Remember me
▼ Content

There is still no Global Warming science.



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
08-10-2015 19:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
climate scientist wrote: I posted the link to the Venus and Earth temperature vs pressure profiles for everyone to see ...

You are apparently not making progress getting over the religion-science discernability hump. A link to the preacher's sermon is not scientific/math/logical support for the sermon. Religion is not science.

climate scientist wrote: Yes. O3 absorbs infrared because it is a greenhouse gas!

Nope, you can't (validly) say that any gas is a "greenhouse gas" whose properties cause a "greenhouse effect" because you have no "greenhouse effect" that doesn't violate the laws of physics.

At best you can assert that there are some gases that your religion has declared have mystical, magical superpowers


climate scientist wrote:
We don't even have a defined "greenhouse effect" that doesn't violate the 1st LoT such that any atmospheric gases have any properties that cause it.


Can you provide a link/reference to back up this statement?

Simply not having any such definition is sufficient. After all, you were the one who was supposed to provide it and it never materialized, hence, we don't have one.


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
08-10-2015 19:55
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Oh dear, dear climate scientist,

Is it better to endure the slings and arrows of the childish behavior of those who employ Religion, Repetitiveness and Redundancy - the preferred Three R's of the climate science illiterate!

Or, should we just leave them in the corner and ignore them like the immature little children that they are?

Your non-response would say it all!




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
08-10-2015 20:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
trafn wrote:
Oh dear, dear climate scientist,

Is it better to endure the slings and arrows of the childish behavior of those who employ Religion, Repetitiveness and Redundancy - the preferred Three R's of the climate science illiterate!

Or, should we just leave them in the corner and ignore them like the immature little children that they are?

Your non-response would say it all!


Congratulations! You have just reduced your position to one big ad hominem. It's amazing what you will consider to be clever, especially when it comes from another member of your church.

Perhaps I'll never understand the sheer death-struggle to drive offending science away. I understand you need to try everything in the book, every ad homien, every evasive maneuver, etc.. but why the hate?! It's just science. Is it really that traumatic?


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
08-10-2015 20:11
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
NON-RESPONSE: please feel free to go sit in the corner!
08-10-2015 20:13
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
NON-RESPONSE: please feel free to go sit in the corner!




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
08-10-2015 20:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
climate scientist wrote:
NON-RESPONSE: please feel free to go sit in the corner!

I'm loving this Marxist solidarity thing. It says it all. Thanks.


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
08-10-2015 20:23
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
You are most welcome, Kemosabe!




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
08-10-2015 20:26
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
trafn wrote::


08-10-2015 20:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)



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
11-01-2020 23:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
Back in October of 2014 I asked for the Global Warming science.

Spoiler alert: still nothing.

This was the original post:

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).


Have there been any developments since then or is Global Warming still just a WACKY religion?


.


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
14-01-2020 18:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
IBdaMann wrote:Have there been any developments since then or is Global Warming still just a WACKY religion?


Got it. There is still no Global Warming science. I'm making note that specifically James__ and spot cannot identify any.


.


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
15-01-2020 18:46
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(214)
IBdaMann wrote:
Back in October of 2014 I asked for the Global Warming science.

Spoiler alert: still nothing.

This was the original post:

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).


Have there been any developments since then or is Global Warming still just a WACKY religion?


.

It is still a wacky religion that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.
16-01-2020 01:30
James___
★★★★★
(2162)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Back in October of 2014 I asked for the Global Warming science.

Spoiler alert: still nothing.

This was the original post:

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).


Have there been any developments since then or is Global Warming still just a WACKY religion?


.

It is still a wacky religion that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.


If you guys reject glacial retreat/melting, that's up to you guys. Kind of means that no discussion is possible. At some point people need to allow for reality.
16-01-2020 01:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
James___ wrote: If you guys reject glacial retreat/melting, that's up to you guys. Kind of means that no discussion is possible. At some point people need to allow for reality.

James__, I don't recall ANYONE denying that some glaciers are in retreat.

The issue is your absurd denial of the glaciers that are growing and/or that are forming.

If you are just going to deny reality then it kind of means that no discussion is possible. At some point people need to allow for reality.


.


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 13:13
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: If you guys reject glacial retreat/melting, that's up to you guys. Kind of means that no discussion is possible. At some point people need to allow for reality.

James__, I don't recall ANYONE denying that some glaciers are in retreat.

The issue is your absurd denial of the glaciers that are growing and/or that are forming.

If you are just going to deny reality then it kind of means that no discussion is possible. At some point people need to allow for reality.


.


Good.

Start here for some reality:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/man-made-or-natural-d6-e2974-s120.php#post_50413
16-01-2020 17:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10930)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: If you guys reject glacial retreat/melting, that's up to you guys. Kind of means that no discussion is possible. At some point people need to allow for reality.

James__, I don't recall ANYONE denying that some glaciers are in retreat.

The issue is your absurd denial of the glaciers that are growing and/or that are forming.

If you are just going to deny reality then it kind of means that no discussion is possible. At some point people need to allow for reality.


.


Good.

Start here for some reality:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/man-made-or-natural-d6-e2974-s120.php#post_50413


A Holy Link to your own bad math is not going to make it correct.

Define 'real'. I know what it means. Do you?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-01-2020 17:39
16-01-2020 17:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
MarcusR wrote:Good. Start here for some reality:

Good, start here for some mythology: http://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/2

Start here for the foundational dogma: http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/18/text-communist-manifesto-english-version


.


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 17:52
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
Into the Night wrote:

A Holy Link to your own bad math is not going to make it correct.

Define 'real'. I know what it means. Do you?


Just go over to that thread so we keep the thread at least a bit on topic. The math I refered to is from a standard book regarding atmospheric radiation.

You can get the book here:
https://www.amazon.com/First-Course-Atmospheric-Radiation-2nd/dp/0972903313
16-01-2020 17:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
MarcusR wrote: The math I refered to is from a standard book regarding atmospheric radiation.

That's stupid. Use your own words.

To the best of your understanding, how does the earth's average global temperature supposedly increase? If you don't understand yourself then why do you believe it? If you do understand it then just post your understanding here. No math is required at this point.


.


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 18:09
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote: The math I refered to is from a standard book regarding atmospheric radiation.

That's stupid. Use your own words.

To the best of your understanding, how does the earth's average global temperature supposedly increase? If you don't understand yourself then why do you believe it? If you do understand it then just post your understanding here. No math is required at this point.


.


By simply not emitting all the energy we receive from the sun out to space. That is what GHG's do. They do not "create" energy, which you implied.

The math I refered is is still from Petty's book and the pictures are taken directly from it.

Why don't you buy it ? It is a good read !
16-01-2020 18:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10930)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote: The math I refered to is from a standard book regarding atmospheric radiation.

That's stupid. Use your own words.

To the best of your understanding, how does the earth's average global temperature supposedly increase? If you don't understand yourself then why do you believe it? If you do understand it then just post your understanding here. No math is required at this point.


.


By simply not emitting all the energy we receive from the sun out to space. That is what GHG's do. They do not "create" energy, which you implied.

That is in direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

MarcusR wrote:
The math I refered is is still from Petty's book and the pictures are taken directly from it.

You cannot use this book to violate these laws.
MarcusR wrote:
Why don't you buy it ? It is a good read !

Apparently not. I won't waste the money or the time to read it.

False authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
16-01-2020 19:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
MarcusR wrote: By simply not emitting all the energy we receive from the sun out to space.


This is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Dismissed.

The only way to reduce the earth's radiance (energy emitted to space) is to reduce its temperature.

MarcusR wrote: That is what GHG's do. They do not "create" energy, which you implied.

You have successfully completed your pivot from violating thermodynamics to violating Stefan-Boltzmann.


.


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 21:51
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
IBdaMann wrote:

This is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Dismissed.



SB only states that the theoretical maximum amount of total broadband radiation that can be emitted by an object is proportional to the fourth-power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing more - nothing less.

You can not apply a physical law to an area where it is not applicable.
16-01-2020 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10930)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

This is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Dismissed.



SB only states that the theoretical maximum amount of total broadband radiation that can be emitted by an object is proportional to the fourth-power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing more - nothing less.

WRONG. It does NOT state the maximum radiance or any 'theoretical' value. It does not use a bandwidth at all. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

It allows you to calculate the radiance (of all frequencies of light combined) of a surface at a given temperature.

MarcusR wrote:
You can not apply a physical law to an area where it is not applicable.

It is applicable to all matter, all the time, everywhere.


The Parrot Killer
17-01-2020 11:10
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Very simplistic explanation of basic mechanism of global warming: here
17-01-2020 12:14
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(109)
Into the Night wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

This is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Dismissed.



SB only states that the theoretical maximum amount of total broadband radiation that can be emitted by an object is proportional to the fourth-power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing more - nothing less.

WRONG. It does NOT state the maximum radiance or any 'theoretical' value. It does not use a bandwidth at all. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


Read what I wrote:
SB only states that the theoretical maximum amount of total broadband radiation that can be emitted by an object is proportional to the fourth-power of its absolute temperature.
"Maximum amount of total bredband radiation" !


So, lets see where the SB- law comes from ? SB is obtained by integrating Planck' s function over all possible wavelengths. Here is Planck' s function with wavelength (lambda)
https://ibb.co/0n8PQ7c


And here is how the SB law is derived from that:
https://ibb.co/rfhz7HW


So exactly what was your point ? SB still is what it is, and does not in any way describe how EM propagates in the atmosphere, or any other medium for that matter. See the other equations I posted for that.
17-01-2020 16:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
MarcusR wrote: Read what I wrote:

Read what I write.

MarcusR wrote: SB only states that the theoretical maximum amount of total broadband radiation that can be emitted by an object is proportional to the fourth-power of its absolute temperature.

Incorrect.

Stefan-Boltzmann predicts the exact radiance of matter given its temperature.

I have to ask if you have dyslexia or some other reading impediment. Did you not notice the word "broadband"? How did you not immediately know that something was terribly wrong? Stefan-Boltzmann has no frequency term. Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't deal in broadband communications.

Yet you blindly copy pasted what you considered to be your best guess at sounding knowledgable and smart.

MarcusR wrote:

<... wasted bandwidth deleted ...>




You're not likely to get it right by guessing from amongst misinformation of various warmizombie sites.


.


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
17-01-2020 19:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10930)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Very simplistic explanation of basic mechanism of global warming: here


Yet another example of ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. Heat never flows from cold to hot.
You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.


The Parrot Killer
17-01-2020 19:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10930)
MarcusR wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

This is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Dismissed.



SB only states that the theoretical maximum amount of total broadband radiation that can be emitted by an object is proportional to the fourth-power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing more - nothing less.

WRONG. It does NOT state the maximum radiance or any 'theoretical' value. It does not use a bandwidth at all. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


Read what I wrote:
SB only states that the theoretical maximum amount of total broadband radiation that can be emitted by an object is proportional to the fourth-power of its absolute temperature.
"Maximum amount of total bredband radiation" !


So, lets see where the SB- law comes from ? SB is obtained by integrating Planck' s function over all possible wavelengths. Here is Planck' s function with wavelength (lambda)
https://ibb.co/0n8PQ7c


And here is how the SB law is derived from that:
https://ibb.co/rfhz7HW


So exactly what was your point ? SB still is what it is, and does not in any way describe how EM propagates in the atmosphere, or any other medium for that matter. See the other equations I posted for that.


There is no 'maximum amount'. There is no limit of any kind described. Then you completely ignore the law to wander into canceling it with your wacky discussions about 'EM propagation'.


The Parrot Killer
17-01-2020 19:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Very simplistic explanation of basic mechanism of global warming: here


A very simple violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics here:


.


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
17-01-2020 20:08
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Very simplistic explanation of basic mechanism of global warming: here


A very simple violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics here:


.


How analysing path of photons violates any law of thermodynamics?
17-01-2020 20:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A very simple violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics here:
.

How analysing path of photons violates any law of thermodynamics?

How is creating additional energy by changing form somehow NOT a violation of thermodynamics?


.


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
17-01-2020 21:22
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A very simple violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics here:
.

How analysing path of photons violates any law of thermodynamics?

How is creating additional energy by changing form somehow NOT a violation of thermodynamics?


.


Where you've seen "creating additional energy" in my pdf?
17-01-2020 21:42
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(103)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A very simple violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics here:
.

How analysing path of photons violates any law of thermodynamics?

How is creating additional energy by changing form somehow NOT a violation of thermodynamics?


.


Where you've seen "creating additional energy" in my pdf?


What's more scary is that you don't see it.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
17-01-2020 22:38
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Harry C wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A very simple violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics here:
.

How analysing path of photons violates any law of thermodynamics?

How is creating additional energy by changing form somehow NOT a violation of thermodynamics?


.


Where you've seen "creating additional energy" in my pdf?


What's more scary is that you don't see it.


So where it is exactly?
17-01-2020 22:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Harry C wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A very simple violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics here:
.

How analysing path of photons violates any law of thermodynamics?

How is creating additional energy by changing form somehow NOT a violation of thermodynamics?
.

Where you've seen "creating additional energy" in my pdf?

What's more scary is that you don't see it.

So where it is exactly?

Does the earth's average temperature increase as a result of the photons being absorbed, being converted into thermal energy which is then radiated as photons, etc..?

.


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
17-01-2020 23:15
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Harry C wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A very simple violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics here:
.

How analysing path of photons violates any law of thermodynamics?

How is creating additional energy by changing form somehow NOT a violation of thermodynamics?
.

Where you've seen "creating additional energy" in my pdf?

What's more scary is that you don't see it.

So where it is exactly?

Does the earth's average temperature increase as a result of the photons being absorbed, being converted into thermal energy which is then radiated as photons, etc..?

.


I've just posted explanation. CO2 changes flow path of thermal energy. Change in flow path of thermal energy always results in change of temperature, according to thermodynamics.
17-01-2020 23:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10930)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Harry C wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
A very simple violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics here:
.

How analysing path of photons violates any law of thermodynamics?

How is creating additional energy by changing form somehow NOT a violation of thermodynamics?
.

Where you've seen "creating additional energy" in my pdf?

What's more scary is that you don't see it.

So where it is exactly?

Does the earth's average temperature increase as a result of the photons being absorbed, being converted into thermal energy which is then radiated as photons, etc..?

.


I've just posted explanation. CO2 changes flow path of thermal energy. Change in flow path of thermal energy always results in change of temperature, according to thermodynamics.

Not according to Kirchoff's law.

Flow path is irrelevant. You are attempting to create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
17-01-2020 23:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5630)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Does the earth's average temperature increase as a result of the photons being absorbed, being converted into thermal energy which is then radiated as photons, etc..?

I've just posted explanation. CO2 changes flow path of thermal energy. Change in flow path of thermal energy always results in change of temperature, according to thermodynamics.

So your answer to my question is yes, the earth's average temperature increases as a result of the photons being absorbed, being converted into thermal energy which is then radiated as photons, etc..

Temperature can only increase with additional energy. Nothing spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy.

When you say that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature you are saying that greehouse gases produce additional energy.

Unfortunately, thermodynamics tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, i.e. no substance, not even greenhouse gases, can somehow produce additional energy.

Ergo, only through violating thermodynamics can your current Greenhouse Effect model work.

This is the point where you shout "No one is saying that greenhouse gases produces additional energy!" ... and you pivot to violating Stefan-Boltzmann.

I'm ready anytime you are.


.


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
17-01-2020 23:36
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Does the earth's average temperature increase as a result of the photons being absorbed, being converted into thermal energy which is then radiated as photons, etc..?

I've just posted explanation. CO2 changes flow path of thermal energy. Change in flow path of thermal energy always results in change of temperature, according to thermodynamics.

So your answer to my question is yes, the earth's average temperature increases as a result of the photons being absorbed, being converted into thermal energy which is then radiated as photons, etc..

Temperature can only increase with additional energy. Nothing spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy.

When you say that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature you are saying that greehouse gases produce additional energy.

Unfortunately, thermodynamics tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, i.e. no substance, not even greenhouse gases, can somehow produce additional energy.

Ergo, only through violating thermodynamics can your current Greenhouse Effect model work.

This is the point where you shout "No one is saying that greenhouse gases produces additional energy!" ... and you pivot to violating Stefan-Boltzmann.

I'm ready anytime you are.


.


Solar radiation when it arrives to Earth surface, contains fotons travelling roughly parallel to each other. So each incoming photon from Sun has the same path length through atmosphere, and the same probability of being absorbed by CO2.

Thermal radiation from Earth surface is chaotic, and is roughly equal in all directions. Large part of these thermal radiation photons runs in direction other than perpendicular to Earth surface, so they have longer path through atmosphere, and have higher overall probability being absorbed by CO2.

So larger part of thermal radiation from surface is absorbed by atmospheric CO2 than absorption of incoming solar radiation.
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate There is still no Global Warming science.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Western Science - is it declining?1124-12-2019 12:43
About the damage that Obama did to science.18417-12-2019 05:36
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
Still No Climate Change Science1111-07-2019 04:23
▲ 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