Remember me
▼ Content

There is still no Global Warming science.



Page 5 of 7<<<34567>
18-01-2020 00:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Solar radiation when it arrives to Earth surface, contains fotons travelling roughly parallel to each other ...

[* thermodynamics-violating gibber-babble deleted *]



Let me reiterate my previous response because it obviously did not sink in the first time.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that although energy can change form, additional energy can never be created or destroyed.

You, on the other hand, claim that Greenhouse Effect is a particular sequence of energy form changes that produces additional energy ... which increases the earth's average global temperature ... which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Let's review the physics of your claim that the earth's average temperature increases as a result of photons of solar radiation 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.

So pay attention. 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 standing by for you to do this so we can talk about your attempt to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.

[hint: you will be claiming that greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space]


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-01-2020 00:40
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
IBdaMann wrote:
When you say that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature you are saying that greehouse gases produce additional energy.

.


Where exactly?
18-01-2020 03:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
When you say that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature you are saying that greehouse gases produce additional energy.

.


Where exactly?

OK, English isn't your first language. I understand the difficulties in parsing through a second language. You get credit for the effort ...

... but you have to read all of what I wrote. The two sentences immediately prior to one you quoted answered your question.


Temperature can only increase with additional energy. Nothing spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy.
Therefore, when you say that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature you are saying that greehouse gases produce additional energy.


Let me know if you have any questions.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-01-2020 17:32
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
When you say that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature you are saying that greehouse gases produce additional energy.

.


Where exactly?

OK, English isn't your first language. I understand the difficulties in parsing through a second language. You get credit for the effort ...

... but you have to read all of what I wrote. The two sentences immediately prior to one you quoted answered your question.


This is not response to my question, and has nothing to do with science

IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature can only increase with additional energy. Nothing spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy.
Therefore, when you say that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature you are saying that greehouse gases produce additional energy.


Let me know if you have any questions.


.


I've posted it already:

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

.


Where exactly?
18-01-2020 17:43
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature can only increase with additional energy.


Solar radiation constantly adds energy to Earth.
18-01-2020 18:58
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1742)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature can only increase with additional energy.


Solar radiation constantly adds energy to Earth.


True, but only half the planet is exposed to the additional energy, while the other half is in shadow, and cooling. It's never evenly distributed either, since cloud cover reflects some of the energy, and it will never make it to the surface.

I really don't understand how a couple of degrees warmer, would bother most people. Guess a foot of snow, is better than a foot of cold rain... Would know about that, I live in Florida, and we've been having a wonderful winter. Almost turned on the air conditioning last week. Summers aren't that bad, less clothes, more hydration, easy to adapt.
20-01-2020 05:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
MarcusR wrote:
By simply not emitting all the energy we receive from the sun out to space.
Marcus what do you think of comparing thermal energy transfer to the profit/loss of money from a company? I kind of like the analogy. You are ultimately only making or losing money (the NET FLOW of money) and you can even have equilibrium, break even.

CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
So where it is exactly?
It's not there. IBD is full of it as usual. Thermal energy transfer is an equation. If there is an error you can show it in the calculation. Not with a claim but with a calculation.

IBdaMann wrote:
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.

So by this logic the Earth will have not temperature above that of the moon, at night, without energy being produced by something other than the sun?

Everyone watch as IBD cannot answer this simple question:
Why is the Earth so much warmer, at night, than the moon's dark side? Same distance from the sun. Same sun. No additional energy for either.

ITN/IBD have manufactured and clung to the bazaar and false premise that thermal energy is instantly lost once absorbed. No delay, no retention, no storage.

CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
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.
I had never thought of that before! Really interesting. Makes sense to me.

"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
20-01-2020 06:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:So by this logic the Earth will have not temperature above that of the moon, at night, without energy being produced by something other than the sun?

Nobody ever told tmiddles that it is ALWAYS daytime and ALWAYS nighttime somewhere on the earth and on the moon. He thinks there is a "nighttime" for the entire earth and for the entire moon. How embarrassing. What a dimrod.

Yes, of course the entire moon's average temperature (i.e. for the body) will equal the entire earth's average temperature (i.e. for the body) provided they have equal emissivity. Unfortunately, nobody knows the emissivity of either, and nobody knows the average temperature for either ... except for tmiddles because he's omniscient ... except when it comes to planets having split daytime/nighttime.

tmiddles wrote: Everyone watch as IBD cannot answer this simple question: Why is the Earth so much warmer, at night, than the moon's dark side? Same distance from the sun. Same sun. No additional energy for either.

Everybody watch as Mr. Omniscience cannot answer a simple question: Why do the earth's oceans not boil away during the daytime? Why is the earth's daytime so much more refrigerated than the moon's daytime temperature if an atmosphere uses its toasty Greenhouse Effect to jack up the planet's temperature? Why isn't the earth's daytime in excess of 117 deg C, you know, the moon's daytime temperature PLUS the Greenhouse Bake?


tmiddles wrote: ITN/IBD have manufactured and clung to the bazaar and false premise that thermal energy is instantly lost once absorbed. No delay, no retention, no storage.

