Remember me
▼ Content

What is ...?



Page 1 of 212>
What is ...?26-09-2015 21:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
What is the "greenhouse effect" supposed to be? Is it a scientific thingy that is supposed to adhere to the laws of physics? ...or is it merely a highly touted "miracle" of the Global Warming religion?

When you use the word "Climate", what do you mean? Is it a completely notional concept (i.e. just statistics and averages) or is it tangible reality (i.e. some part of our physical environment)? Keep in mind that only religions get to have it both ways.


All responses are welcome.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-09-2015 23:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Perhaps it would have been a good idea to bone up a little on the topic before spamming all the threads with your ignorance!
27-09-2015 01:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Surface Detail wrote:
Perhaps it would have been a good idea to bone up a little on the topic before spamming all the threads with your ignorance!

Perhaps it would have been a good idea to have boned up on the topic before responding. Most scientific illiterates can't express this concept in their own words. They're like Christians who need to defer to their minister.

Don't you find that embarrassing, that you can't even express in your own words one of your core, fundamental beliefs?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
27-09-2015 01:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Why don't you stop blathering and just read the Wikipedia entry? It explains the science behind the greenhouse effect more clearly and in more detail than I could.

However, the gist of it is that certain gases in the atmosphere (primarily water vapour, CO2 and methane) are transparent to the short wavelength radiation (UV and visible) from the sun but absorb the long wave infra-red radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. This IR radiation is then re-emitted in all directions, including downwards, which has the net effect of hindering its emission into space. The overall result of this is that these gases keep the Earth's surface some 33 C warmer than it would otherwise be. Increasing the concentrations of these gases increases the warming effect.

Edit: Here's another link that explains the greenhouse effect in somewhat simpler language that you may find easier to follow:
http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-effect
Edited on 27-09-2015 01:39
27-09-2015 03:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Surface Detail wrote:
Why don't you stop blathering and just read the Wikipedia entry?

I've read plenty of erroneous Wikipedia "blather" on the subject. It all amounts to violations of physics. Of course the scientifically illiterate wouldn't realize this and would refer people to it.

Why don't you just give me the simple version in your own words? Just post it right here.

Surface Detail wrote: However, the gist of it is that certain gases in the atmosphere (primarily water vapour, CO2 and methane) are transparent to the short wavelength radiation (UV and visible) from the sun but absorb the long wave infra-red radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. This IR radiation is then re-emitted in all directions, including downwards, which has the net effect of hindering its emission into space. The overall result of this is that these gases keep the Earth's surface some 33 C warmer than it would otherwise be. Increasing the concentrations of these gases increases the warming effect.

If you weren't scientifically illiterate, you would QUICKLY realize that you just described a clear violation of the 1st LoT. None of the technical specifics you mention are of any relevance, they merely serve to confuse those who don't understand what they're reading.

Let's walk through this. Answer me this question:

If I were to magically convert 10% of the atmosphere's nitrogen into an equivalent mass of CO2, do you believe the earth's atmosphere increase in temperature?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
27-09-2015 13:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
What "technical specifics" are you talking about? My brief summary was about as non-technical as it is possible to be and still convey the basics. If you don't understand the difference between, for example, long and short wave radiation, then I'm afraid your scientific knowledge is simply too limited to comprehend the issue.

As for your last question: Yes, of course the Earth's temperature would rise if you converted 10% of the atmosphere's nitrogen into CO2. The high concentration of CO2 would reduce the emission of IR radiation into space, thus giving rise to a net input of energy to the Earth. The temperature of the Earth would then rise until it reached a temperature at which IR emissions again balanced incoming solar radiation. This is why the average temperature on Venus, with its thick CO2 atmosphere, is higher then that of Mercury despite being further from the sun.
Edited on 27-09-2015 13:56
27-09-2015 18:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Surface Detail wrote: What "technical specifics" are you talking about?

Look up the meaning of "technical specifics" then go back and re-read your post. Notice your inclusion of specific infra-red frequency bands, direction of emission, etc..

