Remember me
▼ Content

There is still no Global Warming science.



Page 6 of 7<<<4567>
24-01-2020 03:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:
None of them have a definite top of their atmosphere.
Agreed.

And the atmosphere is also part of the surface.

Moon, next to nothing

Earth, plenty

Venus, nearly total
24-01-2020 03:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
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?



.


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
24-01-2020 03:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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
Edited on 24-01-2020 03:49
24-01-2020 07:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
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]

That was a great attempt to assign a bogus position to me BUT you still haven't answered my question. I think everyone realizes that this is just your extreme DENIAL and despereate NEED to avoid admitting that YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE.

You are dishonest. You are a liar. You are here only to preach your dishonesty and to disrupt all honest conversation.


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

You still haven't explained how you know that the conditions of the journey didn't cause decalibration ... because you don't know that ... but you think it is something that is "known."

Get the model number. I'll try looking as well (and I've already tried unsuccessfully for fifteen minutes).



.


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
24-01-2020 10:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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.
Edited on 24-01-2020 10:42
24-01-2020 17:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
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.


Did you originally have some word other than "assistant" in there?

OK, so you can understand why your comments about the thermometer are dismissed and why you still are assumed to have no idea whatsoever how (in)accurate those temperature figures are.


I'm glad we cleared that up.



.


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
24-01-2020 19:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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?



.

An excellent point. Measuring temperatures this high is dicey at best. Oven thermocouples and jet engine thermocouples only give you a vague idea of temperature at all.

After being exposed to radiation, vibration, corrosive environments (the upper atmosphere of Venus contains sulfuric acid) and other effects, who knows what the calibration is anymore?

Several spacecraft made it to the surface of Venus, however. They all used similar equipment (and similar thermometer construction!). They all recorded similar temperatures before expiring.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2020 19:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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


No thermocouple made has that kind of accuracy. We also have no idea what happened to any accuracy they DID have after being subjected to radiation, heavy vibration, and corrosive environments.

We do have images of rocks glowing a dim red at the surface. That actually is a more accurate idea of temperature at the site of the spacecraft is.

As for the planet? Who knows?


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2020 19:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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.


WRONG. It simply means you won't do your own research. You just echo what someone told you to say.

You're a lazy ass, aren't you?


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2020 23:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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:


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

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.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/resistance-thermometer
25-01-2020 00:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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:

There is no 'should be' in science or in measurements. There is just the measurement. No one has ever measured the temperature of Venus. It's temperature is unknown.
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!

Who knows? No one was there to calibrate it.
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.

A 'resistance thermometer' is also called a thermocouple, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2020 00:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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".

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.
25-01-2020 00:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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".

WRONG. Attempt to discard the emissivity term of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
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]

False authority fallacy. Both are thermocouples, dumbass. One that generates its own charge is called an active thermocouple, the variable resistance is called a passive thermocouple. They are both thermocouples.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-01-2020 00:38
25-01-2020 01:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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.

Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. Both are thermocouples, dumbass.
Yet you don't seem to know why they said "difference". I'm not a thermometer guy so I trust the experts on that.
25-01-2020 01:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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.

'Reasonable' is not a value. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. Both are thermocouples, dumbass.
Yet you don't seem to know why they said "difference".

I don't care. You used a false authority.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm not a thermometer guy so I trust the experts on that.

I am a thermometer guy. I am an expert on it. I build instrumentation for industrial controls, aerospace, medical, and entertainment industries.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-01-2020 01:21
25-01-2020 01:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Into the Night wrote:...a false authority.
What do you mean when you say that?

Into the Night wrote:
I am a thermometer guy.
Citation please.
25-01-2020 06:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am a thermometer guy.
Citation please.


It would appear that you have two options:

1) utilize Into the Night as a source of valuable information, far more useful than Wikipedia ... or ...

2) make him "prove it!" ... because he doesn't glorify Global Warming.

Hmmm, I wonder which option you'll choose.


.


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
25-01-2020 06:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:...make him "prove it!" ... b

A citation request is a request based on finding an assertion interesting enough you'd like to do your own research on it.

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.

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

I have provided citations why don't you?

Come on, it'll be fun.

Here's a bit more of the real story to entice you:
The sensors, including the thermometer were designed by Vera Mikhnevich, born 1919 of the Institute of Applied Geophysics in Moscow

2nd Citation

Maybe she just didn't know what she was doing and ITN, an anonymous bird avatar does but yeah, citations are a lot more interesting.

