Remember me
▼ Content

Why deny global warming



Page 4 of 4<<<234
18-02-2016 18:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Buildreps wrote:
Interestingly if you just agree with one of the CO2 fanatics, in this case spot, about the eccentricity of earth's orbit, you'll be refuted by the other CO2 fanatic, in this case Ceist, who's claiming the opposite. What does this say about the CO2 matter?

That they're just talking nonsense all the time.

And spot, again, there's no reason to insult people. Like calling my friend a fool.

Wasn't it you who claimed that the Earth is drawing closer to the sun (it isn't) and the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit is increasing (it isn't)? I'd say it's you who's talking nonsense, but I'm sure your good friend IBdaMann will be there to console you. He doesn't care about facts either.
18-02-2016 19:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:Wasn't it you who claimed that the Earth is drawing closer to the sun (it isn't) and the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit is increasing (it isn't)?

He made a mistake and he owned up to it.

You are a dupe who was brainwashed by a religious cult who can't admit when he needs help on a topic. When your egregious errors are pointed out you pout and, as in this case, you try to change the subject to dwell on someone else's mistake...up to which he owned, something you cannot do.

Surface Detail wrote: I'm sure your good friend IBdaMann will be there to console you. He doesn't care about facts either.

Pout away.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
18-02-2016 19:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote: Nope. You are the one being duped.

Was I duped by all those people telling me to question and doubt?

Surface Detail wrote: You refuse to accept the importance of peer review in determining the scientific worth of a paper,

I recognize that only a falsifiable model's inherent truth, as formally expressed in the model, determines its scientific worth.

Oh, Surface Detail, science requires a falsifiable model that predicts nature, not "a paper."

Surface Detail wrote:and you quite obviously have very little understanding of science yourself.

I'll defer to you on matters involving "The Science" and I'll continue to hand you your arse in matters involving actual science as long as you won't ask for help.


So, you say the earth's temperature increases but its radiance decreases? Hmmm.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
18-02-2016 20:21
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Surface Detail wrote:
While there are discrepancies in their predictions of the equatorial mid-troposphere temperatures, the models have done a pretty good job of predicting the global average surface temperature:


The surface is, of course, where we actually live!

I noticed that the data used in that graph is from NASA's GISS, which is based exclusively on land-thermometers and shows consistently more warming than any other data-set. Satellite data from UAH, RSS and HADCRUT4 tells a different story. Since 70% of the Earth is covered in oceans satellites can obviously measure more ground than the relatively few ground sensors clustered in convenient locations. Even the IPCC acknowledged the lack of warming in AR5 2013 page 769 under the heading 'Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years', stating "The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years" and with "HADCRUT4 the trend is 0.04ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11ºC per decade over 1951–2012". This was not predicted by the models, was it? Below is RSS vs GISS:



Of course you can make the models look right if you choose the data-set with the highest trend (and possibly the most adjustments).

While there are discrepancies in their predictions of the equatorial mid-troposphere temperatures

Well, the greenhouse theory is dependent on the atmosphere warming the surface. Hence the atmosphere must warm first as a prerequisite if the surface is to warm.
18-02-2016 20:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Nope. You are the one being duped.

Was I duped by all those people telling me to question and doubt?

Surface Detail wrote: You refuse to accept the importance of peer review in determining the scientific worth of a paper,

I recognize that only a falsifiable model's inherent truth, as formally expressed in the model, determines its scientific worth.

Oh, Surface Detail, science requires a falsifiable model that predicts nature, not "a paper."

Surface Detail wrote:and you quite obviously have very little understanding of science yourself.

I'll defer to you on matters involving "The Science" and I'll continue to hand you your arse in matters involving actual science as long as you won't ask for help.


