Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Venus is hotter than Mercury?!? > Page 2

Page 2 of 28

17-07-2019 21:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	The temperature measured on Venus relative to what's measured on Mercury is 300+ degrees hotter Celcius and 500+ degrees hotter Ferenheit. Margin of error that. Keep hiding guys. You just sound nuts.
17-07-2019 21:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: The temperature measured on Venus relative to what's measured on Mercury is 300+ degrees hotter Celcius and 500+ degrees hotter Ferenheit. Margin of error that. So the next item on the list is your ignorance of margin of error. You need to read up on that as well. We have already covered your mathematical incompetence. Enjoy! I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
17-07-2019 22:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The temperature measured on Venus relative to what's measured on Mercury is 300+ degrees hotter Celcius and 500+ degrees hotter Ferenheit. Margin of error that. So the next item on the list is your ignorance of margin of error. You need to read up on that as well. We have already covered your mathematical incompetence. Enjoy! You both missed something.
17-07-2019 22:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: your ignorance ...You need ...your mathematical incompetence. Not about me nut job. You don't have a position or an opinion on the topic so you are not part of the debate. I just hope other won't consider you to represent the counter point to the climate debate. You're very active on here but have nothing to say. Your statements make me question your sanity but there is no science to critique. And stop pretending you wrote the manual on anything. Your links to your own pages is pathetic. You have never had valid data sets so how could you form an opinion on anything? Waste of everyone's time.
18-07-2019 00:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:I just hope other won't consider you to represent the counter point to the climate debate. With you there is no debate, there is no conversation. You think "discussing" this topic is your one-way preaching. Of course I can't address your responses to my questions because you refuse to respond to my questions. I can't point out your science errors because you avoid science like it's the plague. I can't explain your math errors because you are mathematically incompetent and you refuse to learn anything. I can't review the datasets supporting your conclusions because you don't have any valid datasets; all your ideas were preached to you by your church leaders and you obediently regurgitate your dogma here. You have ensured no possibility of any discussion on this topic. tmiddles wrote: You're very active on here but have nothing to say ... ... to which you will listen or learn. tmiddles wrote:You have never had valid data sets so how could you form an opinion on anything? I have never seen any valid datasets supporting the conclusion of Global Warming, so I am not a believer. It's funny that you haven't either but nonetheless allowed yourself to be scammed. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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

18-07-2019 00:21
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: I have never seen any valid datasets supporting the conclusion of Global Warming, You have by your own description never seen a valid data set of anything. You don't believe a valid data is possible if it doesn't suit you. You refuse to name any examples because you know you couldn't explain why you trust some data and not others. You are crazy man. For all the non-nutjobs who might read this check out Hoffman he is a real scientist giving a well founded and credible argument against the modern global warming hysteria (from original post): there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself. And yes this real scientist has real datasets. Edited on 18-07-2019 00:30
18-07-2019 01:04
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	FYI, the Earth is about 330 kelvins. If CO2 has twice as much warming effect as other gasses then it is responsible for about 25 kelvins. 1 kelvin = 1° C. This would mean that for every 16 ppm that CO2 increases, 1° C. warmer. If CO2 has the same warming as N2 and O2 then for every 32 ppm increase in CO2 our atmosphere should warm by 1° C. If that were the case then scientists would've mentioned that by now. What's not being said is that as CO2 increases O2 decreases. From here we get into atmospheric chemistry.
18-07-2019 01:18
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote:CO2 has twice as much warming effect as other gasses I don't follow your math. I think the argument is that CO2 over the time it is around before it's absorbed into the ocean (often neglected detail in the discussion), has a small effect that could add up. The irony is that we've seen a spike in CO2 with a corresponding plateau in average temperature. VENUS is a fantastic reference since it's almost all CO2. It makes Hoffman's argument very compelling.
18-07-2019 01:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: a few minutes, before meltdown. Would be kind of cool to land, grab a couple souvenirs, and bring them back. FYI We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. 117 days to reach Venus 1970 Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes on th surface 1972 Venera 8 50 minutes, 11 seconds 1975 Venera 9 53 minutes 1975 Venera 10 65 minutes 1978 Venera 11 95 minutes 1978 Venera 12 110 minutes 1982 Venera 13 127 minutes 1983 Venera 14 The lander functioned for at least 57 minutes (the planned design life was 32 minutes) in an environment with a temperature of 465 °C (869 °F) and a pressure of 94 Earth atmospheres (9.5 MPa). 1985 Venera 15, 16 1985 not landing The descent through the cloud layer took about 20 minutes, during which time the lander took measurements of the atmosphere and radioed the information to the orbiter[7] Edited on 18-07-2019 02:13
18-07-2019 02:12
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:CO2 has twice as much warming effect as other gasses I don't follow your math. I think the argument is that CO2 over the time it is around before it's absorbed into the ocean (often neglected detail in the discussion), has a small effect that could add up. The irony is that we've seen a spike in CO2 with a corresponding plateau in average temperature. VENUS is a fantastic reference since it's almost all CO2. It makes Hoffman's argument very compelling. CO2 levels started rising in 1950. The current warming period started in 1978. With the math, tie in CO2 levels to temperature in kelvins. Why is Mercury - 173 at night? It's atmosphere is that thin. We can't say consider temperature and CO2 levels only when it's warm. Could be why scientists are missing the big picture. There might be an interesting phenomena going on. As O2 declines and CO2 increases more water vapor is in our atmosphere. This could be why the ozone layer isn't recovering. And the ozone layer's depletion can allow in enough solar radiation in w/m^2 to allow for warming. When O and O2 forms ozone, it absorbs solar radiation and takes it away from the troposphere which is what we live in. And with ozone being depleted, less solar radiation is directed back out into space. That seems to be what's happening. Edited on 18-07-2019 02:26
18-07-2019 02:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote:Could be why scientists are missing the big picture. I think a sensible approach it to look at what real scientists are saying (bonus if you have disagreement) and try to break things down from there. Hoffman's a great one to look at. And didn't the current warming start 12000 years ago? "the earth's most recent glaciation, which ended about 12500 years ago"
18-07-2019 03:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:Could be why scientists are missing the big picture. I think a sensible approach it to look at what real scientists are saying Only the gullible who need to be manipulated look for people to worship. The sensible thing is to see what science says, and screw the opinions of others. Science is not subjective and is not open to a vote. Science might require a scientist to create science, but even an eight-year-old can understand science. It's easy and straightforward. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
18-07-2019 04:04
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:Could be why scientists are missing the big picture. I think a sensible approach it to look at what real scientists are saying (bonus if you have disagreement) and try to break things down from there. Hoffman's a great one to look at. And didn't the current warming start 12000 years ago? "the earth's most recent glaciation, which ended about 12500 years ago" Scientists don't understand natural climate variation. They can say it happens but not why. CO2 might be nothing more than nature's barometer. When the planet started warming after the last ice age, it took about 800 years for CO2 levels to start increasing. That's also about how long it takes the thermohaline circulation to complete one cycle. It takes time for the oceans to warm. The current argument for CO2 causing global warming is based on claims that CO2 levels rose and ended the last ice age. That's often ignored anymore but some ice core researchers point that out. https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/
18-07-2019 04:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: your ignorance ...You need ...your mathematical incompetence. Not about me nut job. You don't have a position or an opinion on the topic so you are not part of the debate. But it is. YOU made the wild claim that you know the temperature of Venus and Mercury, didn't you? It's about your mathematical incompetence. tmiddles wrote: I just hope other won't consider you to represent the counter point to the climate debate. He, like I, simply present the theories of science you are ignoring and the mathematics you are ignoring. Those ARE the counter points to the climate debate. IBdaMann is better at ridiculing idiots like you than I am, sometimes producing some very entertaining comments and images in his posts. tmiddles wrote: You're very active on here but have nothing to say. Bulverism fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Your statements make me question your sanity but there is no science to critique. You just stated that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not science! tmiddles wrote: And stop pretending you wrote the manual on anything. He is in fact the author of a large portion of The Manual. Others have certainly made their contributions, but IBdaMann started it in a thread I built specifically to declare the definitions of words and their etymology. tmiddles wrote: Your links to your own pages is pathetic. Bulverism fallacy. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law do not change just because they are posted in a particular location. tmiddles wrote: You have never had valid data sets so how could you form an opinion on anything? Theories of science need no data sets. Neither IBdaMann is trying to prove anything. YOU are. Burden of proof fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Waste of everyone's time. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that keeps asking the same questions over and over. It is YOU that keeps evading a question put to you over and over. It is YOU that denies the theories of science over and over. It is YOU that denies statistical mathematics and makes the same false equivalencies over and over. Now you have the gall to try to speak for every single person on this forum??? 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-07-2019 04:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	IBdaMann wrote: I have never seen any valid datasets supporting the conclusion of Global Warming, tmiddles wrote:You have by your own description never seen a valid data set of anything. Add to the list that your English comprehension is insufficient to carry a conversation in this language. tmiddles wrote: You don't believe a valid data is possible if it doesn't suit you. A valid dataset that supports a violation of physics is not likely. tmiddles wrote:You refuse to name any examples because you know you couldn't explain why you trust some data and not others. Obviously you have refused to read the DATA MINE requirements that I offered in response to your question. tmiddles wrote: For all the non-nutjobs who might read this check out Hoffman he is a real scientist ... Read the article again. Real scientists don't use the word "albedo." It's your big red flag that he's regurgitating someone else's ideas. tmiddles wrote: And yes this real scientist has real datasets. I realize that you firmly believe that. You and I both know why you haven't posted those datasets, i.e. they don't really exist, but you were told to believe that they do, and you obeyed. I'm not the only one who is waiting with bated breath for you to post the datasets that support your conclusions. No one wants to hear about "other people" who supposedly have these (imaginary) data sets. Post the datasets. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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

18-07-2019 04:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I have never seen any valid datasets supporting the conclusion of Global Warming, You have by your own description never seen a valid data set of anything. You don't believe a valid data is possible if it doesn't suit you. You refuse to name any examples because you know you couldn't explain why you trust some data and not others. Nah. He's just not as gullible as you are about data. tmiddles wrote: You are crazy man. YALIF. tmiddles wrote: For all the non-nutjobs who might read this check out Hoffman he is a real scientist giving a well founded and credible argument against the modern global warming hysteria (from original post): there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself. And yes this real scientist has real datasets. Okay. You just destroyed your own argument. You are now in paradox. 1) Venus is hotter because of greenhouse effect. 2) Venus is NOT hotter because of greenhouse effect. Which is it, dude? 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-07-2019 04:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Notice to all reading: IBdaMann and Into the Night are, in my view, engaged in an attempt to hijack this forum by mucking up threads they dislike with unrelated content. It's just a form of suppression and censorship. Trolls do it all the time. I no longer wish to hear from either of you here as long as you are simply questioning the ability of data to be gathered and such nonsense. So write to someone else. Our concepts of reality are too far apart. I realize no one is around at the moment but hopefully someone out there will be interested in discussing Huffman at some point, the topic of this thread. Edited on 18-07-2019 04:50
18-07-2019 04:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:CO2 has twice as much warming effect as other gasses I don't follow your math. He wasn't using any. tmiddles wrote: I think the argument is that CO2 over the time it is around before it's absorbed into the ocean (often neglected detail in the discussion), has a small effect that could add up. Anyone for a nice, refreshing, carbonated glass of ocean water? tmiddles wrote: The irony is that we've seen a spike in CO2 with a corresponding plateau in average temperature. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. tmiddles wrote: VENUS is a fantastic reference since it's almost all CO2. It makes Hoffman's argument very compelling. You are still locked in paradox. You are being irrational now. You must clear your paradox. The only way to do that is to choose one of the conflicting arguments and utterly reject the other. If you can do that and maintain such a position, I can consider the paradox resolved, but not before then. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 18-07-2019 04:50
18-07-2019 04:51
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Start a thread on that and see who's interested. I'm not.
18-07-2019 04:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: a few minutes, before meltdown. Would be kind of cool to land, grab a couple souvenirs, and bring them back. FYI We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. 117 days to reach Venus 1970 Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes on th surface 1972 Venera 8 50 minutes, 11 seconds 1975 Venera 9 53 minutes 1975 Venera 10 65 minutes 1978 Venera 11 95 minutes 1978 Venera 12 110 minutes 1982 Venera 13 127 minutes 1983 Venera 14 The lander functioned for at least 57 minutes (the planned design life was 32 minutes) in an environment with a temperature of 465 °C (869 °F) and a pressure of 94 Earth atmospheres (9.5 MPa). 1985 Venera 15, 16 1985 not landing The descent through the cloud layer took about 20 minutes, during which time the lander took measurements of the atmosphere and radioed the information to the orbiter[7] Yup. A single thermometer. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-07-2019 04:59
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:CO2 has twice as much warming effect as other gasses I don't follow your math. I think the argument is that CO2 over the time it is around before it's absorbed into the ocean (often neglected detail in the discussion), has a small effect that could add up. The irony is that we've seen a spike in CO2 with a corresponding plateau in average temperature. VENUS is a fantastic reference since it's almost all CO2. It makes Hoffman's argument very compelling. CO2 levels started rising in 1950. The current warming period started in 1978. With the math, tie in CO2 levels to temperature in kelvins. Why is Mercury - 173 at night? It's atmosphere is that thin. We can't say consider temperature and CO2 levels only when it's warm. Could be why scientists are missing the big picture. There might be an interesting phenomena going on. As O2 declines and CO2 increases more water vapor is in our atmosphere. This could be why the ozone layer isn't recovering. And the ozone layer's depletion can allow in enough solar radiation in w/m^2 to allow for warming. When O and O2 forms ozone, it absorbs solar radiation and takes it away from the troposphere which is what we live in. And with ozone being depleted, less solar radiation is directed back out into space. That seems to be what's happening. Didn't CO2 monitoring at Mauna Loa start in 1958? So, would that sort of indicate a pre-drawn conclusion? The first weather satellites launch in 1978, which is where the warming data is drawn from. It was already decided the global warming, because of man-made CO2, before the tools to show it, were even in place. We didn't have the tools to make such an observation, before we had the tools, certainly no data to make such a conclusion, yet it was already consider a dire problem, that needed to be fixed in a hurry.
18-07-2019 05:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:CO2 has twice as much warming effect as other gasses I don't follow your math. I think the argument is that CO2 over the time it is around before it's absorbed into the ocean (often neglected detail in the discussion), has a small effect that could add up. The irony is that we've seen a spike in CO2 with a corresponding plateau in average temperature. VENUS is a fantastic reference since it's almost all CO2. It makes Hoffman's argument very compelling. CO2 levels started rising in 1950. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. James___ wrote: The current warming period started in 1978. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. James___ wrote: With the math, tie in CO2 levels to temperature in kelvins. What CO2 levels? What temperature? You have no data. James___ wrote: Why is Mercury - 173 at night? It's atmosphere is that thin. We can't say consider temperature and CO2 levels only when it's warm. Word salad. James___ wrote: Could be why scientists are missing the big picture. Some of them don't like salad. James___ wrote: There might be an interesting phenomena going on. Salads can be interesting, but that depends on the chef. James___ wrote: As O2 declines and CO2 increases more water vapor is in our atmosphere. Water is neither O2 nor CO2. James___ wrote: This could be why the ozone layer isn't recovering. Water is not made out of ozone. There is no ozone to 'recover'. James___ wrote: And the ozone layer's depletion It is not being depleted. James___ wrote: can allow in enough solar radiation in w/m^2 to allow for warming. UV light absorption does not convert to thermal energy. James___ wrote: When O and O2 forms ozone, it absorbs solar radiation and takes it away from the troposphere which is what we live in. Paradox. 1) O2 absorbs solar radiation. 2) O2 does not absorb solar radiation, but reflects it. Which is it, dude? BTW, feel like clearing any of the other paradoxes you've manage to accumulate? James___ wrote: And with ozone being depleted, Ozone is not being depleted. James___ wrote: less solar radiation is directed back out into space. Irrational. You must clear your paradox. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-07-2019 05:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:Could be why scientists are missing the big picture. I think a sensible approach it to look at what real scientists are saying (bonus if you have disagreement) and try to break things down from there. Hoffman's a great one to look at. And didn't the current warming start 12000 years ago? "the earth's most recent glaciation, which ended about 12500 years ago" Irrational. You must clear your paradox. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-07-2019 05:06
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: Didn't CO2 monitoring at Mauna Loa start in 1958? Good point but do you see the value test the theory of CO2 playing a roll and testing it? I mean CO2 is easy enough to get a hold of as is infrared radiation (heat lamp), light, our regular atmosphere. Do you think experimental data is useful? And (BACK TO THIS THREAD) what about using comparisons with theory using what we've learned about Venus?
18-07-2019 05:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. TROLL and a CENSOR. Is ANYONE reading this guys posts? He's just trying to shout everyone down with nonsense. Start a thread on this we can't measure anything crap Into the Night and those who wish to talk about it can do it there.
18-07-2019 05:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:Could be why scientists are missing the big picture. I think a sensible approach it to look at what real scientists are saying (bonus if you have disagreement) and try to break things down from there. Hoffman's a great one to look at. And didn't the current warming start 12000 years ago? "the earth's most recent glaciation, which ended about 12500 years ago" Scientists don't understand natural climate variation. There isn't any. Climates may be different, but they do not change. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather. James___ wrote: They can say it happens but not why. They can't say it happens. It is illogical. Climate is not a quantifiable thing. There is no way to describe a 'change' in it. No matter where a desert may form, a desert climate is still a desert climate. James___ wrote: CO2 might be nothing more than nature's barometer. CO2 does not measure pressure. James___ wrote: When the planet started warming after the last ice age, it took about 800 years for CO2 levels to start increasing. How do you know? Were you there? How were you measuring the global atmospheric CO2 content? That's not even possible today. James___ wrote: That's also about how long it takes the thermohaline circulation to complete one cycle. It has no cycle. It is a collection of many currents. James___ wrote: It takes time for the oceans to warm. It takes time for any mass to warm. So? James___ wrote: The current argument for CO2 causing global warming is based on claims that CO2 levels rose and ended the last ice age. That's often ignored anymore but some ice core researchers point that out. https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/ Proxy data is useless to science. You might as well use Holy Entrails. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-07-2019 05:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: Notice to all reading: IBdaMann and Into the Night are, in my view, engaged in an attempt to hijack this forum by mucking up threads they dislike with unrelated content. It's just a form of suppression and censorship. Trolls do it all the time. I no longer wish to hear from either of you here as long as you are simply questioning the ability of data to be gathered and such nonsense. So write to someone else. Our concepts of reality are too far apart. I realize no one is around at the moment but hopefully someone out there will be interested in discussing Huffman at some point, the topic of this thread. This post is AMAZING! I wake up each morning certain that I have seen it all ... and today you stun me with the realization that I hadn't. I recommend everyone reading this thread read your previous posts in other threads ... and then read how you created this thread in order to pull a complete 180-degree U-turn after you realized from previous responses from others how embarrassing your position really is. You are a scientifically illiterate moron who avoids science ... but who insists on blaming others for his confusion. You are a mathematically incompetent dolt who insists on humiliating himself on matters of statistics ... but who insists on blaming others for his stupid conclusions he can't support. You refuse to define your terms ... just so you can appear "correct" by showing that others can't prove you incorrect, i.e. they can't show your religion false. ... I think it's pretty clear that Into the Night and I have played into your hands. You're welcome. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
18-07-2019 05:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Didn't CO2 monitoring at Mauna Loa start in 1958? Good point but do you see the value test the theory of CO2 playing a roll and testing it? I mean CO2 is easy enough to get a hold of as is infrared radiation (heat lamp), light, our regular atmosphere. Do you think experimental data is useful? And (BACK TO THIS THREAD) what about using comparisons with theory using what we've learned about Venus? Irrational. You must clear your paradox. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-07-2019 05:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. TROLL and a CENSOR. Ah. The old YALIF. Someone disagrees with you and that automatically makes them a 'troll'. To IBdaMann, mark down that tmiddles is illiterate in Internet lingo as well. tmiddles wrote: Is ANYONE reading this guys posts? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Lots of people do. You just did and responded to it! tmiddles wrote: He's just trying to shout everyone down with nonsense. Inversion fallacy. I am just saying it is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. tmiddles wrote: Start a thread on this we can't measure anything crap Into the Night and those who wish to talk about it can do it there. Nah. You make the argument from randU fallacy everywhere, so I'll call you on it everywhere you make it. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-07-2019 05:30
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:CO2 has twice as much warming effect as other gasses I don't follow your math. I think the argument is that CO2 over the time it is around before it's absorbed into the ocean (often neglected detail in the discussion), has a small effect that could add up. The irony is that we've seen a spike in CO2 with a corresponding plateau in average temperature. VENUS is a fantastic reference since it's almost all CO2. It makes Hoffman's argument very compelling. CO2 levels started rising in 1950. The current warming period started in 1978. With the math, tie in CO2 levels to temperature in kelvins. Why is Mercury - 173 at night? It's atmosphere is that thin. We can't say consider temperature and CO2 levels only when it's warm. Could be why scientists are missing the big picture. There might be an interesting phenomena going on. As O2 declines and CO2 increases more water vapor is in our atmosphere. This could be why the ozone layer isn't recovering. And the ozone layer's depletion can allow in enough solar radiation in w/m^2 to allow for warming. When O and O2 forms ozone, it absorbs solar radiation and takes it away from the troposphere which is what we live in. And with ozone being depleted, less solar radiation is directed back out into space. That seems to be what's happening. Didn't CO2 monitoring at Mauna Loa start in 1958? So, would that sort of indicate a pre-drawn conclusion? The first weather satellites launch in 1978, which is where the warming data is drawn from. It was already decided the global warming, because of man-made CO2, before the tools to show it, were even in place. We didn't have the tools to make such an observation, before we had the tools, certainly no data to make such a conclusion, yet it was already consider a dire problem, that needed to be fixed in a hurry. Yet if ozone depletion is letting heat in, that could be a bigger problem than CO2. That could hurt agricultural production. No one looks at the watts per square meter necessary for us to have a warm atmosphere. With CO2, early ice core research didn't show CO2 levels rising until after the ice age was coming to an end. That's what fueled the CO2 is causing global warming argument in the 1960's. People often overlook that. And if ozone depletion is causing warming then CFC's might be the real threat. With me, I don't doubt that warming is occurring. I have doubts about CO2's influence. Also you need to remember that I believe that CO2 supports the ozone layer. Basically it's not a good situation but if we had a healthy ozone layer there might not be a problem outside of natural climate variation. [url] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190624111536.htm[/url]

18-07-2019 05:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: The irony is that we've seen a spike in CO2 with a corresponding plateau in average temperature. You make this claim, not because you have seen any valid dataset that supports this conclusion but because you were told to believe it without question. tmiddles wrote: VENUS is a fantastic reference since it's almost all CO2. Venus' atmosphere is irrelevant. Science is the only reference of any value in this discussion. tmiddles wrote: It makes Hoffman's argument very compelling. You would need a valid dataset for that. Oooops, neither you nor Hoffman have any. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
18-07-2019 05:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Notice to all reading: IBdaMann and Into the Night are, in my view, engaged in an attempt to hijack this forum by mucking up threads they dislike with unrelated content. Lie. There is no thread we dislike. Every response of ours to your posts have been directly related to your own posts. tmiddles wrote: It's just a form of suppression and censorship. Trolls do it all the time. We are doing nothing to suppress you. We are doing nothing to censor you. Go learn what an internet 'troll' is. tmiddles wrote: I no longer wish to hear from either of you here as long as you are simply questioning the ability of data to be gathered and such nonsense. So...censorship, yes? You say WE censor you and the you want to censor us??? WTF??? You will find you can't make us go away. tmiddles wrote: So write to someone else. Nah. We will write posts wherever and whenever we want to. If you choose not to present any counterarguments, that's YOUR problem. tmiddles wrote: Our concepts of reality are too far apart. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'reality'. Betcha can't! Hint: it has nothing to do with Universal Truth. tmiddles wrote: I realize no one is around at the moment but hopefully someone out there will be interested in discussing Huffman at some point, the topic of this thread. Irrational. You must clear your paradox. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-07-2019 05:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote:CO2 has twice as much warming effect as other gasses I don't follow your math. I think the argument is that CO2 over the time it is around before it's absorbed into the ocean (often neglected detail in the discussion), has a small effect that could add up. The irony is that we've seen a spike in CO2 with a corresponding plateau in average temperature. VENUS is a fantastic reference since it's almost all CO2. It makes Hoffman's argument very compelling. CO2 levels started rising in 1950. The current warming period started in 1978. With the math, tie in CO2 levels to temperature in kelvins. Why is Mercury - 173 at night? It's atmosphere is that thin. We can't say consider temperature and CO2 levels only when it's warm. Could be why scientists are missing the big picture. There might be an interesting phenomena going on. As O2 declines and CO2 increases more water vapor is in our atmosphere. This could be why the ozone layer isn't recovering. And the ozone layer's depletion can allow in enough solar radiation in w/m^2 to allow for warming. When O and O2 forms ozone, it absorbs solar radiation and takes it away from the troposphere which is what we live in. And with ozone being depleted, less solar radiation is directed back out into space. That seems to be what's happening. Didn't CO2 monitoring at Mauna Loa start in 1958? So, would that sort of indicate a pre-drawn conclusion? The first weather satellites launch in 1978, which is where the warming data is drawn from. It was already decided the global warming, because of man-made CO2, before the tools to show it, were even in place. We didn't have the tools to make such an observation, before we had the tools, certainly no data to make such a conclusion, yet it was already consider a dire problem, that needed to be fixed in a hurry. Yet if ozone depletion is letting heat in, UV light is not heat. The ozone is not being depleted. James___ wrote: that could be a bigger problem than CO2. CO2 is not a problem. James___ wrote: That could hurt agricultural production. No one looks at the watts per square meter necessary for us to have a warm atmosphere. Light is not heat. James___ wrote: With CO2, early ice core research didn't show CO2 levels rising until after the ice age was coming to an end. Ice cores do not show anything about CO2. Science does not use proxy data. James___ wrote: That's what fueled the CO2 is causing global warming argument in the 1960's. People often overlook that. 1980's actually. In the 1970's people were all agog about global cooling. In the 60's, no one cared about it either way. James___ wrote: And if ozone depletion is causing warming The ozone is not being depleted. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. James___ wrote: then CFC's might be the real threat. Putting CFC's into a tank of ozone results in NO REACTION at all. The two chemicals simply do not react with each other. James___ wrote: With me, I don't doubt that warming is occurring. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Your belief is one based strictly on faith. James___ wrote: I have doubts about CO2's influence. It is none. Zip. Zero. Nul. Nada. James___ wrote: Also you need to remember that I believe that CO2 supports the ozone layer. Wait...WTF??? You are now locked in paradox. 1) CO2 affects climate. 2) CO2 does not affect climate. Which is it, dude? ...deleted remaining irrational arguments... You're gonna have to clear this one before you can rationally talk about CO2 and climate again! 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-07-2019 05:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: Yet if ozone depletion is letting heat in, that could be a bigger problem than CO2. Ergo, since the ozone is not depleting, what? James___ wrote: And if ozone depletion is causing warming then CFC's might be the real threat. Ergo, since the ozone is not depleting, what? James___ wrote:With me, I don't doubt that warming is occurring. ... and Christians have no doubt that God is real and active in our lives. James___ wrote: I have doubts about CO2's influence. Would it be correct to say that you have no doubts about Climate's influence, and Global Warming's influence, and about Greenhouse Effect's influence? James___ wrote: Also you need to remember that I believe that CO2 supports the ozone layer. How exactly? Like a pillar? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
18-07-2019 05:52
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	t middles, I looked Hoffman up. My opinion is based on what I've learned. I just did a search for when global warming started and at carbon brief dot come they said around 1830 is what some climate scientists are proposing. Yet from about 1880 to 1980 not much of a change. https://images.app.goo.gl/q97n92thjUNwuynYA Kind of difficult to disagree with NOAA. About every year for that century was actually cooler. And unfortunately that coincides with ozone depletion. https://images.app.goo.gl/WBxz9ehR9Vgkse579
18-07-2019 06:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: I just did a search for when global warming started and at carbon brief dot come they said around 1830 is what some climate scientists are proposing. Climate Scientists? Proposed? It reminds me of how Catholic Church leaders once "proposed" December 25th as Jesus' birthday. Clearly it was a scientific truth and not some religious preference. James___ wrote: Yet from about 1880 to 1980 not much of a change. If only this were a Las Vegas sportsbook item, I'd bet my life savings that no valid dataset was ever produced to support this ... and I'd be a far richer man today ... depending on the posted odds, of course. James___ wrote: Kind of difficult to disagree with NOAA. Disagreeing with a government agency is the second easiest thing to do in life behind making Jell-O. Only a Marxist would worship government agencies as you do. James___ wrote:About every year for that century was actually cooler. And unfortunately that coincides with ozone depletion. Idiot! It coincides with John Lennon's assassination! There is no ozone depletion. The assassination set off a chain of events that directly led to increases in earth's average global temperature of 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade. It's kind of hard to disagree with NOAA. the average rate of increase is more than twice as great (0.18°C / 0.32°F per decade) since 1981. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
18-07-2019 08:19
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: I just did a search for when global warming started and at carbon brief dot come they said around 1830 is what some climate scientists are proposing. Climate Scientists? Proposed? It reminds me of how Catholic Church leaders once "proposed" December 25th as Jesus' birthday. Clearly it was a scientific truth and not some religious preference. James___ wrote: Yet from about 1880 to 1980 not much of a change. If only this were a Las Vegas sportsbook item, I'd bet my life savings that no valid dataset was ever produced to support this ... and I'd be a far richer man today ... depending on the posted odds, of course. James___ wrote: Kind of difficult to disagree with NOAA. Disagreeing with a government agency is the second easiest thing to do in life behind making Jell-O. Only a Marxist would worship government agencies as you do. James___ wrote:About every year for that century was actually cooler. And unfortunately that coincides with ozone depletion. Idiot! It coincides with John Lennon's assassination! There is no ozone depletion. The assassination set off a chain of events that directly led to increases in earth's average global temperature of 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade. It's kind of hard to disagree with NOAA. the average rate of increase is more than twice as great (0.18°C / 0.32°F per decade) since 1981. Feeling neglected?
18-07-2019 13:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: Feeling neglected? Projecting? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
18-07-2019 13:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote: Feeling neglected? James do what you want but the one rule with Trolls has always been not to feed them. You make your own judgement on who's here to simply prevent any real debate but I would encourage you to ignore those people. They feed off the damage they do. Let's try to get this forum going again!
18-07-2019 16:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:James do what you want but the one rule with Trolls has always been not to feed them. From The MANUAL: Denier or Troll: noun Non-believer; anyone who does not accept Climate Science or who is even willing to express opinions that differ from the Marxist party line. Deniers and Trolls are analogous to "orcs" in the Lord of the Rings. tmiddles wrote: You make your own judgement on who's here to simply prevent any real debate but I would encourage you to ignore those people. James__ has expressed differences with the same people with whom you have issues *however* James__ at least makes an effort to embrace science. He will not be as easily manipulated by you as you were by your indoctrinators. Sure, you'll have no trouble getting him to agree that he does not like me, for example ... but I'd be interested in your attempts to convert him your church of science avoidance. Please, proceed. tmiddles wrote:Let's try to get this forum going again! It has been "going." What do you mean by "get this forum going"? Oh wait, I've learned my lesson about asking you to clarify your terms. I can presume you mean whatever is most dishonest, i.e. you want to shut down whatever is currently "going" about this forum. Should Branner anticipate spam on your end? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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

Page 2 of 28

Join the debate Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?	129	19-12-2019 17:10
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof	5	09-10-2019 03:15
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus	88	26-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury	4	18-09-2019 22:37