|
Post by icefisher on Jan 11, 2016 7:31:16 GMT
the "hot" bar heating system is NOT thermostatically controlled by the inverse square distance law that radiators are limited by Your facts will always trump my imaginations. I purposely used a heated surface in a cooling brick to avoid your dishonest twisting of reality to suit your agenda. I then had to endure months of you telling me the surface of the brick was not heated. Meanwhile you claimed you were so stupid you could not understand how the surface of an egg warmed up when insulated. To this day I have no idea if you are really so stupid or you are just a sadist. How can it be that after 4 years of talking about the stefan boltzmann constant you still have absolutely no ability to talk intelligently about this topic? Well the fact is Andrew I am pretty convinced that the greenhouse effect does not operate as you have described and that any greenhouse is limited in ways that nullify simplistic descriptions. I went around with Steve on this issue. He claimed that if cooling was restricted the earth could heat to 6,000 degrees the same temperature of the sun. But Steve was probably just one of your many alter egos. The inverse square distance law says otherwise. And its an easy proof. A greenhouse will only heat to the extent that cooling from convection is restricted. If you quadruple glaze the greenhouse with vacuum filled panels you can not get it to heat more than that, much less approach 6,000 degrees. A simple proof that the greenhouse effect is bogus as you have described (and Steve too if in unlikely event Steve is not also you). Now there always is more ways to skin a cat but science does not know which way it is. So scientists accept a basic greenhouse calculation and then completely allow for it being completely wrong via the use of a sensitivity figure that can be positive or negative. Of course morons immediately assume that the feedback has to be positive over the long run and run around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming about the sky falling when in fact they have no idea what sensitivity is or how its physically manifested. You say matter of factly that "Without radiative gases the atmosphere would be much hotter and the surface much colder. CO2 cools the atmosphere and warms the surface." I called poppycock on that because of the implication that the surface would be 33K cooler without greenhouse gases, not recognizing that it is almost certain that if you removed water vapor from the atmosphere it would NOT be 33k cooler or anywhere near that. At worst it would 9.5K cooler on average. But that assumes no other processes, like the sequesterization of heat in our low emissivity atmosphere would has no warming effect on our climate. But to make the statement more ridiculous it fails to recognize that without greenhouse gases we would instantly freeze every night and boil every day. Greenhouse gases moderate climate while all the morons run around claiming its going to destablize our climate by adding a trace gas.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 11, 2016 19:55:33 GMT
Your facts will always trump my imaginations. I purposely used a heated surface in a cooling brick to avoid your dishonest twisting of reality to suit your agenda. I then had to endure months of you telling me the surface of the brick was not heated. Meanwhile you claimed you were so stupid you could not understand how the surface of an egg warmed up when insulated. To this day I have no idea if you are really so stupid or you are just a sadist. How can it be that after 4 years of talking about the stefan boltzmann constant you still have absolutely no ability to talk intelligently about this topic? Well the fact is Andrew I am pretty convinced that the greenhouse effect does not operate as you have described and that any greenhouse is limited in ways that nullify simplistic descriptions. I went around with Steve on this issue. He claimed that if cooling was restricted the earth could heat to 6,000 degrees the same temperature of the sun. But Steve was probably just one of your many alter egos. The inverse square distance law says otherwise. And its an easy proof. A greenhouse will only heat to the extent that cooling from convection is restricted. If you quadruple glaze the greenhouse with vacuum filled panels you can not get it to heat more than that, much less approach 6,000 degrees. A simple proof that the greenhouse effect is bogus as you have described (and Steve too if in unlikely event Steve is not also you). Now there always is more ways to skin a cat but science does not know which way it is. So scientists accept a basic greenhouse calculation and then completely allow for it being completely wrong via the use of a sensitivity figure that can be positive or negative. Of course morons immediately assume that the feedback has to be positive over the long run and run around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming about the sky falling when in fact they have no idea what sensitivity is or how its physically manifested. You say matter of factly that "Without radiative gases the atmosphere would be much hotter and the surface much colder. CO2 cools the atmosphere and warms the surface." I called poppycock on that because of the implication that the surface would be 33K cooler without greenhouse gases, not recognizing that it is almost certain that if you removed water vapor from the atmosphere it would NOT be 33k cooler or anywhere near that. At worst it would 9.5K cooler on average. But that assumes no other processes, like the sequesterization of heat in our low emissivity atmosphere would has no warming effect on our climate. But to make the statement more ridiculous it fails to recognize that without greenhouse gases we would instantly freeze every night and boil every day. Greenhouse gases moderate climate while all the morons run around claiming its going to destablize our climate by adding a trace gas. The so called greenhouse effect has nothing to do with a garden greenhouse.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Jan 11, 2016 20:27:19 GMT
there is no way this could happen .. as at least 70% of the earth is in darkness or near enough there is nothing to stop the heat from leaving .. hence no such thing as a green house effect as you say we live on a planet not in a green house
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 12, 2016 0:00:13 GMT