How about some verified data sets on how crappy and unreliable resistance thermometers are?
Edited on 25-01-2020 06:34
25-01-2020 07:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
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.

Three bogus position assignments in one day! I can't thank you enough.

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

When you fabricate the bogus position, it becomes your responsibility to fabricate the bogus citation.

Your dishonesty is dynamically elastic. You've learned this very well. Can you recommend a book from which one can learn what you learned?

In this thermometer research you claim you were going to perform, were you ever going to look into the decalibration from environmental effects during travel all the way to Venus' surface or were you just planning on researching thermometers in safe, laboratory environments immediately upon full calibration?


.


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
25-01-2020 13:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:In this thermometer research you claim you were going to perform,...

Oh I don't doubt the thermometers worked properly at all. You're the one who does. And no I'm not assigning that to you it's what you said:

IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature differences affect the measuring device. Excessive temperatures affect the measuring device greatly, but we don't know how much. The same goes for pressure. We can assume that both the temperature and pressure on Venus where the probe landed was pretty high. We don't know how high and we don't know how the specific temperature and pressure at that moment threw off the temperature reading, i.e.

Unknown Temperature +/ Unknow Error. Hmmm. Wait! This measurement is a random value. We don't what we're getting.

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.

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?

At that time I did look into your concept that high temperatures prevented accurate temperature readings and found that is decidedly false:
https://www.mecampbell.com/media/pdf/5608_and_5609_Data.pdf

Seems you just made it up as I can't find anything to back up the claim. No valid data sets at all.
25-01-2020 15:57
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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. Where does the radiant heat eventually go if there is no more matter to heat?
25-01-2020 19:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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.

A statement of faith.
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.

Why?
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?

Compositional error fallacy. RDCF. Lie. YALIF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
At that time I did look into your concept that high temperatures prevented accurate temperature readings and found that is decidedly false:

Lie. RDCF.
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.

Lie. No data is not data. Erroneous data is not data. Circular argument fallacy. False authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2020 19:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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.

How do you know? Have you examined all of it? Have you been to the edge of the Universe?
Xadoman wrote:
Where does the radiant heat eventually go if there is no more matter to heat?

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.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2020 21:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
Xadoman wrote: Could anyone explain one thing for me. What happens to radiant heat eventually?

Into the Night already covered this.

Thermal radiation is not heat until it is absorbed and thermal energy has "flowed" from one body to another.

If the thermal radiation is never absorbed it continues on forever, potentially reflecting off things.

.


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
25-01-2020 21:13
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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.

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.
25-01-2020 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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.

So you belong to the Church of the Big Bang, eh? I so happen to belong to the Church of the Continuum.

I don't believe the Big Bang ever happened. I believe the Universe has always been here, will always be here, and has no boundaries.

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.

Why not?


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2020 22:48
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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?
RE: Is global warming scientific?25-01-2020 23:24
Michael G Lee
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
IBdaMann's argument is in order for global warming theory to be considered scientific, there must exist a global warming model that is falsifiable. There is no such model; that is why he insists you provide him with one, therefore global warming theory is not scientific. So the question becomes what constitutes a scientific global model? 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. It is falsifiable because if that Earth like planet was suffering from the same warming, then the theory is false. Since no such planet exists; global warming theory is not scientific.

While the argument is valid, it is not sound. 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. That falsifies the argument that global warming is just natural changes in climate temperatures that we've had in the distant past. For if the "natural warming" theory was true, the entire atmosphere would change temperatures.

However, I can argue that there is an Earth like planet that does indeed act as a climate model and it's called Venus. 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.https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable/
Edited on 25-01-2020 23:27
26-01-2020 01:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
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.


.


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
26-01-2020 01:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
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.

More specifically, for there to be Global Warming SCIENCE there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model that predicts nature (i.e. the global warming) and that has endured the scrutiny of the scientific method.

Michael G Lee wrote: There is no such model;

Correct, ergo there is no Global Warming SCIENCE.

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

A falsifiable Global Warming model that predicts nature (i.e. the global warming) and that has endured the scrutiny of the scientific method.

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.

Nope. 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: While the argument is valid, it is not sound.

That's not my argument. See above.

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.

You just described a violation of physics and no, it is not "what we know."

Let's probe YOUR argument a little.