So, you say the earth's temperature increases but its radiance decreases? Hmmm

Shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia:

A very simple model of the radiative equilibrium of the Earth is



where:

> The left hand side represents the incoming energy from the Sun
> The right hand side represents the outgoing energy from the Earth, calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law assuming a model-fictive temperature, T, sometimes called the 'equilibrium temperature of the Earth', that is to be found,

and

S is the solar constant – the incoming solar radiation per unit area—about 1367 W·m−2
a is the Earth's average albedo, measured to be 0.3.
r is Earth's radius—approximately 6.371×106m
π is the mathematical constant (3.141...)
is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant—approximately 5.67×10−8 J·K−4·m−2·s−1
is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612

Now, what do you think will happen to the temperature if we reduce the effective emissivity of the Earth by increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, given that all of the other parameters remain constant? Take your time.
18-02-2016 20:49
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Nope. You are the one being duped.

Was I duped by all those people telling me to question and doubt?

Surface Detail wrote: You refuse to accept the importance of peer review in determining the scientific worth of a paper,

I recognize that only a falsifiable model's inherent truth, as formally expressed in the model, determines its scientific worth.

Oh, Surface Detail, science requires a falsifiable model that predicts nature, not "a paper."

Surface Detail wrote:and you quite obviously have very little understanding of science yourself.

I'll defer to you on matters involving "The Science" and I'll continue to hand you your arse in matters involving actual science as long as you won't ask for help.


So, you say the earth's temperature increases but its radiance decreases? Hmmm

Shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia:

A very simple model of the radiative equilibrium of the Earth is



where:

> The left hand side represents the incoming energy from the Sun
> The right hand side represents the outgoing energy from the Earth, calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law assuming a model-fictive temperature, T, sometimes called the 'equilibrium temperature of the Earth', that is to be found,

and

S is the solar constant – the incoming solar radiation per unit area—about 1367 W·m−2
a is the Earth's average albedo, measured to be 0.3.
r is Earth's radius—approximately 6.371×106m
π is the mathematical constant (3.141...)
is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant—approximately 5.67×10−8 J·K−4·m−2·s−1
is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612

Now, what do you think will happen to the temperature if we reduce the effective emissivity of the Earth by increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, given that all of the other parameters remain constant? Take your time.

If the emissivity of a body decreases then its temperature should decrease.
18-02-2016 21:48
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Buildreps wrote:
Interestingly if you just agree with one of the CO2 fanatics, in this case spot, about the eccentricity of earth's orbit, you'll be refuted by the other CO2 fanatic, in this case Ceist, who's claiming the opposite. What does this say about the CO2 matter?

That they're just talking nonsense all the time.

And spot, again, there's no reason to insult people. Like calling my friend a fool.

What are you blathering about? Surface Detail correctly pointed out that your claims about the earth were wrong. Twice. Where was I 'claiming the opposite'? You're just making stuff up again.

Interesting that you completely ignored those two posts of his where he cited references that showed you were wrong. Is that a habit? Just pretend posts with references to science that shows you are wrong, don't even exist?

If you think IB is your 'friend' then you are also a fool. Did you not realise he was mocking you for his twisted masturbatory pleasure?


Did you notice that your 'friend' IB is now claiming you 'owned up to your mistakes' - which you didn't. He just makes up stuff too.



Edited on 18-02-2016 22:29
18-02-2016 21:57
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You have made it clear that you have been duped into believing that there are people who own science and that their "peer review" approval determines science. That's your problem, not mine.

Nope. You are the one being duped. You refuse to accept the importance of peer review in determining the scientific worth of a paper, and you quite obviously have very little understanding of science yourself. This leaves you wide open to manipulation by any old snake oil salesman and dooms you to a life of paranoia and suspicion. I feel quite sorry for you.


That's why he can only cite crank magnet blogs of layperson nutters like Cliff Harris and Robert Felix as 'truly authoritative sources' to support his ridiculous pseudoscience claims.




Edited on 18-02-2016 22:27
18-02-2016 22:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist wrote: That's why he can only cite crank magnet blogs of layperson nutters like Cliff Harris and Robert Felix as 'truly authoritative sources' to support his pseudoscience claims.

