There is still no Global Warming science.

Into the Night wrote:
None of them have a definite top of their atmosphere.

tmiddles wrote: 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.

tmiddles wrote: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.

tmiddles wrote: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).

IBdaMann wrote:... and you NEVER answered my question about how much the extreme heat threw the thermometer out of whack.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:... and you NEVER answered my question about how much the extreme heat threw the thermometer out of whack.

A thesis that the Russian, US, and Japanese scientists that have measured Venus with interplanetary missions are unable to measure it's temperature, and further, ...[bogus mischaracterization deleted]

tmiddles wrote: So what did the russians use on Venera? A "resistance thermometer" I don't know the model but that type of thermometer currently shows a range up to 1000C with accuracy to ±0.001 °C

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not buying it without the model number so I can verify the specs.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not buying it without the model number so I can verify the specs.

OK don't. I'm not your assistant.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: 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.

When did you measure Venus' radiance and where's your data?

tmiddles wrote: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.

I didn't realize you had measured it that level of precision. That explains why I see so many recipes calling for the oven to be preheated to "really hot."

tmiddles wrote: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).

... and you NEVER answered my question about how much the extreme heat threw the thermometer out of whack. You never answered my question about what effects the rough nature of the landing, and the unique nature of 117 days of space travel, had on the accuracy of the thermometer. Didn't anyone go to Venus and perform a calibration on the thermometer to see if it was even accurate?

Once again you are discussing temperature while completely avoiding ALL MENTION of error, as if whatever number you post is supposed to be BEYOND question ... because if anyone questions your omniscience then you quickly switch topics to how it is being claimed that nothing can be known.

So what was the error of those temperature readings? Right now, as you read this, you are going into denial. Your feelings of omniscience are being threatened and you will fight to the death to not admit that YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE. Those thermometers were never recalibrated to find out. Given the nature of the mission it would be a miracle if those thermometers were operating normally. The one thing of which we can be certain is that the temperatures that were transmitted were NOT accurate ... but by how much?

What does your omniscience tell you?



.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:... and you NEVER answered my question about how much the extreme heat threw the thermometer out of whack.

A thesis that the Russian, US, and Japanese scientists that have measured Venus with interplanetary missions are unable to measure it's temperature, and further, that they willfully lie to us all in claiming they have, is what I call the "Grand Hoax" theory and you're entitled to try and prove that.

Curious are you saying they are incompetent? Dishonest? Both?

I did answer the question above as that information was available online.

tmiddles wrote:
So what did the russians use on Venera? A "resistance thermometer" I don't know the model but that type of thermometer currently shows a range up to 1000C with accuracy to ±0.001 °C

I gather they are more reliable than thermocouples.

You never responded to this.

"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

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not buying it without the model number so I can verify the specs.

OK don't. I'm not your assistant.

IBdaMann wrote:
OK, so you can understand why your comments about the thermometer are dismissed ...

Into the Night wrote:
An excellent point. Measuring temperatures this high is dicey at best.

Into the Night wrote:
No thermocouple made has that kind of accuracy.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
OK, so you can understand why your comments about the thermometer are dismissed ...

Dismiss away wacko. Believe what you want. I'm not here to help you.

Into the Night wrote:
An excellent point. Measuring temperatures this high is dicey at best.

No citation, no reference. Thermometer, unlike big foot, are real and available.

I am very glad the ITN/IBD position on the many temperature measurements made on the ground level of Venus are that we cannot use them because the thermometers and measurements are unreliable. I can't actually think of a more absurd position. Particularly when no one cares if 462.1 or 462.2 C, or even 460C or 470C, because we expected to find that it was -41C !!! Yes Yes wackos, Venus is 500 degrees hotter than it's distance from the sun would account for:

tmiddles wrote:
But, in crazy town, you can say you don't know that that is true, because, well, thermometers don't work? It's amazing!

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No thermocouple made has that kind of accuracy.

It wasn't a themocouple. Pay attention.
The lander held a resistance thermometer and an aneroid barometer.

Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'should be' in science or in measurements.

Into the Night wrote:
A 'resistance thermometer' is also called a thermocouple, dumbass.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'should be' in science or in measurements.

Yes there is. We can calculate how much energy is reaching an object from the sun. That is what we would expect to find there without something else contributing to the ground level temp. That is the "should be".

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
A 'resistance thermometer' is also called a thermocouple, dumbass.

Learn to pay more attention. From the link above.