Is Global Warming a process by which earth's average global temperature increases?

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.

Let me guess. You are going to claim that Venus' temperature at the bottom of its atmosphere, which is so very hot due to its proximity to the sun and its 100-times-as-dense-as-earth's atmosphere, that it actually has nothing to do with Venus' proximity to the sun and it bone-crushing atmospheric pressure, but is solely due to its atmosphere being made of CO2, right?


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.


Oh yeah, I am so totally buying this account.


.


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
26-01-2020 01:49
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(160)
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.


.



It seems to me that most people do not even realize how dramatic it would be. I got some quotes from :

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-the-Sun-burned-out-1

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.
26-01-2020 06:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
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
26-01-2020 08:43
James___
★★★★★
(2420)
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



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.
Heat is relative to a molecule in the atmosphere. Temperature is the amount of heat in a given volume of atmospheric gases. This in turn is considered to be a "climate".
And this is the basics. Please feel free to search online to learn more about what "heat" and temperature" are and how they help to define what a "climate" is. 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". It has temperature and weather related conditions , ie, humidity specific to that environment.
Am hoping Sydney is taking notes.


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.
Edited on 26-01-2020 08:59
RE: Clearly IBdaMann is not interested in science.26-01-2020 16:32
Michael G Lee
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Judging by the nature of the comments IBdaMann made about my post, it is obvious he is not interested in science and especially the truth at all, but wants to "cherry pick" evidence that supports his claim and ignore evidence that is contrary to it. For example, when I told him there is falsifiable laws of physics that has been proven in a laboratory that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will heat up the surface of the planet is irrelevant because, he argues, it isn't true and then doesn't say why it's not true, 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.

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.


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), his claim is, only a "global scientific model" is sufficient to prove global warming. Notice how he insists you provide something that fits his wishy-washy definition of what that model might be. Nor does he say what scientific scrutiny amounts to and if he says I'm ignorant of what scientific scrutiny amounts to, then he should enlighten me with his deep knowledge of it.

IBdaMann is not interest in knowing the truth, 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. Lawyers do that in front of stupid members of most juries and are usually successful because jurists frequently lack the ability to think rationally.
Edited on 26-01-2020 17:30
RE: And global warming theory does predict.26-01-2020 18:28
Michael G Lee
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
I forgot to mention IBdaMann, if global warming theory is true, it certainly does predict things. Such as the Earth will heat up and if that happens, geologists tell us the sea level will rise and flood areas we inhabit. Biologists say we'll have a horrible time trying to grow enough food for everyone and fresh water will be more valuable than gold.

Interestingly, global warming theory is falsifiable if, for example, suppose a scientist discovers a wonderful method to effectively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then the Earth will cool down quickly. Such a scientist would almost definitely win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and a free trip to Stockholm.
Edited on 26-01-2020 19:03
26-01-2020 20:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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.

WRONG. Radiance is not light. It is not energy either.
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.

If you are talking about light, not radiance, this part is correct.
tmiddles wrote:
When radiance reaches matter

Radiance doesn't 'reach' anything. Radiance is not light.
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

Assuming light again, you forgot refraction, scattering, and filtering.
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.

Radiance is not light.


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2020 20:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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

There is no such thing as 'thermal heat'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the energy itself.
James___ wrote:
emits electromagnetic radiation.

Heat does not emit anything.
James___ wrote:
Matter as in atoms or molecules emit, ie., radiate elctromagnetic waves which are quantified using Max Planck's e = hf.

Heat does not emit anything.
When elcetromagnetic radiation is absorbed by matter, it is considered to be conserved as heat content.[/quote]
Heat is not contained in anything.
James___ wrote:
If matter does not have heat content

Heat is not contained in anything.
James___ wrote:
then it cannot be released as a flow of electromagnetic waves which is quantified as heat.

Heat doesn't convert to light. Light is not heat.
James___ wrote:
Heat is relative to a molecule in the atmosphere.

WRONG. Heat has no relation to the molecules in an atmosphere.
James___ wrote:
Temperature is the amount of heat in a given volume of atmospheric gases.

Heat has no temperature.
James___ wrote:
This in turn is considered to be a "climate".

Climate has no temperature.
James___ wrote:
And this is the basics.

No, this is word salad.
James___ wrote:
Please feel free to search online to learn more about what "heat" and temperature" are

There's a lot of crap online. Why do you consider it an authoritative source for anything?
James___ wrote:
and how they help to define what a "climate" is.

