There is still no Global Warming science.

CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
Solar radiation when it arrives to Earth surface, contains fotons travelling roughly parallel to each other ...

[* thermodynamics-violating gibber-babble deleted *]

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

.

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?

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.

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.

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.


.

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

.

IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature can only increase with additional energy.

CzarnyZajaczek wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature can only increase with additional energy.

Solar radiation constantly adds energy to Earth.

MarcusR wrote:
By simply not emitting all the energy we receive from the sun out to space.

CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
So where it is exactly?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

IBdaMann wrote:
...it is ALWAYS daytime and ALWAYS nighttime somewhere on the earth...

IBdaMann wrote:Why do the earth's oceans not boil away during the daytime?

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?

CzarnyZajaczek wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature can only increase with additional energy.

Solar radiation constantly adds energy to Earth.

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.

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.

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]


.

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." ...

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?

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.

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.

IBdaMann wrote:
.... tell him that no one knows earth's emissivity

IBdaMann wrote:...thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann can be violated...

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.

tmiddles wrote:

...

NASA Albedo

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 ....

IBdaMann wrote:...he's simply not taking his medication...

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"

tmiddles wrote:
and "It must be one precise value or it does not exist as a value,

tmiddles wrote:
a range is not possible for anything which is measured".

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

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

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?

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

tmiddles wrote:
See here:12 textbooks rejected by ITN/IBD

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...I know nothing about it at all"

Never said any such thing.

Into the Night wrote:
A 50% graycard reference surface is designed for an emissivity of 50%.

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.

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.

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".

Into the Night wrote: Reason was given, liar.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

tmiddles wrote:
Prove I'm a liar.

tmiddles wrote:
And you'll just claim you said it but pretend you just don't have time to quote it. riiight.

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.


.

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

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

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann can be violated...

And how would one know it's been violated IBD?

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

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.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Prove I'm a liar.

You're a liar. You continually show yourself to be a liar.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Question....

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

IBdaMann wrote:
Now what?

IBdaMann wrote:Do you know a single body's emissivity (not material radiativity) ?

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

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? ...

Into the Night wrote:
You just proved you are a liar.

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.

James___ wrote: It's like a daycare for malcontents.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: It's like a daycare for malcontents.

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

.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

tmiddles wrote:
I'd avoid the legal profession if I were you ITN.

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.

tmiddles wrote:
And here you mix it up right after pointing out the the atmosphere is a part of "Earth" too.

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?

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.

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."

tmiddles wrote:
That temp we discovered when we finally visited the planet.

tmiddles wrote:
We used to think/hope it was similar to Earth!
...deleted Holy Link...

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?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You just proved you are a liar.

Now see ITN, normal people explain things.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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."

Into the Night wrote:
The ground isn't the surface of a planet????!?

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.