Remember me
▼ Content

There is still no Global Warming science.



Page 7 of 9<<<56789>
28-01-2020 04:36
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(301)
One thing confuses me. With conduction and convection it is easy to understand that when one body cools the other one warms up. But with radiant heat it seems not so simple. A body is losing temperature whether there is another body or not. A body loses its temperature into empty space. It also seems to me that the presence of another body does not change the rate a body loses its temperature. For example if we could put a gigantic black body near the sun the sun would not lose its temperature or would not lose its fuel quicker , it would just keep ticking as it does now. Considering this, lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface . The surface of earth would get a lot hotter because it can not cool via conduction and convection to atmosphere. The atmosphere is now heated directly from the sun and from the surface of the earth via radiation. It seems to me now that the atmosphere that has greater concentration of CO2 should be warmer because of a better ability to absorb infrared from the surface of the earth. The temperature of the surface of the earth should stay the same. Remember, no conduction , no convection, only radiation. So if we compare two case with different co2 levels, I would say the case with higher consentration of CO2 has a higher average temperature. The temperature of thesurface of the earth would be the same but the temperature of atmosphere is different between them.
Edited on 28-01-2020 04:50
28-01-2020 05:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
Xadoman wrote: One thing confuses me. With conduction and convection it is easy to understand that when one body cools the other one warms up.

Convection isn't involved in "bodies."

Convection involves fluids ... specifically the dynamics of heated fluids "rising" and transfering thermal energy via conduction as it moves.

Xadoman wrote: But with radiant heat it seems not so simple. A body is losing temperature whether there is another body or not.

That sounds pretty simple and straightforward to me.

Xadoman wrote:A body loses its temperature into empty space.

It radiates energy per Stefan-Boltzmann. It might be radiating into empty space, it could be radiating into peanut butter, ... it depends.

Xadoman wrote: Considering this, lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface .

I hate to ruin a cool thought experiment BUT the moment you create the vacuum gap it will fill with water vapor from the ocean and the ocean surface would start to boil from lack of pressure.

Basically you would need to create a vacuum that maintains atmospheric pressure ... and perhaps you can see the problem in that.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
28-01-2020 07:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Michael G Lee wrote:...a lot to ask for because there is no such thing...
This is the recipe for disqualification Michael.

It's no different than the Jim Crowe laws that denied voting.

What ITN/IBD do is claim that no discussion can proceed because the qualifications are not met for a discussion/debate.

Those qualification are leastic for them and can be adjusted to disqualify anything.

I would suggest trying to leave the topic of Global Warming out of it entirely (which technically you did with your CO2 in the lab example) and see how the methods of disqualification don't change (see my sig for examples).

However! This game is worthy of it's own analysis I would argue.

Example:
The claim is repeatedly made by not just these guys that you cannot know the temperature of Earth. Why though? Well play that out and you arrive at:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

Michael G Lee wrote:Nor does he say what scientific scrutiny amounts to
And he won't. By presenting a "mystery standard" there is no way to qualify anything.

See the example of a human being in a room in my sig. IBD has repeatedly dismissed it as "not repeatable" without ever explaining what "is repeatable". I gave up asking him.

Also don't think for a second they mean anything peer reviewed or examined by the scientific community. They insist that the whole deal is corrupt. See here:
tmiddles wrote:TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY
I could get 12 more text books to make it 24 and they'll still dismiss the basics without justification.

Michael G Lee wrote:...like a lawyer defending a murderer would....
That's a good analogy but for those passionate that Global Warming is a crisis too. If it's "your baby" you are handicapped in your ability to weigh evidence.

"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
28-01-2020 07:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Xadoman wrote:...lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface...
Cool hypothetical! I like that a lot.

IBdaMann wrote:
the moment you create the vacuum gap it will fill with water vapor from the ocean

IBD can you for a moment actually respond to his hypothetical?

Let's say it's 99% of the depth of our atmosphere that is separated from the bottom 1%. By two force fields, 10 feet apart. So only radiance can cross the gap. The atmosphere is still under the sway of Earth gravitation just as before. There is still the same air pressure initially below the lower force field.

So the key thing I see Xadoman is that you no longer have the focus for the atmospheric gasses gaining thermal energy from conduction at the base of the atmosphere. Currently the 99% of the gas can gain thermal energy through conduction so now the only way Oxygen and Nitrogen will gain energy would be through their interaction with green house gases. I would think that the atmosphere would be a far less effective thermal energy store house just as a heat sink on a CPU would be less effective at gathering thermal energy if you air gapped it.

But I get you main question and it's a really good one. How would the gases in the atmosphere impact the ground level temp with ONLY radiance in play.

I'm really not sure. We have Mars with it's very thin atmosphere and way more CO2 as an example.

Anyway really good hypothetical I want to explore it more.
28-01-2020 09:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
tmiddles wrote:
Michael G Lee wrote:...a lot to ask for because there is no such thing...
This is the recipe for disqualification Michael.

It's no different than the Jim Crowe laws that denied voting.

False equivalence.
tmiddles wrote:
What ITN/IBD do is claim that no discussion can proceed because the qualifications are not met for a discussion/debate.

RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Those qualification are leastic for them and can be adjusted to disqualify anything.

RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
I would suggest trying to leave the topic of Global Warming out of it entirely (which technically you did with your CO2 in the lab example) and see how the methods of disqualification don't change (see my sig for examples).

RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
However! This game is worthy of it's own analysis I would argue.

RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Example:
The claim is repeatedly made by not just these guys that you cannot know the temperature of Earth. Why though?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Well play that out and you arrive at:
Michael G Lee wrote:Nor does he say what scientific scrutiny amounts to
And he won't. By presenting a "mystery standard" there is no way to qualify anything.

Lie. RDCF. RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
See the example of a human being in a room in my sig.

Repetitious argument from randU fallacy (RAFRF)
tmiddles wrote:
IBD has repeatedly dismissed it as "not repeatable" without ever explaining what "is repeatable". I gave up asking him.

Random numbers are not data. RAFRF
tmiddles wrote:
Also don't think for a second they mean anything peer reviewed

Consensus is not used in science. RFRRFAF
tmiddles wrote:
or examined by the scientific community.

Consensus is not used in science. RFRRFAF
tmiddles wrote:
They insist that the whole deal is corrupt. See here:
Michael G Lee wrote:...like a lawyer defending a murderer would....
That's a good analogy but for those passionate that Global Warming is a crisis too. If it's "your baby" you are handicapped in your ability to weigh evidence.

RDCF. Science is not corrupt.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-01-2020 09:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:...lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface...
Cool hypothetical! I like that a lot.

Except it's not possible.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
the moment you create the vacuum gap it will fill with water vapor from the ocean

IBD can you for a moment actually respond to his hypothetical?

He did. He said it's not possible. He's correct.
tmiddles wrote:
Let's say it's 99% of the depth of our atmosphere that is separated from the bottom 1%. By two force fields, 10 feet apart. So only radiance can cross the gap. The atmosphere is still under the sway of Earth gravitation just as before. There is still the same air pressure initially below the lower force field.

Not possible.
tmiddles wrote:
So the key thing I see Xadoman is that you no longer have the focus for the atmospheric gasses gaining thermal energy from conduction at the base of the atmosphere.

Not possible.
tmiddles wrote:
Currently the 99% of the gas can gain thermal energy through conduction

Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
so now the only way Oxygen and Nitrogen will gain energy would be through their interaction with green house gases.

Define 'greenhouse gas'. All gases can absorb infrared light.
tmiddles wrote:
I would think that the atmosphere would be a far less effective thermal energy store house just as a heat sink on a CPU would be less effective at gathering thermal energy if you air gapped it.

Trapped air makes a good insulator. Sucks for your CPU.
tmiddles wrote:
But I get you main question and it's a really good one. How would the gases in the atmosphere impact the ground level temp with ONLY radiance in play.

The conditions for the speculation are not possible.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm really not sure. We have Mars with it's very thin atmosphere and way more CO2 as an example.

CO2 is not capable of warming Mars either. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
Anyway really good hypothetical I want to explore it more.

Nope. The conditions are not possible.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-01-2020 13:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:...lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface...
Cool hypothetical! I like that a lot.

Except it's not possible.
You've read Max Planck right? Totally his style to do thought experiments that would never be possible to construct in reality.
28-01-2020 15:34
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(301)
I wanted to eliminate conduction and convection because they simply add a lot of complexity in to the greenhouse gases debate. I simply want to look only at radiation because that is basically the point global warming supporters do. Their thesis is that the ability of atmosphere to absorb heat from surface is better when co2 concentration is higher. They have shown experiences how a gas with higher content of co2 absorbs infrared better. Now in the hypotetical model where conduction and convection is eliminated it seem to me that when the co2 level is higher then the temperature of atmosphere would also be higher. I often hear that when atmosphere gets hotter then the surface must get cooler but with radiation I do not see this case( no conduction, no convection). The surface would cool without the atmosphere at the same rate. Now, adding atmosphere only harvests the energy that leaves from earth and converts it to thermal energy. In conclusion the surface of the earth is at the same temperature but the temperature of atmosphere is higher if the gas content absorbs infrared better. The sun output is the same. How is that possible. It seems to me that we could say that the emissivity is different for both cases. The emissivity of the system that has more co2 in the atmosphere has higher emissivity than the system which has lower level of co2. When you think about it it is logical. The co2 absorbs heat better and therefore increases the emissivity of the atmosphere and the overall system. In real life this could mean that the emissivity of earth is increasing when we add more co2 to the atmosphere. Higer emissivity also means higher temperature.
28-01-2020 17:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
the moment you create the vacuum gap it will fill with water vapor from the ocean

IBD can you for a moment actually respond to his hypothetical?

I don't know ... can you read? ... or are you too stupid?

tmiddles wrote:
Let's say it's 99% of the depth of our atmosphere that is separated from the bottom 1%.

Stop. Show me that you can read first. What is it about what I wrote that you didn't understand? What concern of mine was too complicated for you to grasp? Let's start there so we know how much I need to dumb-down my response for there to be any chance for you to benefit.

tmiddles wrote:By two force fields, 10 feet apart. So only radiance can cross the gap. The atmosphere is still under the sway of Earth gravitation just as before. There is still the same air pressure initially below the lower force field.

GREAT ... now you have introduced another unknown that needs to be answered. What is the surface emissivity of this "force field"? It's an energy force field, right? You are infusing it into the equation, right? Dollars to donuts says you are getting irritated right now because I am asking for simple clarification that you should have provided when you opted to convolute the original thought experiment. You could have just addressed my original concern about the pressure and given me an answer either way. But as usual you are short on the forethought and quick to blame others for asking the questions you generate.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
28-01-2020 19:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:...lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface...
Cool hypothetical! I like that a lot.

Except it's not possible.
You've read Max Planck right? Totally his style to do thought experiments that would never be possible to construct in reality.

Buzzword fallacy. You don't know what 'reality' means.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-01-2020 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
Xadoman wrote:
I wanted to eliminate conduction and convection because they simply add a lot of complexity in to the greenhouse gases debate.

No, they don't. The only way for energy to leave Earth is by radiance. The only way for Earth to absorb energy from the Sun is by radiant heating.
Xadoman wrote:
I simply want to look only at radiation because that is basically the point global warming supporters do.

Fine. Already there.
Xadoman wrote:
Their thesis is that the ability of atmosphere to absorb heat from surface is better when co2 concentration is higher.

It is. That is not their argument, however. It is only part of it. Absorption of infrared light emitted from the surface does not warm the Earth.
Xadoman wrote:
They have shown experiences how a gas with higher content of co2 absorbs infrared better.

Yes they have. Again, you are ignoring the rest of their argument.
Xadoman wrote:
Now in the hypotetical model where conduction and convection is eliminated it seem to me that when the co2 level is higher then the temperature of atmosphere would also be higher.

You forget. The atmosphere is radiating too.
Xadoman wrote:
I often hear that when atmosphere gets hotter then the surface must get cooler but with radiation I do not see this case( no conduction, no convection).

It takes energy to emit light. That cools the surface. It takes energy to emit light. That cools the atmosphere.
Xadoman wrote:
The surface would cool without the atmosphere at the same rate. Now, adding atmosphere only harvests the energy that leaves from earth and converts it to thermal energy.

Which is also radiated into space.
Xadoman wrote:
In conclusion the surface of the earth is at the same temperature

Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Xadoman wrote:
but the temperature of atmosphere is higher if the gas content absorbs infrared better.

Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't destroy energy into nothing.
Xadoman wrote:
The sun output is the same. How is that possible.

Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing, and you can't destroy energy into nothing. Everything radiates. The surface and the atmosphere.
Xadoman wrote:
It seems to me that we could say that the emissivity is different for both cases. The emissivity of the system that has more co2 in the atmosphere has higher emissivity than the system which has lower level of co2.

Emissivity has no frequency term. It is independent of the substance emitting.
Xadoman wrote:
When you think about it it is logical.

Nope. It is denial. Emissivity has no frequency term.
Xadoman wrote:
The co2 absorbs heat better and therefore increases the emissivity of the atmosphere and the overall system.

Nope. Emissivity has no frequency term.
Xadoman wrote:
In real life this could mean that the emissivity of earth is increasing when we add more co2 to the atmosphere.

Nope. Emissivity has no frequency term. It is independent of the substance emitting.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-01-2020 22:04
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(301)
You forget. The atmosphere is radiating too.


No, I just think it radiates more due to higher temperature.

It takes energy to emit light. That cools the surface. It takes energy to emit light. That cools the atmosphere.


Completely agree. The point I want to make is that a gas that has higher concentration of CO2 absorbs heat better. Therefore its temperature is higher.

Which is also radiated into space.


I agree but the temperature is higher because better absorbtion( emissivity)

Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing.


Higher emissivity. The gas simply absorbs the energy and converts it to thermal energy. Without gas the energy would just go to empty space potentially heating something. With gas we now have additional mass in the atmosphere which could be heated from the surface of the earth (and ofcourse also directly from sun). The earth is warmer and heats via radiation the gas that surrounds it. I do not say that the gas heats the surface of the earth back. It can not because the gas is colder but it does not matter. We now have atmosphere which is heated up due to the infrared from the surface of the earth( and also from sun directly). Let me give an example. A planet with atmosphere that consist less CO2 and the other which has more of it. Now I am going to talk about only radiation to keep things simple. The planet that has more CO2 in the atmosphere heats up( atmosphere +surface combined) more because the atmosphere could absorb heat better. The other planet stays overall cooler( atmosphere +surface combined) because it does not absorb heat in the atmosphere as well. It is not creating energy out of nothing. It is more efficient using of that energy that is available to earth from the sun. In other words we can change the emissivity of earth by pumping gases into the atmosphere. Simple as that.

Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing, and you can't destroy energy into nothing. Everything radiates. The surface and the atmosphere.


It radiates but the temperature is higher because the emissivity is changed due to pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Emissivity has no frequency term. It is independent of the substance emitting.


No need to have anything to do with frequency. A simple fact that a gas absorbs more heat states that the gas has higher emissivity.
28-01-2020 22:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
Xadoman wrote: Completely agree. The point I want to make is that a gas that has higher concentration of CO2 absorbs heat better. Therefore its temperature is higher.

Question: What difference does it make if an incoming photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule rather than being aborbed by, say, the surface?

Xadoman wrote: I agree but the temperature is higher because better absorbtion( emissivity)

... resulting in the surface being cooler to exactly that extent.

Xadoman wrote: It radiates but the temperature is higher because the emissivity is changed due to pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

This is the point when you get to support this affirmative claim of yours. Show me that the earth's emissivity is any higher than it was. How can we verify this?

Xadoman wrote: No need to have anything to do with frequency. A simple fact that a gas absorbs more heat states that the gas has higher emissivity.

Unfortunately, an atmospheric gas absorbing more of a particular wavelength does not equate to the earth's emissivity changing. Yes, you need to show this otherwise it is summarily dismissed.

You've got science, right?


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
28-01-2020 22:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
Xadoman wrote:
You forget. The atmosphere is radiating too.

No, I just think it radiates more due to higher temperature.

There is no sequence.
Xadoman wrote:
It takes energy to emit light. That cools the surface. It takes energy to emit light. That cools the atmosphere.


Completely agree. The point I want to make is that a gas that has higher concentration of CO2 absorbs heat better. Therefore its temperature is higher.

Nope. Emissivity has no frequency term. There is nothing magick about CO2.
Xadoman wrote:
Which is also radiated into space.


I agree but the temperature is higher because better absorbtion( emissivity)

Nope. Emissivity is not affected by the substance emitting.
Xadoman wrote:
Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing.


Higher emissivity.

Emissivity is not energy.
Xadoman wrote:
The gas simply absorbs the energy and converts it to thermal energy.

All gases absorb infrared light. Emissivity has no frequency term.
Xadoman wrote:
Without gas the energy would just go to empty space potentially heating something. With gas we now have additional mass in the atmosphere which could be heated from the surface of the earth (and ofcourse also directly from sun).

It all goes to space.
Xadoman wrote:
The earth is warmer and heats via radiation the gas that surrounds it.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Xadoman wrote:
I do not say that the gas heats the surface of the earth back.

Not yet. The Church of Global Warming does, though. You are still trying to create energy out of nothing.
Xadoman wrote:
It can not because the gas is colder but it does not matter. We now have atmosphere which is heated up due to the infrared from the surface of the earth( and also from sun directly).

You are forgetting conduction and convection again.
Xadoman wrote:
Let me give an example. A planet with atmosphere that consist less CO2 and the other which has more of it. Now I am going to talk about only radiation to keep things simple.

You can't ignore conduction and convection. Also, ALL of it radiates to space.
Xadoman wrote:
The planet that has more CO2 in the atmosphere heats up( atmosphere +surface combined) more because the atmosphere could absorb heat better. The other planet stays overall cooler( atmosphere +surface combined) because it does not absorb heat in the atmosphere as well.

There is no frequency term in emissivity. Emissivity is not affected by what is emitting.
Xadoman wrote:
It is not creating energy out of nothing.

Yes it is.
Xadoman wrote:
It is more efficient using of that energy that is available to earth from the sun. In other words we can change the emissivity of earth by pumping gases into the atmosphere. Simple as that.

No, you can't.
Xadoman wrote:
Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing, and you can't destroy energy into nothing. Everything radiates. The surface and the atmosphere.


It radiates but the temperature is higher because the emissivity is changed due to pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

That doesn't change emissivity. Emissivity has no frequency term.
Xadoman wrote:
Emissivity has no frequency term. It is independent of the substance emitting.


No need to have anything to do with frequency. A simple fact that a gas absorbs more heat states that the gas has higher emissivity.

You are inserting a frequency term into emissivity. You are trying to create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
29-01-2020 04:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Xadoman wrote:...In conclusion the surface of the earth is at the same temperature but the temperature of atmosphere is higher if the gas content absorbs infrared better. The sun output is the same. How is that possible. It seems to me that we could say that the emissivity is different for both cases.
I think you're really on to something. Forgive me that the below isn't directly addressing what you wrote but another concept.

So here me out. The amount of energy that is absorbed depends on 3 things:
1- Input energy (suns radiance)
2- Emissivity
3- Area

We know the input if fixed, the Emissivity is at most 1.0, yet we have more thermal energy present at ground level on Earth than we should doing a straight calculation based on the surface area of Earth as a solid smooth sphere (we get a temp 40C colder).

I think having a conveyor belt of convecting gas on top of a ground water level is like having a greater surface area. Just like a sponge can soak up more liquid than a solid block.

The perfect hypothetical black body interaction is this: EM strikes the black body and is absorbed by the surface, then THAT SAME SURFACE is not interfered with in it's ability to radiate back out.

With an atmosphere that surfaces, both the ground water and gas, is routinely obstructed by the matter of the atmosphere as it attempts to radiate out. Also it won't radiate straight out as it would from the surface of a perfect sphere, but scatter. Some radiance will even rattle along parallel to the ground level and not even obey an up or down rule as many diagrams show.
Edited on 29-01-2020 04:44
29-01-2020 04:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
tmiddles wrote:
The amount of energy that is absorbed depends on 3 things:
1- Input energy (suns radiance)
2- Emissivity
3- Area

Four things. You need distance from the sun to apply the inverse square law.


No charge. On the house.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
29-01-2020 07:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Xadoman wrote:...In conclusion the surface of the earth is at the same temperature but the temperature of atmosphere is higher if the gas content absorbs infrared better. The sun output is the same. How is that possible. It seems to me that we could say that the emissivity is different for both cases.
I think you're really on to something. Forgive me that the below isn't directly addressing what you wrote but another concept.

So here me out. The amount of energy that is absorbed depends on 3 things:
1- Input energy (suns radiance)
2- Emissivity
3- Area

We know the input if fixed, the Emissivity is at most 1.0, yet we have more thermal energy present at ground level on Earth than we should doing a straight calculation based on the surface area of Earth as a solid smooth sphere (we get a temp 40C colder).
tmiddles wrote:
I think having a conveyor belt of convecting gas on top of a ground water level is like having a greater surface area. Just like a sponge can soak up more liquid than a solid block.

The perfect hypothetical black body interaction is this: EM strikes the black body and is absorbed by the surface, then THAT SAME SURFACE is not interfered with in it's ability to radiate back out.

With an atmosphere that surfaces, both the ground water and gas, is routinely obstructed by the matter of the atmosphere as it attempts to radiate out.
Nope. Atmospheres radiate too.
tmiddles wrote:
Also it won't radiate straight out as it would from the surface of a perfect sphere, but scatter.
Nope. Scatter happens to higher frequencies only. Emissivity has no frequency term in it.
tmiddles wrote:
Some radiance will even rattle along parallel to the ground level and not even obey an up or down rule as many diagrams show.

It's not an old car. It doesn't rattle.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
30-01-2020 11:54
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(301)
I think I made a mistake in thinking that we could harvest the uv energy that is left from earth to heat up matter and rise the average temperature. It seems temping to do it. The air is full of electromagnetic energy that we could use to heat up something but the energy from sun is constant and there is a maximum temperature a body could be heated up. When the emissivity is 1 then the temperature of the body is highest. In other words when the body has already absorbed the energy as heat then the uv radiaton that the body starts to emit can not be used to heat up more matter from the same body in a way that the average temperature would rise. So this seems to be the mistake global warming supporters do. The say that the uv absorbed by Co2 ( from the surface of earth) could rise the average temperature of earth but it is not possible.
On the other hand, we know that earth is gray body.Some of the light is simply reflected from earth. Maybe there is a small efect of the atmosphere when it absorbs reflected light( not the light that is already absorbed by earth and is radiated as UV ) or directly form sun. In other words, atmosphere simply helps to absorb more light and therefore helps to rise overall average. It slightly just increases the emissivity of earth. We could also say that the effect from atmosphere is higher when the surface is lower emissivity. For example surface of ice an snow would reflect quite a bit of light but when we have an atmosphere that has higher emissivity than snow and ice the atmosphere is going to absorb this light that would otherwise left earth doing nothing.
Edited on 30-01-2020 12:21
30-01-2020 14:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
Xadoman wrote:
.... When the emissivity is 1 then the temperature of the body is highest. In other words when the body has already absorbed the energy as heat then the uv radiaton that the body starts to emit can not be used to heat up more matter from the same body in a way that the average temperature would rise....
If that is true then it's always true correct? Not just for the Earth but for other planets and even other objects.

Also if it's true then the global warming theory isn't just wrong it's impossible. So this is an excellent point to focus on.

So a few things I see being an issue with that:

1- Emissivity and temperature are about the "surface" which may or may not be the ground level. In Venus for example only 6% of the sunlight even reaches the dirt.

2- We are concerned with the temperature of the ground level in climate change / global warming and, as with 1, this may not be the emitting surface for radiance to leave Earth as a body (which includes the atmosphere)

3- We should see a maximum temperature of a perfect black body for Earth, Venus and any body. Earth has a ground level temp 40C higher than expected, Venus is 500C hotter!

4- The concept that for a black body having a consistent source of radiance there will always be the same quantity of thermal energy retained/present in the object from that radiance would mean that if Earth was an empty shell 1mm thick it would contain the same thermal energy as it does now.

Anyway thats some food for thought
30-01-2020 16:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
@tmiddles, your post is fine with these exceptions that are not forthwith agreed/accepted:

tmiddles wrote: In Venus for example only 6% of the sunlight even reaches the dirt.

Before you provide the valid dataset showing this, you would need to clarify semantically what you mean by this.

tmiddles wrote: Earth has a ground level temp 40C higher than expected, Venus is 500C hotter!

There's no subjunctive in science. There are no "expectations" beyond what we observe. If an observation goes against science then the science is falsified. If an "observation" is just a fabrication then the fabrication is obviously discarded.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
30-01-2020 20:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
.... When the emissivity is 1 then the temperature of the body is highest. In other words when the body has already absorbed the energy as heat then the uv radiaton that the body starts to emit can not be used to heat up more matter from the same body in a way that the average temperature would rise....
If that is true then it's always true correct? Not just for the Earth but for other planets and even other objects.

Also if it's true then the global warming theory isn't just wrong it's impossible. So this is an excellent point to focus on.

So a few things I see being an issue with that:

1- Emissivity and temperature are about the "surface" which may or may not be the ground level. In Venus for example only 6% of the sunlight even reaches the dirt.

Meaningless number. Argument from randU fallacy. 6% of what? The total output of the Sun?
tmiddles wrote:
2- We are concerned with the temperature of the ground level in climate change / global warming

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming.'
tmiddles wrote:
and, as with 1, this may not be the emitting surface for radiance to leave Earth as a body (which includes the atmosphere)

Most blackbody radiance comes from the surface. It is only part of the radiance of Earth, so it obviously is only part of the radiance, since the atmosphere has radiance also
tmiddles wrote:
3- We should see a maximum temperature of a perfect black body for Earth, Venus and any body. Earth has a ground level temp 40C higher than expected, Venus is 500C hotter!

There is no 'should be' in science. Argument from randU fallacy. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
4- The concept that for a black body having a consistent source of radiance there will always be the same quantity of thermal energy retained/present in the object from that radiance would mean that if Earth was an empty shell 1mm thick it would contain the same thermal energy as it does now.

Did you forget conductive heating? Did you forget convective heating? The amount of thermal energy in anything is directly related to its mass.
tmiddles wrote:
Anyway thats some food for thought

Bad food.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-03-2020 18:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
I posted this on 22 October 2014:

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

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


We are closing in on six years of searching for Global Warming science and it appears that not only has there never been any but none is forthcoming.

Can we close this issue as "RESOLVED: No Global Warming Science" and just bury it in the graveyard of WACKY religions throughout time?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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
19-03-2020 19:53
James___
★★★★★
(3292)
IBdaMann wrote:
I posted this on 22 October 2014:

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

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


We are closing in on six years of searching for Global Warming science and it appears that not only has there never been any but none is forthcoming.

Can we close this issue as "RESOLVED: No Global Warming Science" and just bury it in the graveyard of WACKY religions throughout time?


.



And you still ignore glacial melt. You also ignore recorded history. Of course, with philosophy, the basis for Isaac Asimov's "I Robot" is that logic is not fallible.
ie., in order to protect people, you need to protect people from themselves.
Therefore philosophy is the basis of communism. When your logic is accepted then people can only do what you allow them to do. And then you can never be shown to be wrong because people will be limited by your philosophy.

I just thought of a funny. Religion isn't falsifiable because it's about having faith. And this means that the only way philosophy isn't falsifiable is if it also is based on having faith in one's own belief which would make philosophy a religion.
Edited on 19-03-2020 20:42
20-03-2020 02:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James___ wrote: And you still ignore glacial melt.

Nope. You still deny glacial growth.

I fully acknowledge glacial melt. You need to snap out of your denial.


James___ wrote: You also ignore recorded history.

Nope. You still deny recorded history, specifically that there still is no Global Warming science.

I fully acknowledge recorded history. You need to snap out of your denial.


Note: Philosophy is the pursuit of rationally-based assumptions, i.e. assumptions with a rational basis. Religion is the pursuit of assumptions with no rational basis.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-03-2020 08:03
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
without having to prove scientific observations, if i were to report excessive flooding that MAY NOT have any connection with the data, would i get the right to protect people from floods and rising sea-levels.

does the budget have any provisions for checking natural disasters, as i am not very concerned with scientific achievement as i am with controlling and mitigating extreme damage because of certain 'INDUCED' ecological processes, even if they are based on false models.
20-03-2020 15:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
Amanbir Grewal wrote:without having to prove scientific observations, if i were to report excessive flooding that MAY NOT have any connection with the data, would i get the right to protect people from floods and rising sea-levels.

Not if it's all in your mind, and the reason you don't have any supporting data is because it isn't happening. You need to justify expenditures and artifically induced panic doesn't cut it.

Amanbir Grewal wrote: does the budget have any provisions for checking natural disasters, as i am not very concerned with scientific achievement as i am with controlling and mitigating extreme damage because of certain 'INDUCED' ecological processes, even if they are based on false models.

Then the budget has no provisions for imaginary events.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-03-2020 09:40
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
imaginary events do not cost you cheap labour!!!


AUGUST COMTE AN EMPLOYED SOCIALIST BEFORE A PANEL OTHERWISE A SIMPLE PLANNER OF GUISES AND POTIONS
22-03-2020 03:48
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(640)
Does anyone get who this is.I am sure confused.Amanbir Grewal
22-03-2020 04:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
duncan61 wrote: Does anyone get who this is.I am sure confused.Amanbir Grewal


duncan, can you recognize a random word/phrase producer when you see one in action?



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-03-2020 07:47
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(640)
Absolutely no Idea at all what random word/phrase producer is.I would be interested?
23-03-2020 03:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
duncan61 wrote:
Absolutely no Idea at all what random word/phrase producer is.I would be interested?


It is a program that generates random phrases and let's the reader's mind rationalize that the entire aggregation doesn't make sense because it must be very technical or philosophically profound.

About ten-twelve years ago a group of college students used a two-step generator application to build report that they submitted to the IPCC as a joke and won an award.

The first step was to select a random technical word from a technical glossary and then to perform the equivalent of a Google search on the internet for a sentence that contains that term. Each paragraph contained a random number (I think between 5 - 12) of randomly selected sentences, and when there were a suitable number of pages generated (I think 25 or thereabouts) then they put a nice randomly generated title involving "Climate" and submitted it as a joke when the IPCC did their "call for papers."

The bottom line is that it was given an award based on the title; nobody actually read it. The IPCC was embarrassed, but the media didn't report it heavily at all and it was dropped altogether within a few days.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-03-2020 07:26
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(640)
A bit like in church when some clown starts babbling in tongues and another clown translates gods message and clown one declares he was singing god save the queen in German
11-07-2020 00:47
andeep
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
If you look at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over the past millenia or two, you'll see a very strong correlation. This can be falsified if those relationships don't exist for a sufficiently long time, but with global climate it can take many years to make that kind of assessment. But given that those relationships have existed for a very long time, and knowing that the levels of CO2 have increased because of human beings, there is clearly an observable pattern to go by.
11-07-2020 01:48
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2551)
andeep wrote:
If you look at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over the past millenia or two, you'll see a very strong correlation. This can be falsified if those relationships don't exist for a sufficiently long time, but with global climate it can take many years to make that kind of assessment. But given that those relationships have existed for a very long time, and knowing that the levels of CO2 have increased because of human beings, there is clearly an observable pattern to go by.


We haven't been measuring CO2 or temperature, for even 200 years... Those thousands of years of scripture, you're reading from, are computer generated, and nothing more than speculation, at best.

This is our first recorded interglacial period, and we didn't really start thinking about it much, until after a lot of the ice melted, basically a glacier or two disappeared permanently. Remember than one of them was the primary source of fresh water in that area, most of the year. We've no idea how long a interglacial period lasts, or why. We don't really know much about a ice age either. Nobody was around, with much in the way of book learning, or writing skills, to record their experiences. Are we still in recovery from the ice age? Have we peaked? Will the temperature fall slowly. or quickly, as we head into the next ice age period. Whole planet freeze, or just part of it? Life persists and diverse, so doubtful it's the entire planet, all at the same time. Since the cooling isn't likely whole planet, all at once, would the warming sort of follow a similar pattern? Climate change just averages any and all numbers they feel useful together, losing any locational data.

Arctic ice, doesn't really seem to cooperate with catastrophic melting theory. Seems to be doing what it's always done. Some years there is a lot of melting, followed by basically the same recovery. Varies some every year. For a warmer overall planet, Al Gore's prediction should have come true, or been clearly obvious by now. Hasn't really change significantly.
11-07-2020 01:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
andeep wrote:
If you look at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature....


Yes but correlation isn't causation. We know that more CO2 will be released by ocean waters as temperatures increase. That alone would create a pattern of higher CO2 to higher temps with CO2 playing a solely passive role.

"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 valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 11-07-2020 01:52
11-07-2020 03:44
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(640)
We have looked at the amount of energy required to warm the ocean and we do not have the power needed
11-07-2020 06:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3377)
duncan61 wrote:
We have looked at the amount of energy required to warm the ocean and we do not have the power needed
We have? Power needed for what exactly?

Obviously the Sun has been powerful enough to bring the oceans to their current temperature.
11-07-2020 08:24
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(640)
You will need a bit more than a tiny bit of reflected radiance from the atmosphere to warm the oceans of the world light is still good at 60 feet but at 80 ft plus the light starts going out and at 120 ft you need artificial light to see properly.I know I dove the Yongala wreck out of Townsville on the barrier reef.The ocean is 5 km deep in places good luck warming that up
11-07-2020 15:16
andeep
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
HarveyH55 wrote:
andeep wrote:
If you look at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over the past millenia or two, you'll see a very strong correlation. This can be falsified if those relationships don't exist for a sufficiently long time, but with global climate it can take many years to make that kind of assessment. But given that those relationships have existed for a very long time, and knowing that the levels of CO2 have increased because of human beings, there is clearly an observable pattern to go by.


We haven't been measuring CO2 or temperature, for even 200 years... Those thousands of years of scripture, you're reading from, are computer generated, and nothing more than speculation, at best.

This is our first recorded interglacial period, and we didn't really start thinking about it much, until after a lot of the ice melted, basically a glacier or two disappeared permanently. Remember than one of them was the primary source of fresh water in that area, most of the year. We've no idea how long a interglacial period lasts, or why. We don't really know much about a ice age either. Nobody was around, with much in the way of book learning, or writing skills, to record their experiences. Are we still in recovery from the ice age? Have we peaked? Will the temperature fall slowly. or quickly, as we head into the next ice age period. Whole planet freeze, or just part of it? Life persists and diverse, so doubtful it's the entire planet, all at the same time. Since the cooling isn't likely whole planet, all at once, would the warming sort of follow a similar pattern? Climate change just averages any and all numbers they feel useful together, losing any locational data.

Arctic ice, doesn't really seem to cooperate with catastrophic melting theory. Seems to be doing what it's always done. Some years there is a lot of melting, followed by basically the same recovery. Varies some every year. For a warmer overall planet, Al Gore's prediction should have come true, or been clearly obvious by now. Hasn't really change significantly.


It isn't scriptures we're taking these trends from, but the geological record, ice cores, tree rings, etc.
11-07-2020 15:20
andeep
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
tmiddles wrote:
andeep wrote:
If you look at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature....


Yes but correlation isn't causation. We know that more CO2 will be released by ocean waters as temperatures increase. That alone would create a pattern of higher CO2 to higher temps with CO2 playing a solely passive role.

"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 valid for IBD or ITN


It's true correlation doesn't imply causation, but theoretical models confirm that CO2 levels cause global temperatures to rise, while the reverse scenario is relatively insignificant.
Page 7 of 9<<<56789>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Ultimate Secret Of Language, Number, Religion, Education, Science, Technology126-08-2020 08:58
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
▲ 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