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

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.

IBdaMann wrote:
Fortunately for science,

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

https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/pataphysics-is-dead-serious/

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.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Wiki has either falsified the Stefan Boltzman law, or they flat out deny it. Which do you think it is?

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?

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.

IBdaMann wrote:

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

.

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.

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.

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?


.

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.


.

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.

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?

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.

tmiddles wrote:
Neither of them have ever cited anything to backup their position.
So please give it a shot.

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.

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.

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

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,

keepit wrote:
That's it spot. One has to realize that retain and create are two different things.

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

spot wrote:
also scientific bodies such as the Royal Society have made statements about climate change.

spot wrote:
I idiotically assumed from this that "science" knows what "Climate change" is.

spot wrote:
But I learn from you that this is not true.

So what do you mean by "science"?

spot wrote:
I know you say you can put it into computers,

spot wrote:
Going on context I seem to take it that it is something understood by you and not by me

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

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

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.

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

spot wrote:
so I am at a loss to understand how further discussion will be productive.

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.

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.

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.

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?


.

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.

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

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.

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/

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

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.


.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Harry C wrote:
It's a freakin' wag!.

tmiddles wrote:

Marcus,

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

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 !!

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:
It's a freakin' wag!.

What's a wag?

Harry C wrote:
It's an interpolation and not actual.

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.

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

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!

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.