This site wouldn't be the same without you. You help characterize, nay, define the contemporary warmizombie on crusade.

Hey, I have a philosophical point for you specifically, but anyone is free to jump in on it as well.

Have you noticed how other warmizombies on this forum who begin to feel threatened by science being injected into various conversations will lash out words to the effect of "You need to BELIEVE in Global Warming if you want to be taken seriously"?

At the same time, there's you, one of their brethren, one of the most exemplary of the unquestioning Global Warming devout, and they won't even extend to you the same courtesy of mentioning that no one takes you seriously?

Ceist, I recommend you ditch the whole Global Warming thing if you want to be taken seriously. Your religion will be dead in a few years anyway.

I'm looking out for you, kid.


.

How could they treat you that way? Talk about dog-eat-dog. Well, I'll be on your side, even if no one else will. I'll tell you when no one takes you seriously.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
18-02-2016 22:44
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Here are the only links IB really needs:

http://finder.psychiatry.org/

http://doctor.webmd.com/find-a-doctor/specialty/psychiatry

Perhaps he still hasn't noticed that I haven't directly replied to his posts for several months since I recognised he was mentally ill. I just make occasional observations about the pseudoscience nonsense he posts and his pathological behaviour. Trying to engage directly with delusional narcissistic manipulative sociopaths on the internet (as well as in real life) is a complete waste of energy and only feeds their disorder.



Edited on 18-02-2016 23:39
19-02-2016 00:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist wrote but no one really cared:

Ceist, my friend, I don't think anyone cares.

Well, I care. I'll listen to you. Talk to me.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 02:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
One Punch Man wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Nope. You are the one being duped.

Was I duped by all those people telling me to question and doubt?

Surface Detail wrote: You refuse to accept the importance of peer review in determining the scientific worth of a paper,

I recognize that only a falsifiable model's inherent truth, as formally expressed in the model, determines its scientific worth.

Oh, Surface Detail, science requires a falsifiable model that predicts nature, not "a paper."

Surface Detail wrote:and you quite obviously have very little understanding of science yourself.

I'll defer to you on matters involving "The Science" and I'll continue to hand you your arse in matters involving actual science as long as you won't ask for help.


So, you say the earth's temperature increases but its radiance decreases? Hmmm

Shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia:

A very simple model of the radiative equilibrium of the Earth is



where:

> The left hand side represents the incoming energy from the Sun
> The right hand side represents the outgoing energy from the Earth, calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law assuming a model-fictive temperature, T, sometimes called the 'equilibrium temperature of the Earth', that is to be found,

and

S is the solar constant – the incoming solar radiation per unit area—about 1367 W·m−2
a is the Earth's average albedo, measured to be 0.3.
r is Earth's radius—approximately 6.371×106m
π is the mathematical constant (3.141...)
is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant—approximately 5.67×10−8 J·K−4·m−2·s−1
is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612

Now, what do you think will happen to the temperature if we reduce the effective emissivity of the Earth by increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, given that all of the other parameters remain constant? Take your time.

If the emissivity of a body decreases then its temperature should decrease.

Look at the equation. If you reduce epsilon while keeping all the other parameters constant apart from T, what must T do in order to balance the equation?
19-02-2016 03:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:Look at the equation. If you reduce epsilon while keeping all the other parameters constant apart from T, what must T do in order to balance the equation?

Did you just ask how the independent variable changes in response to changes in a constant?

Answer: Yes, you just did.

Of course, you don't need any help.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 03:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Look at the equation. If you reduce epsilon while keeping all the other parameters constant apart from T, what must T do in order to balance the equation?

Did you just ask how the independent variable changes in response to changes in a constant?

Answer: Yes, you just did.