Climate is a subjective word. It has quantifiable values. Examples are 'desert climate', 'marine climate', 'tropical climate', etc.
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".

A car interior climate? Why not? There is no temperature in climate.
James___ wrote:
It has temperature and weather related conditions , ie, humidity specific to that environment.

The is no humidity value in climate either.
James___ wrote:
Am hoping Sydney is taking notes.

Time will tell.
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.

Still going on about your magick 'experiment' that you can never describe.


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2020 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
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

Lie. He and I both have mentioned the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which YOU deny.
Michael G Lee wrote:
and especially the truth at all,

Science has no 'truth' or proofs. It is an open functional system. It is just a set of theories. No theory is ever proven True.
Michael G Lee wrote:
but wants to "cherry pick" evidence that supports his claim and ignore evidence that is contrary to it.

He is not using evidence. He doesn't need to.
Michael G Lee wrote:
For example, when I told him there is falsifiable laws of physics that has been proven in a laboratory

There are no proofs in science.
Michael G Lee wrote:
that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will heat up the surface of the planet

No gas or vapor has the capability to heat the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Michael G Lee wrote:
is irrelevant because, he argues, it isn't true and then doesn't say why it's not true,

* You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to do so. (1st law of thermodynamics)
* You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. (2nd law of thermodynamics)
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

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.

Nope. It doesn't. Absorption of surface emitted infrared light by any gas does not warm the Earth. It's just another way for the warmer surface to heat the atmosphere (and be cooled in the process).
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.

That is correct. It is not nonsense.
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),

He's not asking for a 2nd Earth, or even a comparison. He is asking for a model (and the theory that goes with it), and to show they are falsifiable, and to show they do not conflict with any other theory of science.
Michael G Lee wrote:
his claim is, only a "global scientific model" is sufficient to prove global warming.

Science has no proofs.
Michael G Lee wrote:
Notice how he insists you provide something that fits his wishy-washy definition of what that model might be.

He is not trying to define that model. YOU must, if you want to call this 'science'.
Michael G Lee wrote:
Nor does he say what scientific scrutiny amounts to

Science isn't 'scrutiny', though there is certainly scrutiny in science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Each of these theories has a model. Each of these theories has been formalized into a closed system such as mathematics.
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.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
Michael G Lee wrote:
IBdaMann is not interest in knowing the truth,

Science isn't 'truth'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
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.

You have not presented any evidence. Science itself is not evidence or data.
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.

Insulting most people now? YALIF.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-01-2020 20:31
26-01-2020 20:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11754)
Michael G Lee wrote:
I forgot to mention IBdaMann, if global warming theory is true, it certainly does predict things.

It is not a theory at all. The term 'global warming' has not yet been defined.
Michael G Lee wrote:
Such as the Earth will heat up

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

So the Great Flood of Noah is possible, yes?
Michael G Lee wrote:
Biologists say we'll have a horrible time trying to grow enough food for everyone

Plants aren't sensitive to temperature (other than freezing).
Michael G Lee wrote:
and fresh water will be more valuable than gold.

Why would it stop raining?
Michael G Lee wrote:
Interestingly, global warming theory is falsifiable

It is not even a theory. Define 'global warming'. How can something that is undefined be testable using a specific test the is available, practical, and produces a specific result?
Michael G Lee wrote:
if, for example, suppose a scientist discovers a wonderful method to effectively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,

We already know. Plant things.
Michael G Lee wrote:
then the Earth will cool down quickly.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Michael G Lee wrote:
Such a scientist would almost definitely win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and a free trip to Stockholm.

For discovering farming????


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2020 21:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
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.


James, this is a great example of what I have been trying to explain to tmiddles. You are defining your terms as you are using them.

I realize that you and I use different wording, and we have both had a few threads in which we have "gone at it" over what the words mean (which is normally necessary) but in the end, you are remaining consistent with your usage and we all know what you mean when you say the above.

* You write "heat content" whereas I write "thermal energy."
* You write "conserved as" whereas I write "changes form to".
* You write "released as a flow of electromagnetic waves" whereas I write "emits thermal radiation."

... and yes, the quantity of energy involved for each photon is its frequency multiplied by Planck's constant (6.63x10-34 joules)

.


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
Page 6 of 7<<<4567>





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