Is that today's bogus position assignment?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-01-2020 10:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
tmiddles wrote:Everyone watch as IBD cannot answer this simple question:
Why is the Earth so much warmer, at night, than the moon's dark side? Same distance from the sun. Same sun. No additional energy for either.

And the answer was:
IBdaMann wrote:
...it is ALWAYS daytime and ALWAYS nighttime somewhere on the earth...
So no answer at all but a dodge.

IBdaMann wrote:Why do the earth's oceans not boil away during the daytime?
Because the radiance of the sun first strikes our atmosphere where much of it is absorbed and reflected (clouds too). It's the same reason that Earth is so warm at night.
Now you claim that the atmosphere refrigerates Earth and at the same time that we are the same mean temp as the Moon? Shouldn't we be a lot colder with this blanket of atmosphere based on your theory? And why don't all the oceans freeze at night?

You like to pretend we know nothing about Venus too, where only 6% of the Sun's energy reaches the ground directly and the ground temp predicted is 232K and we have found it's 735K! So IBD is that also refrigeration by the atmosphere? Oh wait you'll pretend we know nothing about the temperature of Venus, just like you pretend we know nothing about the temperature of the Moon, or Earth, when we've directly measured all three. IT CANNOT BE KNOWN!!! is the claim. About Denver too.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ITN/IBD have manufactured and clung to the bazaar and false premise that thermal energy is instantly lost once absorbed. No delay, no retention, no storage.

Is that today's bogus position assignment?
So I got that wrong? How so? You always say thermal energy is never stored, trapped or held up.

"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
20-01-2020 15:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature can only increase with additional energy.

Solar radiation constantly adds energy to Earth.


... but not any more than the existing equilibrium.

For the temperature to increase, ADDITIONAL energy is required beyond what the sun is providing.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 20-01-2020 15:22
21-01-2020 07:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature can only increase with additional energy.

Solar radiation constantly adds energy to Earth.

... but not any more than the existing equilibrium.
For the temperature to increase, ADDITIONAL energy is required beyond what the sun is providing.

CzarnyZajaczek ,

IBD has a equilibrium fantasy that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium with what exactly? The Sun? The void of space? The whole universe?

You will find two things on this board from ITN/IBD. The unsupported insistence that the Earth has a fixed and unchanging emissivity, which of course it does not, and the insistence that the Earth is in perfect, unchanging equilibrium at every micro second, which of course is just weird and also unsupported.

When I first discovered their madness I asked them about a steel ball with an oxygen atmosphere slowly rusting in front of a heat lamp. As the ball goes from a shiny mirror finish to a deep rust the emissivity, and the temperature of the ball would of course change dramatically. They couldn't even process the concept.

The brain fart goes like this: Since emissivity is a constant in the equation, that means it can never change in real life.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Seriously it's the same object composed of the same matter!

Seriously? Steel is the same matter as rust? Seriously?
tmiddles wrote: I'm totally at a loss as to what you guys are driving at with this.

I find myself without any more tools to explain. Do you have any suggestions....
tmiddles wrote: In real life your blood type example I cannot make sense of.

Is blood type a constant or a variable? Let's start there.
tmiddles wrote: It's driven by a shiny steel ball going to rusty read and a higher emissivity.

At time t you have one particular body. At time t+1 you have a different body. It's not the same body, is it? ... or are you going to insist that steel and rust are the same substance?
tmiddles wrote: Your assertion hat emissivity is constant in an object, regardless of changes to it's appearance is not the default truth.

What I am saying is what the science says. Emissivity is treated as a constant.


"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
21-01-2020 18:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature can only increase with additional energy.

Solar radiation constantly adds energy to Earth.

... but not any more than the existing equilibrium.
For the temperature to increase, ADDITIONAL energy is required beyond what the sun is providing.

CzarnyZajaczek ,

IBD has a equilibrium fantasy that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium with what exactly? The Sun? The void of space? The whole universe?

You will find two things on this board from ITN/IBD. The unsupported insistence that the Earth has a fixed and unchanging emissivity, which of course it does not, and the insistence that the Earth is in perfect, unchanging equilibrium at every micro second, which of course is just weird and also unsupported.

When I first discovered their madness I asked them about a steel ball with an oxygen atmosphere slowly rusting in front of a heat lamp. As the ball goes from a shiny mirror finish to a deep rust the emissivity, and the temperature of the ball would of course change dramatically. They couldn't even process the concept.

The brain fart goes like this: Since emissivity is a constant in the equation, that means it can never change in real life.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Seriously it's the same object composed of the same matter!

Seriously? Steel is the same matter as rust? Seriously?
tmiddles wrote: I'm totally at a loss as to what you guys are driving at with this.

I find myself without any more tools to explain. Do you have any suggestions....
tmiddles wrote: In real life your blood type example I cannot make sense of.

Is blood type a constant or a variable? Let's start there.
tmiddles wrote: It's driven by a shiny steel ball going to rusty read and a higher emissivity.

At time t you have one particular body. At time t+1 you have a different body. It's not the same body, is it? ... or are you going to insist that steel and rust are the same substance?
tmiddles wrote: Your assertion hat emissivity is constant in an object, regardless of changes to it's appearance is not the default truth.

