiculous to put science on a computer I agree, it was your fellow traveller who claimed to have asked for science to put on his glowing computer. But that was more than a week ago. It's hard to keep track of who is talking to who especially when you are old and your brain cells are clearly dieing.


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.
24-12-2019 09:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
It's like you think people on this website know what you've said over the last periods of time. They don't and i don't.
If you have something to say, say it. And think for yourself, not some dogma from many decades ago. Move forward.


Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
24-12-2019 09:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
spot wrote:
[img][/img]
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Fortunately for science, it doesn't matter with what you agree. If you cannot unambiguously define the global climate such that physics can apply, all you have is religious dogma-babble.

It appears that you are fine leaving it at this point. I second your motion.


.


Not really if I go to the library and ask about climatology I will be directed to the "science" section

The librarian is wrong. He cannot define 'science' by putting books in a section of a library.
spot wrote:
also scientific bodies such as the Royal Society have made statements about climate change.

That they have. Trouble is, there is no meaning to the phrase 'climate change'. Define 'climate change'. It has to be define before you can any theories about it.
spot wrote:
I idiotically assumed from this that "science" knows what "Climate change" is.

You are asking for a definition of 'science' and trying to use 'climate change' as if it had a definition at all. It doesn't.
spot wrote:
But I learn from you that this is not true.

So what do you mean by "science"?

This question has already been asked by you. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
spot wrote:
I know you say you can put it into computers,

Nope. No socket for it.
spot wrote:
Going on context I seem to take it that it is something understood by you and not by me

RQAA
spot wrote:
so please tell us who or what is "science"?

RQAA


It is only you two and perhaps your chucklehead acolyte GasGuzler that has a problem with definitions

No, that would be YOU. It is YOU using meaningless buzzwords. Define 'climate change'.
spot wrote:
so I am at a loss to understand how further discussion will be productive.

You are not discussing anything. Void argument fallacy.
spot wrote:
As for your point about it being ridiculous to put science on a computer I agree, it was your fellow traveller who claimed to have asked for science to put on his glowing computer. But that was more than a week ago. It's hard to keep track of who is talking to who especially when you are old and your brain cells are clearly dieing.

YALIFNAP


The Parrot Killer
28-12-2019 05:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2038)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

You have been provided links to both on multiple occasions, so I know that you know how to find them.

.


And I believe that I provided this before:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.
Well said, great link.
28-12-2019 06:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.

Well said, great link.

I see what you both are doing. You believe that thermodynamics can actually be violated if only you establish that the laws are FALSE via consensus.

Well done! OK, so now there are two of you. How many more do you need?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
16-01-2020 10:45
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.

Well said, great link.

I see what you both are doing. You believe that thermodynamics can actually be violated if only you establish that the laws are FALSE via consensus.

Well done! OK, so now there are two of you. How many more do you need?


.


The statetement in the thread was "There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2"

Well, there is. Just go over to the HITRAN database and download data. It clearly shows that there is a scientific answer to the question in this thread.

If You want to know HOW and WHY the enaswer is what it is, get Grant W Pettys book A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. You can get a used copy on e-bay.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/First-Course-In-Atmospheric-Radiation-by-Grant-Petty/223609686898?hash=item34102d0b72:g:hXMAAOSwdAFdRLIP
Edited on 16-01-2020 10:46
16-01-2020 17:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
And 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2 is still 1.95 W/m2. That's from the increase of CO2 alone.

Well said, great link.

I see what you both are doing. You believe that thermodynamics can actually be violated if only you establish that the laws are FALSE via consensus.

Well done! OK, so now there are two of you. How many more do you need?


.


The statetement in the thread was "There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2"

Well, there is. Just go over to the HITRAN database and download data. It clearly shows that there is a scientific answer to the question in this thread.

Science is not data. It is a set of falsifiable theories. You cannot warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. HITRAN does not show what is absorbed by the surface. Further, it measures ALL infrared light striking the Earth, whether it comes from magick gas or anywhere else.
MarcusR wrote:
If You want to know HOW and WHY the enaswer is what it is, get Grant W Pettys book A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. You can get a used copy on e-bay.
[url]https://www.ebay.com/itm/First-Course-In-Atmospheric-Radiation-by-Grant-Petty/223609686898?hash=item34102d0b72:g:hXMAAOSwdAFdRLIP[/url

Sorry dude. You can't ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics by using a book or any kind of consensus.


The Parrot Killer
16-01-2020 17:58
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
Into the Night wrote:
HITRAN does not show what is absorbed by the surface. Further, it measures ALL infrared light striking the Earth, whether it comes from magick gas or anywhere else.



Eeeehhhh ??? HITRAN is just a set of data:
https://hitran.org/about/
16-01-2020 18:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
MarcusR wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HITRAN does not show what is absorbed by the surface. Further, it measures ALL infrared light striking the Earth, whether it comes from magick gas or anywhere else.



Eeeehhhh ??? HITRAN is just a set of data:
https://hitran.org/about/


It doesn't mean what you think it means. You cannot use HITRAN to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot reduce entropy in any system. You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-01-2020 18:01
16-01-2020 18:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
MarcusR wrote:Eeeehhhh ??? HITRAN is just a set of data:
https://hitran.org/about/

... and it stands as a testament to everything you wrote on the matter of earth's thermal radiation being bogus.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
16-01-2020 18:12
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Eeeehhhh ??? HITRAN is just a set of data:
https://hitran.org/about/

... and it stands as a testament to everything you wrote on the matter of earth's thermal radiation being bogus.


.


Your comment won't change the physical properties of i.e CO2, CH4, N2O etc.
16-01-2020 18:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Eeeehhhh ??? HITRAN is just a set of data:
https://hitran.org/about/

... and it stands as a testament to everything you wrote on the matter of earth's thermal radiation being bogus.