Those. They are all irrelevant.

My understanding is fine. Let's address your very NON-scientific religious faith:

Surface Detail wrote: As for your last question: Yes, of course the Earth's temperature would rise if you converted 10% of the atmosphere's nitrogen into CO2. The high concentration of CO2 would reduce the emission of IR radiation into space, thus giving rise to a net input of energy to the Earth.

The correct answer, according to physics, is that the temperature cannot increase. The religiously mandated misunderstanding is what you gave.

The 1st LoT (conservation of energy) states very clearly that temperature can only increase when work is performed. CO2 doesn't perform any work. Changing the composition of the atmosphere doesn't perform any work. A temperature increase is not possible.

We could look at it another way (scientifically). Standard chemistry shows us that thermal emission is a function of temperature. The ONLY way to "reduce the emission of IR radiation into space" is to cool the earth. Remember, no substance "traps" heat. That's a standard physics violation built into your religious dogma.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
Edited on 27-09-2015 18:03
27-09-2015 18:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
You are talking complete nonsense. Of course substances can trap (or, more accurately, hinder the flow of) heat. What do you think clothes do? And why do you think the average temperature on Venus is higher then that of Mercury despite it being further from the sun?
27-09-2015 22:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Surface Detail wrote: You are talking complete nonsense.

That's physics. It doesn't support your dogma. You are free to read up on thermodynamics and verify that science is correct.

Surface Detail wrote: Of course substances can trap (or, more accurately, hinder the flow of) heat.

This is where your religious doublespeak requires you to conflate convection with thermal radiation.

No substance can trap heat, unless, of course, you are playing dishonest semantics games. All substances radiate away their thermal energy at a rate dependent upon their temperature. If by "trap" you mean something other than that, you are simply in error.

Surface Detail wrote: What do you think clothes do?

Yup, you confuse conduction/convection with thermal radiation as I knew you would. I would recommend getting yourself unconfused on this point lest you remain confused on everything else.

Surface Detail wrote: And why do you think the average temperature on Venus is higher then that of Mercury despite it being further from the sun?

Atmospheric pressure. Why do you think Death Valley is substantially warmer than Mt. Everest despite them both being the same distance from the sun?

Incidentally, what are the respective temperatures of both Mercury and Venus at the very top of their atmospheres?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
27-09-2015 23:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
This is just too funny. You really think that atmospheric temperature depends solely on pressure?

Why, then, do you suppose that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere reaches a minimum of about -50 C at a height of about 15 km before rising again to reach about 0 C at a height of about 50 km?

What makes you think that the pressure of the atmosphere can affect its ability to retain heat but its composition cannot? This is directly contradicted by experiment. For heaven's sake, read a textbook rather than making it up as you go along.

Edit: Or alternatively, you may wish to educate yourself by reading this simple summary by the Royal Society:

The Basics of Climate Change
Edited on 27-09-2015 23:33
28-09-2015 00:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Surface Detail wrote: This is just too funny. You really think that atmospheric temperature depends solely on pressure?

You're not very good at reading. You asked me to explain a particular difference, not to list all the factors in atmospheric temperature.

Please refrain from assigning positions to me. I will tell you what my position is. In general, my position is what science has to say on any given matter.

Surface Detail wrote: What makes you think that the pressure of the atmosphere can affect its ability to retain heat but its composition cannot?

Because the ideal gas law explains how air can be compressed into a higher pressure (i.e. more gas per unit volume) while the 1st LoT clearly explains how work must be performed for energy to increase.

Why do you think that science is wrong but your religion is correct?

Surface Detail wrote: This is directly contradicted by experiment. For heaven's sake, read a textbook rather than making it up as you go along.

Sorry, but I answered your questions with the appropriate, relevant and verifiable science. Now it's your turn to point out any errors in what I have stated (and make sure you quote me correctly). If you cannot, then you must accept the conclusions that science spells out, even if they don't jive with your religious dogma.