Of course, you don't need any help

In this situation, you utter moron, epsilon is the independent variable and T is the dependent variable.
19-02-2016 03:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Surface Detail wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Nope. You are the one being duped.

Was I duped by all those people telling me to question and doubt?

Surface Detail wrote: You refuse to accept the importance of peer review in determining the scientific worth of a paper,

I recognize that only a falsifiable model's inherent truth, as formally expressed in the model, determines its scientific worth.

Oh, Surface Detail, science requires a falsifiable model that predicts nature, not "a paper."

Surface Detail wrote:and you quite obviously have very little understanding of science yourself.

I'll defer to you on matters involving "The Science" and I'll continue to hand you your arse in matters involving actual science as long as you won't ask for help.


So, you say the earth's temperature increases but its radiance decreases? Hmmm

Shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia:

A very simple model of the radiative equilibrium of the Earth is



where:

> The left hand side represents the incoming energy from the Sun
> The right hand side represents the outgoing energy from the Earth, calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law assuming a model-fictive temperature, T, sometimes called the 'equilibrium temperature of the Earth', that is to be found,

and

S is the solar constant – the incoming solar radiation per unit area—about 1367 W·m−2
a is the Earth's average albedo, measured to be 0.3.
r is Earth's radius—approximately 6.371×106m
π is the mathematical constant (3.141...)
is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant—approximately 5.67×10−8 J·K−4·m−2·s−1
is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612

Now, what do you think will happen to the temperature if we reduce the effective emissivity of the Earth by increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, given that all of the other parameters remain constant? Take your time.

If the emissivity of a body decreases then its temperature should decrease.

Look at the equation. If you reduce epsilon while keeping all the other parameters constant apart from T, what must T do in order to balance the equation?


Not to raise too fine a point here, but how is epsilon calculated? If a is measured, how is it measured? What instrumentation was used?


The Parrot Killer
19-02-2016 03:38
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Look at the equation. If you reduce epsilon while keeping all the other parameters constant apart from T, what must T do in order to balance the equation?

Did you just ask how the independent variable changes in response to changes in a constant?

Answer: Yes, you just did.

Of course, you don't need any help

In this situation, you utter moron, epsilon is the independent variable and T is the dependent variable.

The equation that you have shown above seems to be an equation to calculate the effective temperature of a planet without an atmosphere. What Wikipedia page did you get it from? The equation is often expressed more simplistically as:

(e)(I(1-a)/(4)(0.000000056704))^0.25

Where e is the emissivity, a is albedo, I is the solar isolation at the top-of-the-atmosphere, and all those zeros is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

So we get a radiative equilibrium temperature of:

(1)(1368(1-0.3)/(4)(0.000000056704))^0.25

That gives us 254.9K (usually rounded off to 255K).

You can check this by just typing that equation above into the 'Web 2.0 Scientific Calculator'. If you copy-and-paste it make sure to remove the - symbol as that is not actually minus. You'll need to type minus in on the calculator.

Reducing the emissivity from 1 to 0.9 decreases the equilibrium temperature to 248K. The emissivity of the Earth's surface is reckoned to be close to 1 (0.96 to 0.98) and this reduces to around 0.6 to 0.7 with an atmosphere.
Edited on 19-02-2016 04:01
19-02-2016 05:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:In this situation, you utter moron, epsilon is the independent variable and T is the dependent variable.

Emissivity is a constant.

You are flailing, but please continue. Don't stop on my account.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 05:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
One Punch Man wrote:The emissivity of the Earth's surface is reckoned to be close to 1 (0.96 to 0.98) and this reduces to around 0.6 to 0.7 with an atmosphere.

Nobody knows the earth's emissivity. Warmizombies believe their religion bestows divine knowledge upon the believers, and they claim ownership of the knowledge of otherwise unknown things, e.g. earth's emissivity.

If you look in Wikipedia you will find the emissivity value currently in favor with Global Warming clergy.