Resistance Thermometry
The fundamental difference between a thermocouple and a resistance thermometer is that, whereas the former generates a thermoelectric voltage, the latter is primarily a temperature-sensitive resistor that will only produce an equivalent voltage change if a constant current is passed through it as in Figure 14.[/url]

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Attempt to discard the emissivity term of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. Both are thermocouples, dumbass.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Attempt to discard the emissivity term of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Is it possible to have an emissivity greater than 1.0? No
So doesn't that mean there is a maximum for the calculation? Yes
A "reasonable guess" at the emissivity of planet we had not yet visited is just that, reasonable.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. Both are thermocouples, dumbass.

Yet you don't seem to know why they said "difference".

tmiddles wrote:
I'm not a thermometer guy so I trust the experts on that.

Into the Night wrote:...a false authority.

Into the Night wrote:
I am a thermometer guy.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I am a thermometer guy.

Citation please.

IBdaMann wrote:...make him "prove it!" ... b

tmiddles wrote: The assertion by the two of you that US, Russian and Japanese scientists are not capable of measuring temperatures in the 400C range, that no sensor can achieve that to any usable level, is amazing to say the least.

tmiddles wrote: So yes. I'd like to know how or why you've come to that truly incredible conclusion.

IBdaMann wrote:In this thermometer research you claim you were going to perform,...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:In this thermometer research you claim you were going to perform,...

Oh I don't doubt the thermometers worked properly at all.

tmiddles wrote:
I find it incredible. Really I do. It's made my jaw drop a bit. To be honest I thought you'd go the conspiracy route and I was wondering how you'd find a motive in the 1970s.

tmiddles wrote:
Now it sounds like you were just spit balling in declaring the work done on Venus bogus, with no real knowledge of the issue. Am I wrong?

tmiddles wrote:
At that time I did look into your concept that high temperatures prevented accurate temperature readings and found that is decidedly false:

tmiddles wrote:
Seems you just made it up as I can't find anything to back up the claim. No valid data sets at all.

Xadoman wrote:
Could anyone explain one thing for me. What happens to radiant heat eventually? Where does it end up? I understand that some of it goes to heat some other colder matter but the amount of matter in the universe is finite.

Xadoman wrote:
Where does the radiant heat eventually go if there is no more matter to heat?

Xadoman wrote: Could anyone explain one thing for me. What happens to radiant heat eventually?

How do you know? Have you examined all of it? Have you been to the edge of the Universe?

Radiant heat is not heat if the light is not absorbed by anything. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If the light emitted by anything is never absorbed, it just keeps on going.

Xadoman wrote:

How do you know? Have you examined all of it? Have you been to the edge of the Universe?

I do not know. Seems logical to assume considering big bang , expanding universe etc.

Xadoman wrote:

Radiant heat is not heat if the light is not absorbed by anything. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If the light emitted by anything is never absorbed, it just keeps on going.

So the energy that is lost via radiation is now conserved in the electromagnetic wave that goes forever if something does not stop it. When the object stops radiating ( -273 k) then the wave that was previously radiated still goes on forever if not absorbed.

Xadoman wrote:
ITN, I remember you said somewhere that earth would completely cool down in 48 hours if sun would stop shining. I just read from some site that within a week the surface of the earth would be near zero celsius and after a year the surface of earth would be -100 celcius. They said that the accumulated heat in oceans etc would heat the planet quite a long time. What do you think is right?

Michael G Lee wrote: IBdaMann's argument is in order for global warming theory to be considered scientific, there must exist a global warming model that is falsifiable.

Michael G Lee wrote: There is no such model;

Michael G Lee wrote: So the question becomes what constitutes a scientific global model?

Michael G Lee wrote: He is asking us to provide evidence that consists of an Earth like planet that has not experienced human made greenhouse gas emissions that is not suffering from global warming.

Michael G Lee wrote: While the argument is valid, it is not sound.

Michael G Lee wrote: Namely, we do not need to possess another Earth like planet to support global warming for we know, from experiments in physics laboratories which are falsifiable, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses absorbs infrared radiation reflected off the Earth and instead of escaping into space, it releases its energy as heat in our atmosphere, which is why the temperatures of the Earth are heating up only at the surface and not in the upper atmosphere.

Michael G Lee wrote: However, I can argue that there is an Earth like planet that does indeed act as a climate model and it's called Venus.

Michael G Lee wrote: The Sun is currently warming up slowly thus in the distant past, Venus was cooler than it is now and it likely was a planet with water and could support life with lower amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Then, as the Sun did warm up over many billions of years, it eventually lost its water that supported the plant life needed to keep the carbon dioxide from getting too high. Today its atmosphere is almost 100% carbon dioxide. As a result, it's now a hellish inferno.

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
ITN, I remember you said somewhere that earth would completely cool down in 48 hours if sun would stop shining. I just read from some site that within a week the surface of the earth would be near zero celsius and after a year the surface of earth would be -100 celcius. They said that the accumulated heat in oceans etc would heat the planet quite a long time. What do you think is right?