I know you don't like your dogma being corrected, but that's what you should expect when you adopt a religion. I know your religion follows "The Science" but that doesn't mean you should let the name fool you into thinking it's actually science.

Ditch your gullibility. Ditch the religion. Learn actual science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
28-09-2015 00:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
There's no compressing going on here, you fool. The pressure at the surface of the planet is roughly constant. If you really want to understand the topic, read the Royal Society link I just posted. Quoting from the link:

If all heat energy emitted from the surface passed through the atmosphere directly into space, Earth's average surface temperature would be tens of degrees colder than today. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, act to make the surface much warmer than this, because they absorb and emit heat energy in all directions (including downwards), keeping Earth's surface and lower atmosphere warm.
28-09-2015 01:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Surface Detail wrote: There's no compressing going on here, you fool.

OK, I will dumb this down to "extra-dumb" since you are clearly not even at the fifth grade science level.

Have you ever dived into the deep-end of a pool? Have you ever felt the pressure in your ears? In any fluid, the weight of the fluid above weighs down on the fluid below and increases the pressure. This applies to the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure on earth at sea level is close to "one atmosphere" (with variances due to temperature and other weather). As altitude increases, the air pressure decreases.

https://www.avs.org/AVS/files/c7/c7edaedb-95b2-438f-adfb-36de54f87b9e.pdf

Oh, yes, before I forget, higher pressure results in more air per unit volume.

Surface Detail wrote: If you really want to understand the topic, read the Royal Society link I just posted. Quoting from the link:


Learn some science first. What you quoted is full of errors. It's completely bogus. Had you not been totally scientifically illiterate you might have been able to recognize the crap for what it is and might have saved time and bandwidth by not posting it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
28-09-2015 01:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Oh, good grief. How can you not comprehend this? Gas heats up as it is compressed. It doesn't just stay hot, radiating heat, once it has been compressed. That would indeed be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics! What an idiot you are.

What I have quoted is not bogus. It is the opinion of the Royal Society, which is the most prestigious scientific body in the UK and has a membership that includes around 80 Nobel Laureates. I think I'll accept their opinion over that of a scientifically illiterate nobody like yourself.
28-09-2015 03:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Surface Detail wrote:Oh, good grief. How can you not comprehend this?

Stop being a moron. Start understanding science, stop claiming I don't, and stop assigning stupid positions to me.

I understand the ideal gas law. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. If there is something you don't understand, ask.

Surface Detail wrote: Gas heats up as it is compressed.

Yes, it is an instantaneous thing, moron.

Surface Detail wrote: It doesn't just stay hot, radiating heat, once it has been compressed.

That's correct, moron. So where are you confused?

Surface Detail wrote: What I have quoted is not bogus.

It's entirely bogus and you haven't the vaguest idea why because you're a gullible moron with poor reading comprehension.

Surface Detail wrote: It is the opinion of the Royal Society, which is the most prestigious scientific body in the UK and has a membership that includes around 80 Nobel Laureates.

Where to begin?

1. There is no room in science for opinion. You obviously don't get this. You have no business participating in any discussion on science. There is no such thing as someone's opinion being science. It's no wonder you are so easily duped into a cult. When you were indoctrinated into Global Warming, were they gentle when they reamed you? Subjective opinions and "consensus" are the stuff of religions, not science. Wake up.

2. The Nobel foundation, Royal Society, and the IPCC are not science organizations. They are activist organizations. They promote a very leftist agenda. The Royal Society is clearly not very scientific in its promotion of the WACKY Global Warming religion. Tell me, what model within the body of science does the Royal Society say defines "Climate" or "Greenhouse Effect"? Did you know that Obama and Gore are Nobel Laureates?

3. I don't consider stuffy, high-brow idiots who wallow in self-importance to constitute "prestige."

Surface Detail wrote: I think I'll accept their opinion over that of a scientifically illiterate nobody like yourself.