What I am saying is what the science says. Emissivity is treated as a constant.


You don't speak for anybody but yourself. Your questions have already been answered. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-01-2020 18:20
21-01-2020 21:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
CzarnyZajaczek,

tmiddles has a delusion complex in which he is omniscient. If you try to tell him that no one knows earth's emissivity he turns apoplectic. If you point out that to the best of his knowledge he is not aware of any changes to earth's emissivity, he becomes TRIGGERED and starts insisting that thermal energy flows from colder to hotter.

You will find two things on this board from tmiddles: 1) The unsupported insistence that belief in Global Warming will transform everything that is simply not known to humanity into that which "we know" and 2) thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann can be violated if it's Global Warming that is being argued.

Wait! There's a third thing from tmiddles that you can take to Vegas: As certain as the sun will shine, he will assign some bogus position to me and will then hope others waste their time attacking me for that position that I do not hold ... in an attempt to derail any and all conversations that are not his.


Back when he was gibbering about a steel ball becoming rusty, he was asked for the valid datasets showing earth's changes in emissivity or at least any valid datasets that support the idea that earth's emissivity is verifiably changing in some way. It was bizarre. It was like his eyes glazed over and he was suddenly mind-controlled into a warmizombie trance: "There are clouds."

Then we had to explain that Stefan-Boltzmann treats emissivity as a constant, but that was so far over his head that we couldn't get beyond the basic arithmetic of the equation. We wasted a lot of time explaining to tmiddles what a "constant" is in math. It turns out that we were wasting out time but at least we knew to not even bother diving any deeper into statistics than to use the word "statistics" and to quickly move on.

Nonetheless, his omniscience complex continues. I don't know if he's simply not taking his medication or if he has even been seen for his condition but you can always play with him and talk about how he knows the temperature of all of Venus, for example.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-01-2020 22:14
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(423)
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Solar radiation when it arrives to Earth surface, contains fotons travelling roughly parallel to each other ...

[* thermodynamics-violating gibber-babble deleted *]



Let me reiterate my previous response because it obviously did not sink in the first time.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that although energy can change form, additional energy can never be created or destroyed.

You, on the other hand, claim that Greenhouse Effect is a particular sequence of energy form changes that produces additional energy ... which increases the earth's average global temperature ... which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Let's review the physics of your claim that the earth's average temperature increases as a result of photons of solar radiation 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.

So pay attention. 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 standing by for you to do this so we can talk about your attempt to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.

[hint: you will be claiming that greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space]


.

I've definitely been noticing this pattern in my discussions on other discussion forums about this.

An argument that I've been running into when it gets to the "greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space" part is that this supposedly happens because the radiance from the sun comes as shorter waves while the radiance from the surface that is attempting to escape into space is longer waves. Apparently CO2 does a much better job at reflecting those longer waves, so that is how and why CO2 acts as a "magick blanket" and is a "one-way insulator".

Then after correcting them comes all the screams for "holy links" and "credible publications/agencies/etc." ...
Edited on 21-01-2020 22:34
21-01-2020 22:41
James___
★★★★★
(2415)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Solar radiation when it arrives to Earth surface, contains fotons travelling roughly parallel to each other ...

[* thermodynamics-violating gibber-babble deleted *]



Let me reiterate my previous response because it obviously did not sink in the first time.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that although energy can change form, additional energy can never be created or destroyed.

You, on the other hand, claim that Greenhouse Effect is a particular sequence of energy form changes that produces additional energy ... which increases the earth's average global temperature ... which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Let's review the physics of your claim that the earth's average temperature increases as a result of photons of solar radiation 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.

So pay attention. 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 standing by for you to do this so we can talk about your attempt to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.

[hint: you will be claiming that greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space]


.

I've definitely been noticing this pattern in my discussions on other discussion forums about this.

An argument that I've been running into when it gets to the "greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space" part is that this supposedly happens because the radiance from the sun comes as shorter waves while the radiance from the surface that is attempting to escape into space is longer waves. Apparently CO2 does a much better job at reflecting those longer waves, so that is how and why CO2 acts as a "magick blanket" and is a "one-way insulator".

Then after correcting them comes all the screams for "holy links" and "credible publications/agencies/etc." ...



Sad that you don't understand how our atmosphere works. Your religion doesn't allow for that understanding. Stupid question, what keeps the colder, denser gases in the stratosphere from dropping lower in the atmosphere through less dense gases?
What goes up must come down, right? But what's keeping the cold gases above warmer gases? I think your religion says because of "is". I mean heat rises, right? That means that cold gases because they are denser sink in the atmosphere.
Why isn't this happening? Is it because of "is".
And you won't have an answer for this except for your beliefs.
Am curious though, are you itn's and ibdm's pastor?
Edited on 21-01-2020 22:49
21-01-2020 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Solar radiation when it arrives to Earth surface, contains fotons travelling roughly parallel to each other ...

[* thermodynamics-violating gibber-babble deleted *]



Let me reiterate my previous response because it obviously did not sink in the first time.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that although energy can change form, additional energy can never be created or destroyed.

You, on the other hand, claim that Greenhouse Effect is a particular sequence of energy form changes that produces additional energy ... which increases the earth's average global temperature ... which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Let's review the physics of your claim that the earth's average temperature increases as a result of photons of solar radiation 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.