Let's work through this logically.

Water freezes at 273 Kelvin. Pluto is ~45 Kelvin.

If the sun were to vanish, the earth would suddenly find itself receiving less energy than Pluto receives ... zero in fact. There would be no such thing as the poles being colder than the equator. All of the earth would become equally devoid of incoming solar radiation.

The earth would radiate at its Kelvin temperature to the fourth power, so it would lose most of its energy soonest. Within 24 hours the planet would be struggling to remain within triple digits Kelvin, but the ocean surface would be completely frozen over (although I don't really know how deep). After 48 hours the earth would be in double-digit Kelvins and the ocean would be frozen solid at least a couple of meters deep. The ocean floor's thermal vents would be the only place where life would be seemingly unaffected.

I really cannot afford you any sort of accurate wag at the earth's radiance at that point because that depends on the earth's emissivity and I don't know what that is. I nonetheless feel pretty safe with the general wag over the first 48 hours.


.

Within a few weeks, oceans would begin to freeze, probably first along the coastlines. That process may take a while (the oceans carry an enormous amount of heat) but when it's finished, the climate moderating effects of the oceans would be gone, too.

Over the next day, not much would appear that different from a prolonged night period.

In about a week, the temperature is to the point where agriculture is no longer feasible. Humanity itself has about a month to build shelters that can withstand the cold, they don't exactly need to be underground, they just need a way to make heat & keep it inside (though underground is the best option) within 6 months, the only things alive (besides possibly humans) is ocean life that lives by thermal vents miles under ice. There it'll probably stay forever.

I'm surprised the other answers are so optimistic.
In terms of a timeline, I think most people would be dead by various causes within a couple/few months.

Although no one can know for sure exactly what would happen, scientists estimate that the average global surface temperature would drop below 0° F within a week or so. The problem is that the temperature would continue to drop steadily. Within a year, the average global surface temperature could dip well below -100º F! By that time, the top layers of the oceans of the world would have frozen over.

Humans might survive but it'd be a pretty miserable life. People don't usually think about it but sunlight is reasonably important to our health. It's our primary source of Vitamin D; a deficiency of which can cause rickets and Osteomalacia (the adult version of rickets).

We might be able to construct underground or super insulated structures, given some time. Far enough underground there would be warmth. Diamond mines in S Africa can be hot. We would have no option but to use nuclear power. Its unlikely that we could save all of humanity but we could save some of the plants and animals of the earth. In time the atmosphere would freeze solid.

We do have some experience with extreme cold with space probes and with antarctic stations, so its not an impossible problem.

Xadoman wrote:... What happens to radiant heat eventually? ...

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:... What happens to radiant heat eventually? ...

I think it's better to think of it as energy. Radiance is light, electro magnetic waves. It turns into thermal energy when matter absorbs it and becomes vibrations in the molecules. But so can electricity, chemical reactions and other forms of energy.

When radiance reaches matter it can only do one of 3 things:
1. Be transmitted (pass right through)
2. Be reflected/bounced away
3. Be absorbed and converted to thermal energy

So two simple answers to your question would be the radiance will likely do 1 or 2 and continue on as radiance launching off into the void of space, or 3, it will be thermal energy having been absorbed by matter.

"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

I am not asking for any "evidence." I need a falsifiable Global Warming model that predicts nature (i.e. the global warming) and that has endured the scrutiny of the scientific method before I will accept the claim that there is Global Warming SCIENCE.

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:... What happens to radiant heat eventually? ...

I think it's better to think of it as energy. Radiance is light, electro magnetic waves.

tmiddles wrote:
It turns into thermal energy when matter absorbs it and becomes vibrations in the molecules. But so can electricity, chemical reactions and other forms of energy.

tmiddles wrote:
When radiance reaches matter

tmiddles wrote:
it can only do one of 3 things:
1. Be transmitted (pass right through)
2. Be reflected/bounced away
3. Be absorbed and converted to thermal energy

tmiddles wrote:
So two simple answers to your question would be the radiance will likely do 1 or 2 and continue on as radiance launching off into the void of space, or 3, it will be thermal energy having been absorbed by matter.

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:... What happens to radiant heat eventually? ...

I think it's better to think of it as energy. Radiance is light, electro magnetic waves. It turns into thermal energy when matter absorbs it and becomes vibrations in the molecules. But so can electricity, chemical reactions and other forms of energy.