Of course you'll believe, without question, whatever you are ordered to obey by the Global Warming clergy you worship, especially over any science to the contrary that might be presented by an atheist. I know where you're coming from.

I, on the other hand, will leave you groveling, moronic dupes to pray as you wish to Global Warming and I, for one, will stick with what the body of science tells me.

Why are you afraid to present the science you insist you have?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
28-09-2015 22:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Why are you afraid to present the science you insist you have?

I did present the barest outline of the science up-thread, with references to more detailed explanations, and you complained that it was too technical! Given that you appear to be incapable of comprehending any theories more advanced than the ideal gas law (and your grasp of that seems pretty tenuous), I doubt that you have the cognitive capacity to understand the physical processes behind global warming. I'm sorry, but some people, such as your good self, simply cannot manage abstract thinking.

Never mind though, your spelling and grammar are very good so I'm sure there are plenty of jobs that can make use of your writing talents. I'd steer well clear of science though, unless you enjoy being the butt of the joke.
28-09-2015 23:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Surface Detail wrote: I did present the barest outline of the science up-thread,

You presented a physics violation. Nothing more.

Surface Detail wrote: with references to more detailed explanations, and you complained that it was too technical!

No, I did not. That's your misunderstanding stemming from your poor reading comprehension. Perhaps the word "irrelevant" has too many syllables for you.

Surface Detail wrote: Given that you appear to be incapable of comprehending any theories (blah, blah, blah)


Thank you for tipping your king. My request could not have been any easier, but as I predicted, you're only option is to EVADE.

What we have here is your holy religious dogma running counter to science. You can't dispute the science, and you can't admit your religion runs counter to physics...so you're only option is to dodge and somehow search for a way to say that I am somehow "wrong", even though I am the one pointing out the science (and you are the one supplying the religious dogma).

So let's stay focused.

Post here, in this thread, in your own words (no links), the science you reviewed and understand that convinced you that Global Warming is real.

You are welcome to use any science at any level of detail, and you are welcome to use any math you wish. Just post your science here...

...or continue to EVADE and continue to confirm everything I have written.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
29-09-2015 00:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Far from tipping my king, I appear to be playing against an opponent who has singularly failed to grasp even the basic rules of the game. Each time I open by moving my king's pawn forwards, you jump across the board with your knight, shout CHECKMATE and look smug - just like some of the less able Grade 2 kids I used to teach chess to at primary (US:elementary) school.

Demanding a scientific explanation with no links to evidence is absurd; evidence is the bedrock of science. It speaks volumes that you have failed to grasp this.
29-09-2015 00:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Surface Detail wrote:Far from tipping my king,

Not only did you tip your king, you did so in your opening move, saving us both a lot of time.

Nowhere in either of your previous two posts have you posted, in your own words (no links) the science that you reviewed and understand that convinced you Global Warming is real.

One can only assume that you have posted the zero science you have reviewed and understand that convinced you Global Warming is real, thus confirming that your beliefs are not based on any science, but rather are based completely on faith.

That's why your king is knocked over and rolling on the board.

However, if at any time you'd like to start over and play another game, you can make your first move by posting here, in this thread (no links), in your own words the science that you reviewed and understand that convinced you Global Warming is real.

You'd think it would be a piece of cake, right? Not something that would require EVASION.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
29-09-2015 10:51
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"The 1st LoT (conservation of energy) states very clearly that temperature can only increase when work is performed. CO2 doesn't perform any work. Changing the composition of the atmosphere doesn't perform any work. A temperature increase is not possible."

I am afraid that you do not seem to understand the 1st Law of thermodynamics, Einstein!

The presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which absorb and re-emit radiation in the infrared spectrum, causes the surface of the planet and the lower atmosphere to warm. If you perform an energy balance for the planet, it will become clear why and how. Essentially, the incoming short-wave radiation is greater than the combined outgoing short and long-wave radiation, therefore the surface of the planet warms, via the conservation of energy. If the planet didn't warm as a response to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then there would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Also, the ambient surface temperature of the planet would be well below the freezing point of water, and none of us would therefore be here to debate the topic!
29-09-2015 19:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
climate scientist wrote:I am afraid that you do not seem to understand the 1st Law of thermodynamics, Einstein!