The so called greenhouse effect has nothing to do with a garden greenhouse. Thats really interesting Andrew as the many months you claim I tortured you was over your explanation of an effect that should be provable using a common greenhouse (a container enclosed by a semitransparent sheathing that lets in visible light but blocks invisible infrared from exiting). A garden variety house made of IR blocking gas that warms in excess of what the equivalent loss of heat from convection would cause seems to me to be a convincing demonstration of the effect if it existed. So if it has nothing to do with garden greenhouses Andrew, you are left completely without the explanation you spent months proselytizing to me. And the torture you claimed was unbearable seems to have maybe had an impact since you are denying now that it has nothing to do with garden greenhouses or greenhouses of any stripe. But I am not certain of what you are now proselytizing. I am pretty darned convinced you cannot demonstrate it either. The question is why. . . .does it exist? Without demonstration its merely a religious belief that may or may not have any real physical manifestation.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 12, 2016 7:01:24 GMT
The so called greenhouse effect has nothing to do with a garden greenhouse. Thats really interesting Andrew as the many months you claim I tortured you was over your explanation of an effect that should be provable using a common greenhouse (a container enclosed by a semitransparent sheathing that lets in visible light but blocks invisible infrared from exiting). A garden variety house made of IR blocking gas that warms in excess of what the equivalent loss of heat from convection would cause seems to me to be a convincing demonstration of the effect if it existed. So if it has nothing to do with garden greenhouses Andrew, you are left completely without the explanation you spent months proselytizing to me. And the torture you claimed was unbearable seems to have maybe had an impact since you are denying now that it has nothing to do with garden greenhouses or greenhouses of any stripe. But I am not certain of what you are now proselytizing. I am pretty darned convinced you cannot demonstrate it either. The question is why. . . .does it exist? Without demonstration its merely a religious belief that may or may not have any real physical manifestation. For years I have been saying 'the so called greenhouse effect', and since you already know about the woods experiment and since you are unable to speak to me without being abusive I am not going to sit here putting up with your disgusting behaviour any longer. It is clear to me you are either dishonest or you are insane or you just get turned on by causing another person to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 12, 2016 7:39:19 GMT
Thats really interesting Andrew as the many months you claim I tortured you was over your explanation of an effect that should be provable using a common greenhouse (a container enclosed by a semitransparent sheathing that lets in visible light but blocks invisible infrared from exiting). A garden variety house made of IR blocking gas that warms in excess of what the equivalent loss of heat from convection would cause seems to me to be a convincing demonstration of the effect if it existed. So if it has nothing to do with garden greenhouses Andrew, you are left completely without the explanation you spent months proselytizing to me. And the torture you claimed was unbearable seems to have maybe had an impact since you are denying now that it has nothing to do with garden greenhouses or greenhouses of any stripe. But I am not certain of what you are now proselytizing. I am pretty darned convinced you cannot demonstrate it either. The question is why. . . .does it exist? Without demonstration its merely a religious belief that may or may not have any real physical manifestation. For years I have been saying 'the so called greenhouse effect', and since you already know about the woods experiment and since you are unable to speak to me without being abusive I am not going to sit here putting up with your disgusting behaviour any longer. It is clear to me you are either dishonest or you are insane or you just get turned on by causing another person to suffer. So are you saying the concentric ring model that eagerly defended for months and called me a moron for not believing in, where you labeled the inside surface with a cold backradiation wattage that mathematically added to the wattage level of the outside surface emissions of the inner ring because of the backradiation causing it to warm was just a"so called effect"? I am so so sorry! It was really stupid of me to not realize that you were talking through your hat. I should have praised you for being so good at talking through your hat and accepted that you called me a moron for not knowing it! I am so so sorry Andrew!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 12, 2016 7:47:49 GMT
No. The so called and incorrectly named green house effect is based on mainstream science but it has nothing to do with a garden greenhouse
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 12, 2016 9:18:55 GMT
No. The so called and incorrectly named green house effect is based on mainstream science but it has nothing to do with a garden greenhouse See my reply to you under the Skepticism thread.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 12, 2016 10:48:15 GMT
No. The so called and incorrectly named green house effect is based on mainstream science but it has nothing to do with a garden greenhouse See my reply to you under the Skepticism thread. It is just the usual waffle. You began by attacking climate science but it has been totally clear you are attacking established scientific thinking as developed by thousands of people since the age of reason.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 12, 2016 15:36:29 GMT
Could we start an Andrew vs Icefisher thread?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 12, 2016 15:57:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 12, 2016 20:11:45 GMT
Could we start an Andrew vs Icefisher thread? I am trying to direct him to my new thread on skepticism so he can have a chance of understanding what I am talking about without blowing up this thread.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 13, 2016 19:35:00 GMT
www.agweek.com/news/weather/3923686-global-warming-could-stave-next-ice-age-100000-years OSLO - Global warming is likely to disrupt a natural cycle of ice ages and contribute to delaying the onset of the next big freeze until about 100,000 years from now, scientists said on Wednesday. In the past million years, the world has had about 10 ice ages before swinging back to warmer conditions like the present. In the last ice age that ended 12,000 years ago, ice sheets blanketed what is now Canada, northern Europe and Siberia
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2016 17:30:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 18, 2016 19:06:44 GMT
"Last month, almost 200 governments agreed a deal in Paris meant as a turning point from fossil fuels, blamed for causing everything." I just corrected the final paragraph.....
|
|