Earth's emissivity is an unknown constant.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 05:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia:

A very simple model of the radiative equilibrium of the Earth is



where:

> The left hand side represents the incoming energy from the Sun
> The right hand side represents the outgoing energy from the Earth, calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law assuming a model-fictive temperature, T, sometimes called the 'equilibrium temperature of the Earth', that is to be found,

and

S is the solar constant – the incoming solar radiation per unit area—about 1367 W·m−2
a is the Earth's average albedo, measured to be 0.3.
r is Earth's radius—approximately 6.371×106m
π is the mathematical constant (3.141...)
is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant—approximately 5.67×10−8 J·K−4·m−2·s−1
is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612



I have to apologize to everyone. In my haste, I did not carefully scrutinize the above equation, despite the glaring warning that it was lifted from Wikipedia.

I assumed it was a different equation (that was similar in appearance). Thanks to Surface Detail for alerting me to take a closer look. It turns out the equation is entirely bogus. It has only one variable, i.e. temperature. The rest is a string of constants. I know, I should have noticed that at first but for some reason I was assuming that Surface Detail was posting the equation he should have posted.

My bad.

The equation is bogus. There's no discussion to be had.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 06:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia:

A very simple model of the radiative equilibrium of the Earth is



where:

> The left hand side represents the incoming energy from the Sun
> The right hand side represents the outgoing energy from the Earth, calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law assuming a model-fictive temperature, T, sometimes called the 'equilibrium temperature of the Earth', that is to be found,

and

S is the solar constant – the incoming solar radiation per unit area—about 1367 W·m−2
a is the Earth's average albedo, measured to be 0.3.
r is Earth's radius—approximately 6.371×106m
π is the mathematical constant (3.141...)
is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant—approximately 5.67×10−8 J·K−4·m−2·s−1
is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612



I have to apologize to everyone. In my haste, I did not carefully scrutinize the above equation, despite the glaring warning that it was lifted from Wikipedia.

I assumed it was a different equation (that was similar in appearance). Thanks to Surface Detail for alerting me to take a closer look. It turns out the equation is entirely bogus. It has only one variable, i.e. temperature. The rest is a string of constants. I know, I should have noticed that at first but for some reason I was assuming that Surface Detail was posting the equation he should have posted.

My bad.

The equation is bogus. There's no discussion to be had.


.

Good catch! I missed it at first too.


The Parrot Killer
19-02-2016 10:50
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
The human tragedy is that most ego's are so huge, that they believe that their bloated ego's are influencing earth's climate. How many times do we have to tell the religious fools here that a changing climate has nothing to do with human interference? It has never been constant.

How many times do we have to tell the fools here that there's a huge industry behind this movement. Climate hysteria is big business. The rich elite is happy to have so many ignorant disciples working for them for FREE.

The few rule over the many ignorant sheep. That's how it is.
19-02-2016 14:04
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
I found the Wikipedia page that Surface Detail pulled the equation from that I thought was the equation to calculate the effective temperature. The third equation on the page is the one that solves for temperature and I would have preferred to have seen the complete equation. He's right, decreasing emissivity in the equation increases temperature. For example, decreasing emissivity to 0.5 increases temperature to sqrt((1-0.3)*1368/(0.5*4*0.000000056704), 4 = 303K and increasing emissivity to 1 gives the effective temperature of 255K. The equation looks impressively scientific, but is it correct?
Edited on 19-02-2016 14:32
19-02-2016 14:22
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:The emissivity of the Earth's surface is reckoned to be close to 1 (0.96 to 0.98) and this reduces to around 0.6 to 0.7 with an atmosphere.

Nobody knows the earth's emissivity. Warmizombies believe their religion bestows divine knowledge upon the believers, and they claim ownership of the knowledge of otherwise unknown things, e.g. earth's emissivity.

If you look in Wikipedia you will find the emissivity value currently in favor with Global Warming clergy.

Earth's emissivity is an unknown constant.