So pay attention. 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 standing by for you to do this so we can talk about your attempt to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.

[hint: you will be claiming that greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space]


.

I've definitely been noticing this pattern in my discussions on other discussion forums about this.

An argument that I've been running into when it gets to the "greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space" part is that this supposedly happens because the radiance from the sun comes as shorter waves while the radiance from the surface that is attempting to escape into space is longer waves. Apparently CO2 does a much better job at reflecting those longer waves, so that is how and why CO2 acts as a "magick blanket" and is a "one-way insulator".

Then after correcting them comes all the screams for "holy links" and "credible publications/agencies/etc." ...



Sad that you don't understand how our atmosphere works. Your religion doesn't allow for that understanding. Stupid question, what keeps the colder, denser gases in the stratosphere from dropping lower in the atmosphere through less dense gases?


The gases below the stratosphere are more dense. Air from the stratosphere does drop into the troposphere anyway. It's part of the convection of the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
21-01-2020 23:47
James___
★★★★★
(2415)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Solar radiation when it arrives to Earth surface, contains fotons travelling roughly parallel to each other ...

[* thermodynamics-violating gibber-babble deleted *]



Let me reiterate my previous response because it obviously did not sink in the first time.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that although energy can change form, additional energy can never be created or destroyed.

You, on the other hand, claim that Greenhouse Effect is a particular sequence of energy form changes that produces additional energy ... which increases the earth's average global temperature ... which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Let's review the physics of your claim that the earth's average temperature increases as a result of photons of solar radiation 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.

So pay attention. 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 standing by for you to do this so we can talk about your attempt to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.

[hint: you will be claiming that greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space]


.

I've definitely been noticing this pattern in my discussions on other discussion forums about this.

An argument that I've been running into when it gets to the "greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space" part is that this supposedly happens because the radiance from the sun comes as shorter waves while the radiance from the surface that is attempting to escape into space is longer waves. Apparently CO2 does a much better job at reflecting those longer waves, so that is how and why CO2 acts as a "magick blanket" and is a "one-way insulator".

Then after correcting them comes all the screams for "holy links" and "credible publications/agencies/etc." ...



Sad that you don't understand how our atmosphere works. Your religion doesn't allow for that understanding. Stupid question, what keeps the colder, denser gases in the stratosphere from dropping lower in the atmosphere through less dense gases?


The gases below the stratosphere are more dense. Air from the stratosphere does drop into the troposphere anyway. It's part of the convection of the atmosphere.



Well, I guess less of that has been happening lately which is why entropy is cooling the stratosphere. Thanks for clearing that up.
21-01-2020 23:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Solar radiation when it arrives to Earth surface, contains fotons travelling roughly parallel to each other ...

[* thermodynamics-violating gibber-babble deleted *]



Let me reiterate my previous response because it obviously did not sink in the first time.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that although energy can change form, additional energy can never be created or destroyed.

You, on the other hand, claim that Greenhouse Effect is a particular sequence of energy form changes that produces additional energy ... which increases the earth's average global temperature ... which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Let's review the physics of your claim that the earth's average temperature increases as a result of photons of solar radiation 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.

So pay attention. 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 standing by for you to do this so we can talk about your attempt to violate Stefan-Boltzmann.

[hint: you will be claiming that greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space]


.

I've definitely been noticing this pattern in my discussions on other discussion forums about this.

An argument that I've been running into when it gets to the "greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space" part is that this supposedly happens because the radiance from the sun comes as shorter waves while the radiance from the surface that is attempting to escape into space is longer waves. Apparently CO2 does a much better job at reflecting those longer waves, so that is how and why CO2 acts as a "magick blanket" and is a "one-way insulator".

Then after correcting them comes all the screams for "holy links" and "credible publications/agencies/etc." ...



Sad that you don't understand how our atmosphere works. Your religion doesn't allow for that understanding. Stupid question, what keeps the colder, denser gases in the stratosphere from dropping lower in the atmosphere through less dense gases?


The gases below the stratosphere are more dense. Air from the stratosphere does drop into the troposphere anyway. It's part of the convection of the atmosphere.



Well, I guess less of that has been happening lately which is why entropy is cooling the stratosphere. Thanks for clearing that up.

Entropy doesn't cool anything.


The Parrot Killer
22-01-2020 00:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:
.... tell him that no one knows earth's emissivity
Here is the crux of the ITN/IBD fraud/brain fart: "I don't know it to an infinite degree of precision therefore I know nothing about it at all" and "It must be one precise value or it does not exist as a value, a range is not possible for anything which is measured".

Question for ITN/IBD: Do you guys know the emissivity of anything that actually exists? Anything at all.

See in my sig where ITN dismisses a study of the emissivity of human skin for no stated reason at all.

IBdaMann wrote:...thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann can be violated...
And how would one know it's been violated IBD? A spidey sense? Tea leaves? How do you know what the laws of thermodynamics are?

Seems you just make stuff up with no citation or reference ever accepted or relied on.

See here:12 textbooks rejected by ITN/IBD

I've proven your home made revolutionary and unaccepted laws of thermodynamics are a fraud in my sig.