When radiance reaches matter it can only do one of 3 things:
1. Be transmitted (pass right through)
2. Be reflected/bounced away
3. Be absorbed and converted to thermal energy

So two simple answers to your question would be the radiance will likely do 1 or 2 and continue on as radiance launching off into the void of space, or 3, it will be thermal energy having been absorbed by matter.

Um, thermal heat

James___ wrote:
emits electromagnetic radiation.

James___ wrote:
Matter as in atoms or molecules emit, ie., radiate elctromagnetic waves which are quantified using Max Planck's e = hf.

James___ wrote:
If matter does not have heat content

James___ wrote:
then it cannot be released as a flow of electromagnetic waves which is quantified as heat.

James___ wrote:
Heat is relative to a molecule in the atmosphere.

James___ wrote:
Temperature is the amount of heat in a given volume of atmospheric gases.

James___ wrote:
This in turn is considered to be a "climate".

James___ wrote:
And this is the basics.

James___ wrote:
Please feel free to search online to learn more about what "heat" and temperature" are

James___ wrote:
and how they help to define what a "climate" is.

James___ wrote:
Such as, is the temperature controlled inside your personal conveyance such as a motor car? Then that area where the temperature is controlled is considered as a "climate".

James___ wrote:
It has temperature and weather related conditions , ie, humidity specific to that environment.

James___ wrote:
Am hoping Sydney is taking notes.

James___ wrote:
tmiddles, I'm actually taking the time to learn the math to pursue what I find interesting. It is a significant commitment as in a years long commitment. You guys don't have the interest that idea in wanting to know specific details.

Michael G Lee wrote:
Judging by the nature of the comments IBdaMann made about my post, it is obvious he is not interested in science

Michael G Lee wrote:
and especially the truth at all,

Michael G Lee wrote:
but wants to "cherry pick" evidence that supports his claim and ignore evidence that is contrary to it.

Michael G Lee wrote:
For example, when I told him there is falsifiable laws of physics that has been proven in a laboratory

Michael G Lee wrote:
that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will heat up the surface of the planet

Michael G Lee wrote:
is irrelevant because, he argues, it isn't true and then doesn't say why it's not true,

Michael G Lee wrote:
except it must somehow be global in nature, as if the properties of the gas somehow changes when it's in the atmosphere and not in the laboratory.

Michael G Lee wrote:
Listen to this nonsense of his,

I am not asking for any "evidence." I need a falsifiable Global Warming model that predicts nature (i.e. the global warming) and that has endured the scrutiny of the scientific method before I will accept the claim that there is Global Warming SCIENCE.

Michael G Lee wrote:
Since he does not want evidence (his words) but instead a "falsifiable global model," which is a lot to ask for because there is no such thing as a "second
Earth" to compare data with (that's my best guess as to what he's asking for),

Michael G Lee wrote:
his claim is, only a "global scientific model" is sufficient to prove global warming.

Michael G Lee wrote:
Notice how he insists you provide something that fits his wishy-washy definition of what that model might be.

Michael G Lee wrote:
Nor does he say what scientific scrutiny amounts to

Michael G Lee wrote:
and if he says I'm ignorant of what scientific scrutiny amounts to, then he should enlighten me with his deep knowledge of it.

Michael G Lee wrote:
IBdaMann is not interest in knowing the truth,

Michael G Lee wrote:
but instead wants to debate, like a lawyer defending a murderer would, that his client is innocent despite all the evidence that says otherwise by insisting it is insufficient and then doesn't argue why that is the case.

Michael G Lee wrote:
Lawyers do that in front of stupid members of most juries and are usually successful because jurists frequently lack the ability to think rationally.

Michael G Lee wrote:
I forgot to mention IBdaMann, if global warming theory is true, it certainly does predict things.

Michael G Lee wrote:
Such as the Earth will heat up

Michael G Lee wrote:
and if that happens, geologists tell us the sea level will rise and flood areas we inhabit.

Michael G Lee wrote:
Biologists say we'll have a horrible time trying to grow enough food for everyone

Michael G Lee wrote:
and fresh water will be more valuable than gold.

Michael G Lee wrote:
Interestingly, global warming theory is falsifiable

Michael G Lee wrote:
if, for example, suppose a scientist discovers a wonderful method to effectively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,

Michael G Lee wrote:
then the Earth will cool down quickly.

Michael G Lee wrote:
Such a scientist would almost definitely win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and a free trip to Stockholm.

James___ wrote: Um, thermal heat emits electromagnetic radiation. Matter as in atoms or molecules emit, ie., radiate elctromagnetic waves which are quantified using Max Planck's e = hf.
When elcetromagnetic radiation is absorbed by matter, it is considered to be conserved as heat content. If matter does not have heat content then it cannot be released as a flow of electromagnetic waves which is quantified as heat.