In what way, moron? You don't get to just pout in the face of science that runs counter to your religion and stammer "Well, you're just wrong, neener-neener."

climate scientist wrote:The presence of greenhouse gases...

There are no such things as "greenhouse gases" defined in science. They are mythological figures of the Global Warming religion. There is no actual "greenhouse effect" either. The earth does not act as a greenhouse. These concepts are for religious dupes who cannot discern religion from science.

Go back and pray to "Climate" for guidance.

climate scientist wrote: ...in the atmosphere, which absorb and re-emit radiation in the infrared spectrum,

This is a natural occurrence in most substances.

climate scientist wrote:causes the surface of the planet and the lower atmosphere to warm.

Are you now saying that all you mean by the term "greenhouse effect" is that sunlight warms the planet? If so, we already understand that. Stefan-Boltzmann equation and all that. We don't need a new term that inappropriately implies something else is going on.

climate scientist wrote:If you perform an energy balance for the planet,

Hello, Mr. Scientifically Illiterate...you are using "balance" as a noun. One does not "perform" a balance. DO - YOU - SPEAK - ENGLISH ? Let me know if I haven't been dumbing down my posts sufficiently for you.

Secondly, there is no such thing as a planetary "energy balance." Do you ever question anything you are told to believe? That is entirely a Global Warming religious term. That's why you won't find that term anywhere in the body of science but you'll see it written often by warmazombies and climate lemmings.

climate scientist wrote: Essentially, the incoming short-wave radiation is greater than the combined outgoing short and long-wave radiation, therefore the surface of the planet warms, via the conservation of energy.

No, it does not. It warms because of the work performed by the sun. With respect to earth's temperature at any given location in the atmosphere or on the ground surface, all but a negligible amount of work is performed by the sun. The 1st LoT explains very clearly that despite energy changing form (e.g. absorption, emission, absorption, emission, etc..) no energy can be created or lost. Temperature cannot increase unless thermal energy increases which cannot happen unless work is performed. No atmospheric gas performs any work. No form-changing of energy performs any work.

Yes, you are a fraud. You don't even understand the basics of thermodynamics. The least you could do is thank me for explaining it to you. But you are stuck in "pouting" mode over your religious dogmababble being contradicted by science and all you can do is scream "You're just wrong, I say...you're just wrong...I want my blankie..."

climate scientist wrote: If the planet didn't warm as a response to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then there would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If the planet didn't warm from the sunlight then we'd have to reexamine our science. However, these mythical "greenhouse gases" play no role in anything whatsoever on account of they don't actually exist (except in Global Warming theology).

climate scientist wrote: Also, the ambient surface temperature of the planet would be well below the freezing point of water, and none of us would therefore be here to debate the topic!

This is also religious dogma that is based on bogus non-science. Just for laughs, why don't you explain how you calculated this? What science did you use?

You are, by no means, the first person to regurgitate this crap. You know you should have said "That's a load of crap, especially since the planet has been through warmer periods with less CO2 and cooler periods with far more CO2" but you were gullible and now you've gone on record stating this as your official science-based opinion, and now you're embarrassed for not having checked first.

If you were to swap out the atmospheric CO2 for an equivalent mass of another atmospheric gas, say nitrogen, you can read off the 1st LoT and understand why the temperature wouldn't change.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
30-09-2015 23:56
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Lol!

See here: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/balance

It is definitely possible to use the word 'balance' as a noun.

Here is a diagram of Earth's energy balance:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html

I suppose this qualifies as a church leaflet to you, however, to the rest of the world, this is physics.