IBdaMann wrote:
....about a steel ball becoming rusty, he was asked for the valid datasets showing earth's changes in emissivity or at least any valid datasets that support the idea that earth's emissivity is verifiably changing in some way.
There are no, and never have been any valid data sets for ITN/IBD. See this weird idea that an Earth covered with swirling clouds and uneven continents, spinning in space, has a fixed emissivity disproven here:
tmiddles wrote:

...

NASA Albedo
Provided many times on this board with no rebuttle from ITN/IBD. Just a "nu uh, not so". And yes there are clouds, and NASA.

gfm7175 wrote:...radiance from the sun comes as shorter waves while the radiance from the surface that is attempting to escape into space is longer waves. ...after correcting them ....
Nice summary. Where is your correction?

IBdaMann wrote:...he's simply not taking his medication...
All that a losing position has left is that type of comment.


"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 22-01-2020 00:02
22-01-2020 00:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
.... tell him that no one knows earth's emissivity
Here is the crux of the ITN/IBD fraud/brain fart: "I don't know it to an infinite degree of precision therefore I know nothing about it at all"

Never said any such thing. You are hallucinating again.
tmiddles wrote:
and "It must be one precise value or it does not exist as a value,

Never said that either.
tmiddles wrote:
a range is not possible for anything which is measured".

I did say this. I stick to it.
tmiddles wrote:
Question for ITN/IBD: Do you guys know the emissivity of anything that actually exists? Anything at all.

Sure. A 50% graycard reference surface is designed for an emissivity of 50%. These are often used to calibrate infrared 'thermometers'. They don't work for any other surface except one with a 50% emissivity. Such thermometers are useful for looking at relative temperatures only. They cannot measure absolute temperature of anything.
tmiddles wrote:
See in my sig where ITN dismisses a study of the emissivity of human skin for no stated reason at all.

Reason was given, liar. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann can be violated...
And how would one know it's been violated IBD? A spidey sense? Tea leaves? How do you know what the laws of thermodynamics are?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Seems you just make stuff up with no citation or reference ever accepted or relied on.

The ONLY authoritative reference for any theory of science is that theory of science. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
See here:12 textbooks rejected by ITN/IBD

Textbooks are not a theory of science. You cannot use them to deny theories of science. False authority fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I've proven your home made revolutionary and unaccepted laws of thermodynamics are a fraud in my sig.

We didn't make them. We just quote them. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
....about a steel ball becoming rusty, he was asked for the valid datasets showing earth's changes in emissivity or at least any valid datasets that support the idea that earth's emissivity is verifiably changing in some way.
There are no, and never have been any valid data sets for ITN/IBD.

None needed. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
See this weird idea that an Earth covered with swirling clouds and uneven continents, spinning in space, has a fixed emissivity disproven here:

You are arguing both side of this paradox still. Irrational.
tmiddles wrote:...
Provided many times on this board with no rebuttle from ITN/IBD. Just a "nu uh, not so". And yes there are clouds, and NASA.

Neither are theories of science. You cannot use NASA to dismiss a theory of science.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...radiance from the sun comes as shorter waves while the radiance from the surface that is attempting to escape into space is longer waves. ...after correcting them ....
Nice summary. Where is your correction?
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:...he's simply not taking his medication...
All that a losing position has left is that type of comment.



The Parrot Killer
22-01-2020 04:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...I know nothing about it at all"
Never said any such thing.
OK name a single thing you know something about with regard to it's temperature. Anything at all.

Into the Night wrote:
A 50% graycard reference surface is designed for an emissivity of 50%.
Hooray! An answer! Now is the emissivity:
0.5
0.50
0.500
0.5000
Or pick your level of precision.
Also how would you measure the emissivity?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
See in my sig where ITN dismisses a study of the emissivity of human skin for no stated reason at all.

Reason was given, liar.
And it was what? Prove I'm a liar. And you'll just claim you said it but pretend you just don't have time to quote it. riiight.

"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
22-01-2020 05:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
IBdaMann wrote:Wait! There's a third thing from tmiddles that you can take to Vegas: As certain as the sun will shine, he will assign some bogus position to me and will then hope others waste their time attacking me for that position that I do not hold ... in an attempt to derail any and all conversations that are not his.


... and today's item up for bids:

tmiddles wrote: Here is the crux of the ITN/IBD fraud/brain fart: "I don't know it to an infinite degree of precision therefore I know nothing about it at all" and "It must be one precise value or it does not exist as a value, a range is not possible for anything which is measured".



Sadly, I did not get out Vegas in time.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-01-2020 05:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote: Reason was given, liar.

To expound on what a fraud ITN/IBD are here are more details on the "valid data" myth they pretend at. Here is exactly what ITN had to say about the study of skin emissivity in the journal of biomedical optics. link to thread

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
...journal-of-biomedical-optics......40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95
Meh. RandU. How was it measured?
...3.Materials and Methods
This study was developed with the participation of 40 volunteers who were informed about the type and level of radiation to be used. ...
Infrared images were acquired with a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 ...To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer (Fluke Corporation, Everett, Washington) with a type-K thermopar and ....