I agree. The equation on the Wikipedia page seems bizzare to me. According to the equation, if the emissivity decreased to 0.1 and everything else were held constant then the surface temperature would increase to 453K corresponding to 2,387 W/m2. This is not merely surprising. It is bizzare and incredible, because incoming solar radiation absorbed by the planet is still 239 W/m2.
19-02-2016 16:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Buildreps wrote:
The human tragedy is that most ego's are so huge, that they believe that their bloated ego's are influencing earth's climate. How many times do we have to tell the religious fools here that a changing climate has nothing to do with human interference? It has never been constant.

How many times do we have to tell the fools here that there's a huge industry behind this movement. Climate hysteria is big business. The rich elite is happy to have so many ignorant disciples working for them for FREE.

The few rule over the many ignorant sheep. That's how it is.


So true. How do you think the rich elite become, and remain, the rich elite?




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 18:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
One Punch Man wrote:
I found the Wikipedia page that Surface Detail pulled the equation from that I thought was the equation to calculate the effective temperature. The third equation on the page is the one that solves for temperature and I would have preferred to have seen the complete equation. He's right, decreasing emissivity in the equation increases temperature. For example, decreasing emissivity to 0.5 increases temperature to sqrt((1-0.3)*1368/(0.5*4*0.000000056704), 4 = 303K and increasing emissivity to 1 gives the effective temperature of 255K. The equation looks impressively scientific, but is it correct?

Yes, you're quite correct. This is about the simplest possible climate model, and it just states that, at equilibrium, the amount of radiation received by the Earth (the left hand side) is equal to the amount of radiation emitted by the Earth (the right hand side). You can think of the effective emissivity as a measure of the Earth's ability to emit radiation. Reducing the emissivity reduces the radiation emitted for a given temperature, so the temperature then has to rise in order to maintain the radiation balance.

The effective emissivity depends on the characteristics of the surface of the Earth and, critically, its atmosphere. Changing the composition of the atmosphere changes the Earth's emissivity and, consequently, its temperature.
19-02-2016 18:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:Reducing the emissivity reduces the radiation emitted for a given temperature, so the temperature then has to rise in order to maintain the radiation balance.
...

Changing the composition of the atmosphere changes the Earth's emissivity and, consequently, its temperature.


So, your version of "greenhouse effect" involves emissivity being a variable rather than a constant...and an independent variable at that, yes?


All we need now to complete the story is a formula for how CO2 drives earth's emissivity and our version of "greenhouse effect" will be complete.

Fortunately I found the following on the internet, so it must be true:
Ɛcd = [1 – (((a-1 * 1 –PE)/(a + b – (1 + PE)) * e (-c (Log10 ((paL)m / paL)^2))] * (Ɛcd)0

So, can I put this down as your particular brand of "greenhouse effect"?


.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 19:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Reducing the emissivity reduces the radiation emitted for a given temperature, so the temperature then has to rise in order to maintain the radiation balance.
...

Changing the composition of the atmosphere changes the Earth's emissivity and, consequently, its temperature.


So, your version of "greenhouse effect" involves emissivity being a variable rather than a constant...and an independent variable at that, yes?


All we need now to complete the story is a formula for how CO2 drives earth's emissivity and our version of "greenhouse effect" will be complete.

Fortunately I found the following on the internet, so it must be true:
Ɛcd = [1 – (((a-1 * 1 –PE)/(a + b – (1 + PE)) * e (-c (Log10 ((paL)m / paL)^2))] * (Ɛcd)0

So, can I put this down as your particular brand of "greenhouse effect"?

The basic equation that I gave for the radiative balance of the Earth can be found anywhere and is quite easy to derive oneself. As I said, it simply expresses the fact that, at equilibrium, the radiation emitted by the Earth must equal the radiation received by the Earth.