.


Your comment won't change the physical properties of i.e CO2, CH4, N2O etc.

He's not trying to. Redirection fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
16-01-2020 19:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
MarcusR wrote:Your comment won't change the physical properties of i.e CO2, CH4, N2O etc.

The physical properties of CO2, CH4 and N2O won't increase the average temperature of the earth.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
16-01-2020 21:22
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(105)
MarcusR wrote:Eeeehhhh ??? HITRAN is just a set of data:
https://hitran.org/about/


HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. It must be emphasized that the parameters that exist in HITRAN are a mixture of calculated and experimental. Another aspect of HITRAN is that when line-by-line transition parameters are either not available, or not practical, we provide experimentally-determined cross-sections at different temperatures and pressures.


It's a freakin' wag! It may be good enough for military purposes but certainly not foundational to predicting long-term increased temperatures based upon changes in CO2 levels.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
16-01-2020 21:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2038)
Into the Night wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
...get Grant W Pettys book A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. ...

Sorry dude. You can't ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics by using a book or any kind of consensus.

Marcus,

ITN/IBD actually deny every college textbook on the laws of thermodynamics.

Like: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY.

IBD actually says a guy that will remain nameless told him about physics directly and he tested it himself in the lab. So it's an oral tradition!
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?

Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage.


All that BS to avoid admitting a single published text on thermodynamics is acceptable to them. They are just wackos.

"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 ever valid for them
Edited on 16-01-2020 21:39
16-01-2020 21:37
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
Harry C wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Eeeehhhh ??? HITRAN is just a set of data:
https://hitran.org/about/


HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. It must be emphasized that the parameters that exist in HITRAN are a mixture of calculated and experimental. Another aspect of HITRAN is that when line-by-line transition parameters are either not available, or not practical, we provide experimentally-determined cross-sections at different temperatures and pressures.


It's a freakin' wag! It may be good enough for military purposes but certainly not foundational to predicting long-term increased temperatures based upon changes in CO2 levels.


How are You supposed to meassure quantum mechanical sulotions ?
Just because we can not meassure them, doesn't mean we can't calculate with them.
16-01-2020 21:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2038)
Harry C wrote:
It's a freakin' wag!.
What's a wag?
16-01-2020 22:12
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
tmiddles wrote:

Marcus,

ITN/IBD actually deny every college textbook on the laws of thermodynamics.



When I went to the university we used Fundamentals of Thermodynamics by Borgnakke/Sonntag. I actually had to mail Claus once so I could show someone at Discuss how extremely wrong he was regarding the 2nd law of thermo. That annoying bugger used that very book as a source to say that the GHE violates the 2'nd law of thermo, and since I had it in my bookshelf I looked it up. He didn't believe me, even though I posted a page with a reference to a chapter, so I mailed Claus as well.

Not that it mattered to the person claiming that the GHE violates the 2nd law though. He had already made his mind up, and in his/her universe the words from the writer of the very source he/she used didn't matter.... Priceless !!
16-01-2020 22:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2038)
MarcusR wrote:He had already made his mind up, and in his/her universe the words from the writer of the very source he/she used didn't matter.... Priceless !!
Yes what's very convenient for truth and reason is that it goes like this for the denier conspiracy theorist.

1- There is a vast conspiracy so evidence is hard to find.
2- You've cited some evidence that they are wrong, but it's false because the vast conspiracy has doctored/falsified so many references, so it's disregarded.
3- They find evidence that supports their conclusion, add it to the list

It would be like asking a Truffle Pig what Planet Earth is made of and being told it's made of Truffles and a bit of dirt.

The convenient bit for us is that the Global Warming Crisis issue was non-existent just 50 years ago so you have to believe the dark agents of this conspiracy have time machines.

I traced the proof they are wrong back to the origin but as you guessed it they just skipped that discussion entirely:
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat

"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 ever valid for them
16-01-2020 23:15
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(105)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
It's a freakin' wag!.
What's a wag?


Literally it's a "wild assed guess", however I didn't mean it literally.
It's an interpolation and not actual. Statistically it diminishes the confidence interval if you wanted to use the data for predictive value.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
16-01-2020 23:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2038)
Harry C wrote:
It's an interpolation and not actual.
You do realize that almost all data has to be interpreted right? You cannot "actually" measure most things. Something like temperature for example will always have a range and vary.

If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations. I know they should correlate and it's hardly a "wild ass guess" for me to determine your internal temperature based on that proxy.

But it seems your premise is that scientists and engineers just don't know what they are doing in general, not just as it relates to the CLIMATE DEBATE ?
16-01-2020 23:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
...get Grant W Pettys book A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. ...

Sorry dude. You can't ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics by using a book or any kind of consensus.

Marcus,

ITN/IBD actually deny every college textbook on the laws of thermodynamics.

False authority fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Like: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY.

RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBD actually says a guy that will remain nameless told him about physics directly and he tested it himself in the lab. So it's an oral tradition!

Beats YOUR references hands down.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?

Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage.


All that BS to avoid admitting a single published text on thermodynamics is acceptable to them. They are just wackos.

False authority fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Page 11 of 14<<<910111213>>>





Join the debate There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Global CO2 Emergency Plan (GCEP) needed asap026-01-2020 10:19
The Fastest & Only Way To Find Out The Real Life Truth About Global Warming & CO2 Emission2124-01-2020 19:21
The Easiest Way To Remove Bad Politicians Is By Gambling Knowledge About Global Warming & CO2 Emissio623-01-2020 03:34
Definition of heat and heat pump4021-01-2020 18:21
Scientific published papers7520-01-2020 20:59
Articles
Theory
▲ 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