I wonder what you make of other fields of science. I'm guessing that you think smoking is a sure way of maintaining good lung health, babies are delivered by storks when you wish for them, and people all around the world right now are trying to cure cancer by sitting around in offices, trying to think up 'falsifiable theories', rather than working in labs doing experiments and collecting data.
01-10-2015 00:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
I'm sure IBdaMann will be along just now to inform us that the Oxford Dictionary is also part of the Marxist/religious conspiracy (along with all the world's national and international scientific organisations) to violate the first law of thermodynamics and raise taxes.

Edited on 01-10-2015 00:02
01-10-2015 00:07
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
01-10-2015 03:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
climate scientist wrote:
It is definitely possible to use the word 'balance' as a noun.

It appears we are going to have to address your poor English reading comprehension in every post, as well as your poor grammar and poor logic skills.

If you use the word "balance" as a noun, as you did, then it is not something you can "do", i.e. as a verb. Let me know if this particular grammar lesson is above your grade level.

climate scientist wrote:
Here is a diagram of Earth's energy balance:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html

Really? Do you claim to understand it?

climate scientist wrote: I wonder what you make of other fields of science.

Do you mean that you wonder what I make of "fields of science" or what I make of "other religions"? Take your pick and ask. I'll happily speak for myself, thank you.

climate scientist wrote: I'm guessing that you think smoking is a sure way of maintaining good lung health, babies are delivered by storks when you wish for them, ...

Did you ask me? No, you did not. You find that you cannot support the violations of physics that comprise your religion, you cannot refute the science that is presented to you to that runs counter to your religion, and so you pout and just look for any way to show that I am somehow wrong. You have resorted to attacking absurd positions that I do not have, but that you have nonetheless assigned to me.

Your religion still violates the laws of physics. I can't help you there.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
03-10-2015 12:01
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"Really? Do you claim to understand it?"

Yes - it's not that complicated.

"You have resorted to attacking absurd positions that I do not have, but that you have nonetheless assigned to me. "

Um... Pot calling the kettle black??? Just following your lead here. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

"Your religion still violates the laws of physics. I can't help you there."

You still haven't explained *how*.
04-10-2015 05:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
IB DaMann wrote: "Really? Do you claim to understand it?"

climate scientist wrote:Yes - it's not that complicated.

Good. Explain to me the "balance." I didn't see any "balance" in there. Where is it and what is it?

climate scientist wrote:Um... Pot calling the kettle black??? Just following your lead here. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

What position have I assigned to you?

climate scientist wrote:You still haven't explained *how*.

You can't be serious! I explained it many times.

You insist that energy is created without work being performed.

I have a better idea, let me repeat it twenty more times in advance:

You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.
You insist that energy is created without work being performed.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
04-10-2015 17:21
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi everyone,

Wow, I'm not sure about the concept of energy being created without work being performed, but this thread does seem to prove that energy can be expended without much being gained!

Perhaps you might all want to take this over to the following thread where IBdaMann has proposed a very interesting exercise in which we all might participate:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-science-of-the-greenhouse-effect-d6-e713.php#post_2340

I just made a post there, and I am awaiting IBdaMann's response.
05-10-2015 10:45
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Um, stating something over and over again is not the same as explaining something.
05-10-2015 11:08
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Agreed, but wasn't IBdaMann's most recent post here a lovely display of "Cut-&-Paste!"
05-10-2015 11:18
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
Agreed, but wasn't IBdaMann's most recent post here a lovely display of "Cut-&-Paste!"

I prefer to think of him taking the time to pound it all out over and over again on his keyboard while he is repeatedly yelling "Morons!" and going red in the face.




Edited on 05-10-2015 11:20
05-10-2015 11:23
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Perhaps we should consider the charge of keyboard abuse?
05-10-2015 11:58
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
Perhaps we should consider the charge of keyboard abuse?


At least while he is abusing his keyboard he is not yelling irrationally at people walking past him on the sidewalk.


05-10-2015 11:58
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
05-10-2015 14:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
climate scientist wrote:
Um, stating something over and over again is not the same as explaining something.