But it's basically 4 screens full of the methodology layed out with photos so it's easier for you to just look:
...journal-of-biomedical-optics...
That method doesn't work. You cannot measure the emissivity of anything without accurately knowing it's temperature, and human skin varies in temperature.

All he's ever said since is RQAA and other BS. Never answered to this fraud.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Are you claiming that the Fluke 52II isn't capable of determing the temperature of the skin? Can you back up that claim?

That's right. And I just did.
Never backed it up. Of course we are well into the territory of insanity at this point.

"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 22-01-2020 05:37
22-01-2020 05:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
James___ wrote: Sad that you don't understand how our atmosphere works.

James__, does the atmosphere "work"?

Work = Energy. Are you saying that the atmosphere creates additional energy and performs Work?

James___ wrote: But what's keeping the cold gases above warmer gases?

Oh pick me! Pick me!

Answer: the much lower pressure! They actually aren't more dense!




.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-01-2020 05:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...I know nothing about it at all"
Never said any such thing.
OK name a single thing you know something about with regard to it's temperature. Anything at all.

The temperature at the sensor on my CPU is currently showing 84 deg F.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A 50% graycard reference surface is designed for an emissivity of 50%.
Hooray! An answer! Now is the emissivity:
0.5
0.50
0.500
0.5000
Or pick your level of precision.

Why?
Also how would you measure the emissivity?[/quote]
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
See in my sig where ITN dismisses a study of the emissivity of human skin for no stated reason at all.

Reason was given, liar.
And it was what?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Prove I'm a liar.

You're a liar. You continually show yourself to be a liar.
tmiddles wrote:
And you'll just claim you said it but pretend you just don't have time to quote it. riiight.

Quote what? Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
22-01-2020 05:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Wait! There's a third thing from tmiddles that you can take to Vegas: As certain as the sun will shine, he will assign some bogus position to me and will then hope others waste their time attacking me for that position that I do not hold ... in an attempt to derail any and all conversations that are not his.


... and today's item up for bids:

tmiddles wrote: Here is the crux of the ITN/IBD fraud/brain fart: "I don't know it to an infinite degree of precision therefore I know nothing about it at all" and "It must be one precise value or it does not exist as a value, a range is not possible for anything which is measured".



Sadly, I did not get out Vegas in time.


.

Bummer. Better luck next time!


The Parrot Killer
22-01-2020 05:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote: Question for ITN/IBD: Do you guys know the emissivity of anything that actually exists? Anything at all.

Let's say I don't. Let's say for the sake of argument that I do not know a single emissivity value.

Now what?

Question back at you. Do you know a single body's emissivity (not material radiativity) ?

Now what?


tmiddles wrote: See in my sig where ITN dismisses a study of the emissivity of human skin for no stated reason at all.

I'm glad you used this example of how much of a scientifically illiterate moron you are. After months of attempted explanation you are simply not capable of grasping the difference between the concepts of 1) the emissivity of a body, i.e. the atomic unit of blackbody radiation and 2) the radiativity of a substance at a given wavelength or frequency band.

After months of attempted explanation you still are unable to grasp that the atmosphere is part of the earth. These are basic things that children can understand but that you cannot. And the kicker is that you take immense pride in your inability to think for yourself.

Hey, I was just wondering if today I could get you to assign TWO bogus positions to me. I'd appreciate it.


tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann can be violated...
And how would one know it's been violated IBD?

Every time you claim that earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in earth's temperature.

tmiddles wrote: Seems you just make stuff up with no citation or reference ever accepted or relied on.

It seems like you are projecting your world view that humans cannot have knowledge ... that they must draw from Wikipedia. You don't have any knowledge of your own so how can anyone else have any, right? You can't think for yourself so how can anyone else think for himself, right? There is no objective reality; whatever you make up is "what we know" so how can anyone claim something different, right?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 22-01-2020 05:57
22-01-2020 05:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Reason was given, liar.

To expound on what a fraud ITN/IBD are here are more details on the "valid data" myth they pretend at. Here is exactly what ITN had to say about the study of skin emissivity in the journal of biomedical optics. link to thread

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
...journal-of-biomedical-optics......40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95
Meh. RandU. How was it measured?
...3.Materials and Methods
This study was developed with the participation of 40 volunteers who were informed about the type and level of radiation to be used. ...
Infrared images were acquired with a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 ...To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer (Fluke Corporation, Everett, Washington) with a type-K thermopar and ....

But it's basically 4 screens full of the methodology layed out with photos so it's easier for you to just look:
...journal-of-biomedical-optics...
That method doesn't work. You cannot measure the emissivity of anything without accurately knowing it's temperature, and human skin varies in temperature.

All he's ever said since is RQAA and other BS. Never answered to this fraud.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Are you claiming that the Fluke 52II isn't capable of determing the temperature of the skin? Can you back up that claim?

That's right. And I just did.
Never backed it up. Of course we are well into the territory of insanity at this point.

You just proved you are a liar.


The Parrot Killer
22-01-2020 06:12
Earth_Master
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
Science for kids only, you must have real life result !!!
22-01-2020 06:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Prove I'm a liar.
You're a liar. You continually show yourself to be a liar.
That's arguing?
I'd avoid the legal profession if I were you ITN.

This sums up 90% of IBD on this board:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Question....

Let's say I don't. ...Question back at you.

IBdaMann wrote:
Now what?
That's up to you IBD. I would imagine more of the same.

IBdaMann wrote:Do you know a single body's emissivity (not material radiativity) ?
No clue what you mean by that. Google was no help. Novel word definitions again? 3 results on google. That's actually hard to do:
Google search for "material radiativity" producing just 3 results

IBdaMann wrote:
... the atmosphere is part of the earth....
Every time you claim that earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in earth's temperature
Oh I'm always careful to say ground level when that's what I mean. And here you mix it up right after pointing out the the atmosphere is a part of "Earth" too. What do you think the difference between "Venus" the whole planet, and it's radiance into the void of space is and the ground level of Venus? Doh! You bet sports fan. The Heat is swirling around down there at the ground level and that incredibly high temperature is NOT what we see coming off the planet as a whole. VENUS, the whole planet, atmosphere included, does NOT radiate into space at the "465 degrees Celsius, 900 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to melt lead." That temp we discovered when we finally visited the planet. We used to think/hope it was similar to Earth!
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Seems you just make stuff up with no citation....
...You can't think for yourself so how can anyone else think for himself, right? ...
You think you're showing some intelligence by making things up? The nobility of fabrication?


Into the Night wrote:
You just proved you are a liar.
Now see ITN, normal people explain things.

"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 22-01-2020 06:25
22-01-2020 06:46
James___
★★★★★
(2415)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Reason was given, liar.

To expound on what a fraud ITN/IBD are here are more details on the "valid data" myth they pretend at. Here is exactly what ITN had to say about the study of skin emissivity in the journal of biomedical optics. link to thread

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
...journal-of-biomedical-optics......40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95
Meh. RandU. How was it measured?
...3.Materials and Methods
This study was developed with the participation of 40 volunteers who were informed about the type and level of radiation to be used. ...
Infrared images were acquired with a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 ...To check the range of skin temperatures of the participants, a Fluke 52II thermometer (Fluke Corporation, Everett, Washington) with a type-K thermopar and ....

But it's basically 4 screens full of the methodology layed out with photos so it's easier for you to just look:
...journal-of-biomedical-optics...
That method doesn't work. You cannot measure the emissivity of anything without accurately knowing it's temperature, and human skin varies in temperature.

All he's ever said since is RQAA and other BS. Never answered to this fraud.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Are you claiming that the Fluke 52II isn't capable of determing the temperature of the skin? Can you back up that claim?

That's right. And I just did.
Never backed it up. Of course we are well into the territory of insanity at this point.

You just proved you are a liar.


Isn't a reservation, let's see if it can be defined, ibdm is bringing out the best in me;
Found it.

: an area in which hunting is not permitted especially : one set aside as a secure breeding place

Just have to wonder if this forum is a reservation (aka) breeding place for odd ideas and/or beliefs.

This has gotten old. It's like a daycare for malcontents.
22-01-2020 06:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
James___ wrote: It's like a daycare for malcontents.

Perhaps more like an after-school program to keep kids off the street.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-01-2020 06:57
James___
★★★★★
(2415)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: It's like a daycare for malcontents.

Perhaps more like an after-school program to keep kids off the street.

.



Nah. More like a place for Native-Americans to hate the Great Spirit. That's about all it amounts to. Have to hate someone for the world changing.
22-01-2020 16:45
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(423)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I've definitely been noticing this pattern in my discussions on other discussion forums about this.

An argument that I've been running into when it gets to the "greenhouse gases "slow" the escape of earth's radiance into space" part is that this supposedly happens because the radiance from the sun comes as shorter waves while the radiance from the surface that is attempting to escape into space is longer waves. Apparently CO2 does a much better job at reflecting those longer waves, so that is how and why CO2 acts as a "magick blanket" and is a "one-way insulator".

Then after correcting them comes all the screams for "holy links" and "credible publications/agencies/etc." ...


Sad that you don't understand how our atmosphere works.

I have some understanding.

James___ wrote:
Your religion doesn't allow for that understanding.

LMAO this is YOUR religion, not mine...

James___ wrote:
Stupid question, what keeps the colder, denser gases in the stratosphere from dropping lower in the atmosphere through less dense gases?

Answered by ITN.

James___ wrote:
What goes up must come down, right? But what's keeping the cold gases above warmer gases? I think your religion says because of "is". I mean heat rises, right? That means that cold gases because they are denser sink in the atmosphere.
Why isn't this happening? Is it because of "is".
And you won't have an answer for this except for your beliefs.

Answered by ITN.

James___ wrote:
Am curious though, are you itn's and ibdm's pastor?

Nah. They are much more knowledgeable than I am, and science is not a religion.
22-01-2020 18:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Prove I'm a liar.
You're a liar. You continually show yourself to be a liar.
That's arguing?

No. Your lying isn't arguing.
tmiddles wrote:
I'd avoid the legal profession if I were you ITN.

Too late!
Oh BTW, I have never lost a case yet.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... the atmosphere is part of the earth....
Every time you claim that earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in earth's temperature
Oh I'm always careful to say ground level when that's what I mean.

Nope. The atmosphere is part of Earth. You can't just ignore it. You are denying Kirchoff's law again.
tmiddles wrote:
And here you mix it up right after pointing out the the atmosphere is a part of "Earth" too.

It is.
tmiddles wrote:
What do you think the difference between "Venus" the whole planet, and it's radiance into the void of space is and the ground level of Venus?

Unknown. The atmosphere is part of Venus too.
tmiddles wrote:
Doh! You bet sports fan. The Heat is swirling around down there at the ground level and that incredibly high temperature is NOT what we see coming off the planet as a whole.

Correct. It's more. The atmosphere radiates too.
tmiddles wrote:
VENUS, the whole planet, atmosphere included, does NOT radiate into space at the "465 degrees Celsius, 900 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to melt lead."

Yes it does. You are denying both Kirchoff's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
tmiddles wrote:
That temp we discovered when we finally visited the planet.

We measured 864 deg F before the probe melted, actually; not 900.
tmiddles wrote:
We used to think/hope it was similar to Earth!
...deleted Holy Link...

Never was. Venus has almost no hydrogen and almost no free oxygen. It also has an incredibly thick atmosphere.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Seems you just make stuff up with no citation....
...You can't think for yourself so how can anyone else think for himself, right? ...
You think you're showing some intelligence by making things up? The nobility of fabrication?

Inversion fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You just proved you are a liar.
Now see ITN, normal people explain things.

Thank you. I have explained a lot. You, unfortunately, keep denying all of it.


The Parrot Killer
23-01-2020 04:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
VENUS, the whole planet, atmosphere included, does NOT radiate into space at the "465 degrees Celsius, 900 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to melt lead."

Yes it does. You are denying both Kirchoff's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
If it did we would have known Venus was so hot on the ground level, we wouldn't have to visit it to find out.

Also ITN did you know that the molten core of Earth is hotter than what Earth, the object in our solar system, radiates out? Yep.

That's because what a body radiates out is base on what it's surface radiates out. And Venus has an atmosphere so thick that the ground level isn't actually part of it's surface (it cannot directly radiate into space).
23-01-2020 16:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote: If it did we would have known Venus was so hot on the ground level, we wouldn't have to visit it to find out.

Nope. We do not simply "know" things by fabrication as you do. We "verify" speculation and conjecture ... and once that is accomplished we then "know."


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-01-2020 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
VENUS, the whole planet, atmosphere included, does NOT radiate into space at the "465 degrees Celsius, 900 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to melt lead."

Yes it does. You are denying both Kirchoff's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
If it did we would have known Venus was so hot on the ground level, we wouldn't have to visit it to find out.

We already knew. That's why it was possible to build a spacecraft that lasted the few minutes to take a temperature reading before melting. Those spacecraft also have other instruments on them, you know.
tmiddles wrote:
Also ITN did you know that the molten core of Earth is hotter than what Earth, the object in our solar system, radiates out? Yep.

That's because what a body radiates out is base on what it's surface radiates out. And Venus has an atmosphere so thick that the ground level isn't actually part of it's surface (it cannot directly radiate into space).

The ground isn't the surface of a planet????!?


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2020 02:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If it did we would have known Venus was so hot on the ground level, we wouldn't have to visit it to find out.

Nope. We do not simply "know" things by fabrication as you do. We "verify" speculation and conjecture ... and once that is accomplished we then "know."


You're right. We were able to measure the radiance coming to Earth from Venus and we thought hey! That place doesn't look so crazy hot, even though it's close to the sun, maybe we could go land there and not die.

But we "verify" this erroneous assumption by actually putting landers onto the surface where we discover that, bummer, it's super duper hot and we would die for sure.

The Russians alone:
We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period.

117 days to reach Venus
1970
Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes on th surface
1972
Venera 8 50 minutes, 11 seconds
1975
Venera 9 53 minutes
1975
Venera 10 65 minutes
1978
Venera 11 95 minutes
1978
Venera 12 110 minutes
1982
Venera 13 127 minutes
1983
Venera 14 The lander functioned for at least 57 minutes (the planned design life was 32 minutes) in an environment with a temperature of 465 °C (869 °F) and a pressure of 94 Earth atmospheres (9.5 MPa).
1985
Venera 15, 16 1985 not landing

That what you meant IBD?

If not please clarify.

The Venus thread: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

Into the Night wrote:
The ground isn't the surface of a planet????!?
Sometimes it is. For the moon it's exclusively the surface, for Earth it's partially the surface, for Venus it's unlikely to be the surface. Because of course, we discuss radiance, so the meaning of surface is the emitting/absorbing/reflecting surfaces, and atmospheres also do that stuff.


"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
24-01-2020 03:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The ground isn't the surface of a planet????!?
Sometimes it is. For the moon it's exclusively the surface, for Earth it's partially the surface, for Venus it's unlikely to be the surface. Because of course, we discuss radiance, so the meaning of surface is the emitting/absorbing/reflecting surfaces, and atmospheres also do that stuff.


All three of these bodies have an atmosphere. None of them have a definite top of their atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
Page 5 of 7<<<34567>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Etymology of Science5908-02-2020 12:09
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
▲ 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