You seem very confused with your talk of dependent and independent variables. These are not defined by the equation, but by whatever aspect of the situation you are concerned with. For example, you are surely familiar with Ohms Law: V = I/R where V is voltage, I is current and R is resistance. If you were interested in how voltage changes with resistance, then R would be the independent variable and V the dependent variable. If you interested in the variation of current with voltage, then V would be the independent and I the dependent variable.

In our case, we are interested in the variation of temperature with emissivity, so epsilon is the independent variable, and temperature is the dependent variable.
19-02-2016 21:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote: The basic equation that I gave for the radiative balance of the Earth can be found anywhere and is quite easy to derive oneself.

I addressed it in the other thread.

I notice that you didn't answer my question. Will you go on record as stating that that is your version of "greenhouse effect"?

Surface Detail wrote: You seem very confused with your talk of dependent and independent variables.

I am just fine with independent and dependent variables. You are just looking to change the subject with another "What you cannot comprehend is..."

I understand formally defined relationships. The point remains that "cause/effect" relationships have independent and dependent variables. This means that the "Temperature drives radiance" relationship cannot treat radiance as though it drives temperature or you can get any number of strange results, even people claiming "greenhouse effect."

Surface Detail wrote: In our case, we are interested in the variation of temperature with emissivity,

No, we are not. This is why I am asking you to go on record as affirming that your version "greenhouse effect" involves emissivity being a variable rather than a constant. That shouldn't be difficult, right?

Then we can proceed forward with you explaining CO2's direct relationship with emissivity.

Simple.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 21:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: In our case, we are interested in the variation of temperature with emissivity,

No, we are not. This is why I am asking you to go on record as affirming that your version "greenhouse effect" involves emissivity being a variable rather than a constant. That shouldn't be difficult, right?

Then we can proceed forward with you explaining CO2's direct relationship with emissivity.

Simple

Is it not obvious that the effective emissivity of a planet depends on the nature of its surface and atmosphere, and that if they change, then the effective emissivity will change? To see how emissivity depends on greenhouse gases, we need to move to a multilayer model of the atmosphere. See, for example, this explanation from the American Chemical Society:

A Multilayer Atmosphere Model

If these atmospheric layers were composed entirely of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon—all non-IR absorbing gases—the emissivity and absorptivity in the thermal infrared spectral region would be essentially zero at all wavelengths and a grey-body model would be satisfactory. The presence of trace amounts of IR-absorbing greenhouse gases introduces wavelength regions with higher atmospheric emissivities and absorptivities, so the grey-body assumption of constant emissivity is not valid. Instead, we have to use the Planck black-body function and account for emissivity and absorptivity at individual wavelengths (or frequencies).

You might want to kick off by reading and understanding their single-layer atmospheric model first though.
19-02-2016 23:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: In our case, we are interested in the variation of temperature with emissivity,

No, we are not. This is why I am asking you to go on record as affirming that your version "greenhouse effect" involves emissivity being a variable rather than a constant. That shouldn't be difficult, right?

Then we can proceed forward with you explaining CO2's direct relationship with emissivity.

Simple

Is it not obvious that the effective emissivity of a planet depends on the nature of its surface and atmosphere, and that if they change, then the effective emissivity will change? To see how emissivity depends on greenhouse gases, we need to move to a multilayer model of the atmosphere. See, for example, this explanation from the American Chemical Society:

A Multilayer Atmosphere Model

If these atmospheric layers were composed entirely of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon—all non-IR absorbing gases—the emissivity and absorptivity in the thermal infrared spectral region would be essentially zero at all wavelengths and a grey-body model would be satisfactory. The presence of trace amounts of IR-absorbing greenhouse gases introduces wavelength regions with higher atmospheric emissivities and absorptivities, so the grey-body assumption of constant emissivity is not valid. Instead, we have to use the Planck black-body function and account for emissivity and absorptivity at individual wavelengths (or frequencies).

You might want to kick off by reading and understanding their single-layer atmospheric model first though.


You might explain how the variable emissivity is calculated, or how the albedo is measured.


The Parrot Killer
20-02-2016 02:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:Is it not obvious that the effective emissivity of a planet depends on the nature of its surface and atmosphere, and that if they change, then the effective emissivity will change?

That completely avoids the question of whether altering the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere alters earth's emissivity. Is it not obvious that there is no reason to suspect it does?

In any event, you are the one affirmatively asserting the direct relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and earth's emissivity so you bear the full burden of proof for that (you do understand that whole burden of proof thing, right?)

1) Please formally state the specific CO2-emissivity relationship you are asserting

2) Please state that your version of 'greenhouse effect" is based on earth's emissivity being a variable that is driven by this relationship.


Surface Detail wrote: To see how emissivity depends on greenhouse gases, we need to move to a multilayer model of the atmosphere. See, for example, this explanation from the American Chemical Society: A Multilayer Atmosphere Model

This takes us back to your problems with math/models/science for which you simply won't ask for help. In this case you couldn't tell what was terribly wrong with this "model" you posted (in addition to the fact that it is not formally expressed). You read the "words for the gullible" and they were exactly what you wanted to read.

I'm not going to tell you what's wrong with it at the moment. I'll give you and others the opportunity to review it and see if the problem can be discerned.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-02-2016 03:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Is it not obvious that the effective emissivity of a planet depends on the nature of its surface and atmosphere, and that if they change, then the effective emissivity will change?

That completely avoids the question of whether altering the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere alters earth's emissivity. Is it not obvious that there is no reason to suspect it does?

No, it is quite obvious that changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the effective emissivity of the Earth. Adding IR-absorbing gases to the atmosphere results in more absorption and re-emission of IR radiation, with the net result that less IR radiation escapes into space. Since the Earth is then radiating less energy for the same temperature, is effective emissivity must have decreased.
21-02-2016 06:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:No, it is quite obvious that changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the effective emissivity of the Earth.

Oh, well since you put it that way, it seems so clear now. What could I have been thinking?

Surface Detail wrote:Adding IR-absorbing gases to the atmosphere results in more absorption and re-emission of IR radiation, with the net result that less IR radiation escapes into space.

...and since that whole argument has been shown to be false, your conclusion, i.e. that earth's thermal radiation is somehow "slowed," is also false.

Logic 101.

Surface Detail wrote: Since the Earth is then radiating less energy for the same temperature, is effective emissivity must have decreased.

Since this conclusion is based on the previous conclusion that was shown to be false, this one is also false.

Logic 101.

Hold on. You probably don't know what in Logic 101 renders them false...but I'm sure you don't want any help. Carry on.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
RE: Does anyone remember margarine?22-02-2016 08:03
swills123
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Does anyone remember margarine? Margarine was introduced during WW2 because there were shortages of butter. It was a miracle product. After the war, we were told that since fats in our blood caused heart attacks, it was good for us to eat margarine instead of butter. The evidence was crystal clear. You'd have to be an idiot not to believe it. In fact, 97% of the scientists of the day(it was closer to 100%) agreed eating fats caused you to get fat and die young. Except that wasn't true. Today we know margarine is very bad for you (trans fats) and some types of butter(from grass fed cows) are actually being hailed as health food. I wonder if 20 or 30 years from now, scientists will question why all the scientists jumped on the global warming bandwagon? Could 97% of scientists ever be wrong? Any wonder no one listens to these scientists anymore?

BTW if you want more examples of common knowledge being wrong, history is replete with them.
A few examples: Coffee bad, coffee good; Y2K (it never happened); eating meat is bad for you; global cooling (circa 1970's); we're only borrowing from the social security trust fund, we'll pay it back later; Medicare will only cost a few billion(now 500 billion a year); Johnson's War on Poverty, 50 years and trillions later, even more poor people; Obamacare, you can keep your doctor and your premiums will go down. I'm sure there are many many more.
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Why deny global warming:

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