To someone who is stupid, not understanding a simple explanation looks exactly the same as something simply being repeated.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
05-10-2015 19:22
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Everyone,

I have enjoyed participating on various threads over the past few weeks here on Cimate-Debate.com. It is wonderful to have a place where we can freely exchange ideas on this topic.

Unfortunately, some of the threads like this one have taken on negative overtones which no longer facilitate ongoing goodwill which is the foundation of this website. In cases such as this, I have decided that the best way to respond to such threads is by not responding to them at all and ceasing any further participation in them.

The reason I'm posting this is to let you know that instead of continuing participation here, I have created my own new thread, and I invite you to do the same. You can join my new thread at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-2-minute-warning-clock-on-climate-change-d6-e714.php

To assist in maintaining a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere on my thread, I'm going to suggest the following guidelines:

1. Please stay on topic. If you find my new thread inspires tangential ideas which you'd like to share with others, then create a new thread of your own for that purpose and post an invitation to it from my thread.

2. Please direct your critical posts/comments to the message and not the messenger (i.e. - anyone expressing themselves either on this website or outside of this website). Agreement is not required, but respect is requested.

3. Please avoid posting road blocks. Repetitive and redundant posts serve only to draw attention to oneself and create conflict.

Given I lack the capacity to take authoritative action, I cannot moderate my new thread. However, think of me like a janitor who aspires to maintain a welcoming environment for everyone.

If someone does not follow the thread's guidelines, I will post a request asking them to amend their post of concern. Should they refuse, then in the spirit of maintaining goodwill here I will contact the website administrator/moderator and ask that they intervene.

Should you find another participant violating these guidelines, I would ask that you not respond to them. Instead, if I have not already addressed your concerns by post in my new thread, please notify me so that I might do so immediately.

I look forward to your participation in my new thread and the opportunity to exchange ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Trafn
18-03-2019 04:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Can anyone answer the OT question now that we've all had years to think about it. No answer has ever been produced which should tell you something.

Note, this thread has some of the vintage trafn in it.
18-03-2019 14:50
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
Surface Detail wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Perhaps it would have been a good idea to bone up a little on the topic before spamming all the threads with your ignorance!


Law of Conservation states something does not not produce energy by the formula E = mc^2 changing mass into energy cannot increase heat. Greenhouse effect violates Law of Conservation of Energy.

IMO greenhouse gases do not produce heat, they redistribute heat, making Earth cool in the day and warm at night, reduces day night temperature difference, in contrast to Earth's moon which is very hot in day and very cold at night with a large day night temperature difference.
18-03-2019 15:07
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
Surface Detail wrote:
You are talking complete nonsense. Of course substances can trap (or, more accurately, hinder the flow of) heat. What do you think clothes do? And why do you think the average temperature on Venus is higher then that of Mercury despite it being further from the sun?


Mercury has very little atmosphere, hardly any. Venus has a shit ton of atmosphere, 100 times that of Earth. If you want to do an experiment with CO2 you have to keep all other factors controlled, which you cannot with Venus and Mercury.
18-03-2019 15:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Perhaps it would have been a good idea to bone up a little on the topic before spamming all the threads with your ignorance!


Law of Conservation states something does not not produce energy by the formula E = mc^2 changing mass into energy cannot increase heat. Greenhouse effect violates Law of Conservation of Energy.

IMO greenhouse gases do not produce heat, they redistribute heat, making Earth cool in the day and warm at night, reduces day night temperature difference, in contrast to Earth's moon which is very hot in day and very cold at night with a large day night temperature difference.


You are on the right track. I have just one minor quibble. When energy in the form of matter is converted to other forms of energy, the 1st LoT ensures the result is the overall same quantity of energy, just in different form. The energy that was matter but now is not can, in fact, increase the temperature of other matter as thermal energy.

Otherwise, everything you wrote is spot on.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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 1 of 212>





Join the debate What is ...?:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact