Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

tmiddles wrote:... babbling about Fourier...

tmiddles wrote:Is there a "greenhouse equation" from Fourier? You had enough to claim there was a violation of science so let's start there.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
(by the way, what point are we supposedly moving towards?)

If Fourier's "Greenhouse effect" violates the 1st LTD.

Please post here in this thread Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.

IBdaMann wrote:Please post here in this thread Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and gfm7175 would like to see it too.

IBdaMann wrote:...Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.

What is that IBD? I've never heard of it.

google search can't find it either

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.

What is that IBD? I've never heard of it.

google search can't find it either

Great! So we can scratch everything you have ever mentioned about Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change to which you applied Fourier's name.

Thank you. That certainly eliminates a lot of boolsch't and leaves us a clear picture ... of the zero science you have supporting your religious faith.

.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.

What is that IBD? I've never heard of it.

google search can't find it either

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.

What is that IBD? I've never heard of it.

google search can't find it either

Great! So we can scratch everything you have ever mentioned about Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change to which you applied Fourier's name.

Thank you. That certainly eliminates a lot of boolsch't and leaves us a clear picture ... of the zero science you have supporting your religious faith.

.

This is Fourier to Svante Arrhenius. https://www.co2.earth/1820-1930-fourier-to-arrhenius Just read the first 2 paragraphs.
And I think I know what Fourier didn't understand. Who knows, maybe I can prove he was right all these years later.
When Svante supported CO2, it's possible that people took it to mean that's what Fourier was proposing but it wasn't.
Myself, I would say that Venus is much hotter than the Earth for a reason other than CO2. It's atmospheric pressure disagrees with it's gravitational constant.
Pourquoi? Je ne sais pas. Je ne suis pas Francais. Il est vrais. Je suis un Americain de l'Etats Unis d'Amerique.
And for what I want to do, it might create more of a problem than it's worth when in time, it would be sorted out anyway.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.

What is that IBD? I've never heard of it....

Great! So we can scratch everything you have ever mentioned about Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change to which you applied Fourier's name.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:1827 Fourier indicated...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. (source)...Disagree?

Let's review your post:...3) Violations of science ... and claiming that it's the argument of a famous dead mathematician.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...Fourier's greenhouse effect equation.

What is that IBD? I've never heard of it....

Great! So we can scratch everything you have ever mentioned about Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change to which you applied Fourier's name.

IBD you said that the initial theory Fourier (who coined "Greenhouse effect") put forward violated science:

tmiddles wrote:
What followed in our discussion last year was only a discussion of if there was actually a higher mean temperature at all.

tmiddles wrote:
Now that we are in agreement that there is I'd like to understand what you mean by "violations of science".

tmiddles wrote:
"Greenhouse equation" would seem to be an invented non sequitur. I don't know what that is if it's anything at all.

tmiddles wrote: IBD you said that the initial theory Fourier (who coined "Greenhouse effect") put forward violated science:

IBdaMann wrote:
At least write down Fourier's falsifiable Greenhosue Effect theory

tmiddles wrote:1827 Fourier indicated...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. (source)...Disagree?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
IBD you said that the initial theory Fourier (who coined "Greenhouse effect") put forward violated science:

It does.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
At least write down Fourier's falsifiable Greenhosue Effect theory

I did and I'll do it again (he was French of course so someone translated):

tmiddles wrote:1827 Fourier indicated...gases act as a thermal blanket, causing more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. (source)...Disagree?

tmiddles wrote:
It does.

Into the Night wrote:You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced?

... because the manner in which you are violating physics ceases to matter the moment you violate physics in any manner.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced?

... because the manner in which you are violating physics ceases to matter the moment you violate physics in any manner.

And in what manner are you claiming physics are being violated?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

How does the theory that the atmosphere retains some thermal energy, that it acts as insulation, mean entropy is being reduced?

... because the manner in which you are violating physics ceases to matter the moment you violate physics in any manner.

And in what manner are you claiming physics are being violated?

gfm7175 wrote: NET FLOW!! NET FLOW!! NET FLOW!!

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote: NET FLOW!! NET FLOW!! NET FLOW!!

We are about two months away from the one-year anniversary of tmiddles requirement to demonstrate thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body as required to establish the flow from warmer to cooler as a NET FLOW.

We should have a party. I'm guessing tmiddles is planning an awesome demonstration for that day. It will glorious, for sure!


.

keepit wrote:
Duncan,
You're right about gas being more efficient than wood or coal. The problem arises because there is so much more burning of fuel going on now rather than 50 or 100 or a 150 years ago. The CO2 production has increased greatly despite the efficiency.

IBdaMann wrote:
The idea that the atmosphere "retains" thermal energy denies Stefan-Boltzmann.

IBdaMann wrote:... tmiddles requirement to demonstrate thermal energy flowing...

duncan61 wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but the blanket effect of CO2 ...

tmiddles wrote: Are you saying that a sponge does not retain water?

tmiddles wrote: Has anyone in the history of blankets every thought that a blanket, warmed from your body heat, would trap that energy forever?

tmiddles wrote: Fourier was brilliantly on point for a guy making the observation in the early 1800s. The atmosphere does indeed retain thermal energy.

tmiddles wrote: Are you really going to abandon this based on pretending that "retain" in this context means keep forever?

tmiddles wrote: Fourier didn't say that and I am setting you straight now.

tmiddles wrote: A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water.

tmiddles wrote: You have decided that radiance is not a form of thermal energy transfer IBD.

tmiddles wrote: So what happens when the radiance from the walls of your room reach your skin IBD? ITN says "nothing"

tmiddles wrote: In fact Fourier theory from 1824 long predates Tyndalls work with CO2 in 1859.

duncan61 wrote:
https://www.co2.earth/1820-1930-fourier-to-arrhenius Just read the first 2 paragraphs.

I went to this link.Unbelieveable work of fiction.None of it works out and this is the crap we are supposed to believe.Its all theoretical.

James___ wrote: It does not say that Fourier supported any specific idea as to why the Earth is warmer than it should be.

James___ wrote: Other people can suggest why but they are not Fourier.

tmiddles wrote:
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water.

gfm7175 wrote:I was going to tell IBDaMann to put this into his signature, but it appears that he's already on it... hahahahahahaha WOW...

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:I was going to tell IBDaMann to put this into his signature, but it appears that he's already on it... hahahahahahaha WOW...

Done!

.

gfm7175 wrote:I think his brain is like a spaghetti strainer because information keeps flowing right out the bottom of it... He seems to think that he is "retaining" information because he is cramming it into his brain as fast as it can drain out. Derrrrr, the level of information is remaining the same, therefore information is being "retained". Derrrrr

It's been a long time since I've laughed this hard.

duncan61 wrote:...Dr Don Eastbrook accepts that CO2 can affect the atmosphere its the amounts that are the issue.

duncan61 wrote:https://www.co2.earth/1820-1930-fourier-to-arrhenius Just read the first 2 paragraphs.

"In the 1820s in France, Jean Fourier was investigating the behaviour of heat when his calculations revealed that the earth should not be as warm as it is. That is, the earth is too small and too far from the sun for it to be as warm and livable as it is. On its own, solar radiation is not enough. So what was warming the earth? As he pondered this question he came up with some suggestions. Among them is the idea that heat energy from the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere, and that some was not escaping back into space. The warmed air, he suspected, must be acting as a kind of insulating blanket. He had described what now is commonly known as the Greenhouse Effect. Fourier was the first to do so."

"In the 1820s, Fourier did not have the technology to make the measurements needed to explore his hypothesis. Decades later, the Victoria natural historian, John Tyndall, brought a fresh perspective to Fourier's question and suggestion. As an avid mountain climber, Tyndall observed evidence of climate-induced changes in ice caps, and he conducted experiments to measure the heat trapping propertities. This led to his discovery that water vapour and carbon dioxied are good at trapping heat."

duncan61 wrote:None of it works out and this is the crap we are supposed to believe.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Are you saying that a sponge does not retain water?

You are WRONG! You cannot store water in a spaghetti strainer! You're a moron for thinking otherwise.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: You have decided that radiance is not a form of thermal energy transfer IBD.

You are WRONG! There was no decision involved and you don't know what my position is....Still waiting for your demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: It does not say that Fourier supported any specific idea as to why the Earth is warmer than it should be.

... and no scientist assumes the subjunctive, e.g. that there is some other temperature that the earth "should" be. There is no subjunctive in science, i.e. the earth is exactly the temperature it should be. There is no other temperature that it can be given its distance from its energy source.

Fourier never pulled any "should-a, would-a, could-a"s. That's not science.

James___ wrote: Other people can suggest why but they are not Fourier.

It was tmiddles believing everything he reads on the internet and thinking that by posting a picture of Fourier that he then assumes all the authority of Fourier ... and somehow gets to speak for Fourier.

tmiddles is a moron.

.

James___ wrote: There's a lot that I don't think that they're stating what they mean. An example is that some parts of the Moon is over 200º F.

James___ wrote: If that's the surface material then that is not it's atmospheric temperature.

James___ wrote: And then they would be ignoring that surface material might actually be conserving that energy and not really radiating it.