What? That's ridiculous. It's not on me to prove it isn't. You can't prove a negative.
Last edited:
For all of you tree hugging leftists.....
- Thread starter TwinDegrees2
- Start date
Jesus ****ing christ dude, that doesn't prove SHIT. Koch brothers are involved in a lot of things. That in no way at all proves they funded disinformation.
Five key ways the Koch brothers pushed their rightwing agenda
Charles and David Koch spent millions to promote conservative candidates and causes, provoking anger – and devotionwww.google.com
You're seriously disputing that this guy was part of the Cato Institute, of which the Kochs we're a major benefactor? Sorry, I'm right and you're not.
That's like me making the claim that if you're funded by the government then you're lying about climate. Guess what. ALL science in the main stream of climate is funded by the government. Nobody that has an opposing view can get funding from the government. That's how you get the garbage science we have now. If you want funding, you must push one side. That's not good for science.
Last edited:
No, yours is laughably inaccurate. According to the greenhouse effect theory, the Sun can only heat the surface of the Earth to -18 C. The only way it gets to 30 C is from the grenhouse effect, thus heat gets back radiated to the Earth and warms it. That's breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
Here, here's proof:
According to this diagram the Sun only has 161 w/m^2 hitting the surface (clearly seen on the left). On the right you can see where it says "back radiation" that is getting absorbed by the surface at 333 w/m^2. That's against the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot get a cooler object to heat a warmer one. The air is always cooler than the surface.
Last edited:
Just look at the history of temperature graphs. They've changed past temps down and more recent temps up. The 1974 NCAR graph vs a more recent one is blatant proof. They downplayed the 1930's heat and almost completely erased the 1970's cold.
This graph was just the beginning. In this one they just ignored the 1970's cooling. The more recent graphs have adjusted the past down more.
Last edited:
But how do you explain the reduced sickness and death for those who are vaccinated? No doubt this has been politicized but vaccines have been a success
Say you don't understand radiation without saying you don't understand radiation.
Well, I'm not saying the vaccines don't work at all. However, a ton of people already had Covid. Studies are showing that if you had Covid then your immunity is ~7x better than the vaccine.
You are DANGEROUSLY ignorant. Your climate change denial is absolutely insane. Your "I saw a video of a Pfizer scientist ..." post is obviously legitimate. No possible way it's complete bullshit.
You are DANGEROUSLY dramatic, even on a Saturday morning! Another mentally ill white liberal. Look at the data.
How about we stick to the topic. Look at that image I gave you and tell me where I'm wrong. The Sun only inputs 161 w/m^2 yet the atmosphere is emitting back 333 w/m^2. How is this possible? In order to understand this you need to start with a cold Earth with no heat. 161 w/m^2 comes in. How do we get to 333 w/m^2 being emitted back to the surface if they aren't breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat only travels from hot to cold. How is a cold object warming a warmer one?
The atmosphere is a blanket that sits on top of Earth. Most of the heat content from the atmosphere originates from Earth's surface, with the exception the 78w/m^2 from the sun that gets absorbed by the atmosphere directly. The sun isn't the only source of heat...Earth also releases heat, and the amount of absorption in the atmosphere is dependent on the makeup of greenhouse gasses. If there was no atmosphere, there'd be no back radiation.
Last edited:
Specifically pointing which part of your position is wrong is anything but a deflection. You’re conflating the direction of net heat transfer (hot to cold) with one of the mechanisms of heat transfer (radiation). You want me to explain how thermal radiation works or do you want to look it up?
I don't know what that means.
Don't confuse the points or try to change the topic. I'm saying that the scientists have changed their recommendations many times as the data has been accumulated and analyzed. That's NORMAL. It's 100% true that people like you regularly bring up something Fauci said a year ago or the effectiveness of the vaccine etc.
Hell, the scientists still aren't sure. We're now getting a vaccine for kids. But sure, let's pull out shit they said 6 months ago and point out how they were wrong when we know more now. Makes no sense. Just a political talking point.
No doubt natural immunity should be considered but do you want to take the chance on getting it naturally? IMO if we hadn't had the vaccine we would be in a worse situation
Let me simplify it for you.
Man masters fire. Glaciers melt.
Man is responsible for global warming.
The atmosphere absorbs 78 by the Sun directly (supposedly) but the atmosphere releases 169. So it's releasing more than twice than what is absorbed directly. So once again, we are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics to make our climate system work.
The Earth isn't the source of heat. It's releasing heat from the Sun. The Sun is the only source...
No, I'm not conflating anything. Doesn't matter what mechanism heat is transferred, it will only transfer from hot to cold. Radiation from an object of equal temperature/energy will not warm the other object more.
Last edited:
What? WTF is this rant all about? I didn't say anything about Fauci or any of the crazy shit your saying here. I simply said that there is some noise out there that the effectiveness isn't as high as they originally claimed.
Per the graphic you linked, surface radiation of the Earth is 356. That is heat being released from Earth into the atmosphere.
The temperature of Earth's core is about the same as the surface of the sun.
Last edited:
Don't play the stupid routine. Fauci was an EXAMPLE.
Thank you for making my point. The effectiveness may not be as high as they originally claimed. No shit. Because as data comes in, scientists change their recommendations and treatments and predictions. That's what I've been saying. It's you people that keep bringing up what the experts were saying at earlier stages and trying to discredit them for it.....when all they were doing was reacting to the info they had at the time.
This is now what the model says happens. Even the graphic you provided shows MORE radiation from the surface to the atmosphere than from the atmosphere to the surface. In that situation, the surface is warming the atmosphere, not the other way around. You don't understand the model, nor how thermal radiation works.
Yes, and where does that radiation come from? The Sun is the only source of input and it's only giving 161 so how is the Earth emitting 356?
Yes exactly, but where is that radiation from the surface coming from? The Sun is the source of input. How is the radiation from the Earth more than twice the input from the Sun?
I understand the model. I'm trying to get you to open your eyes a bit.
I'm not doing this with you. You're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Lumping me in with what others may have said...
You SAY you understand the model, but repeatedly demonstrate that you, in fact, do not.
I'll ask a simple question that you should be able to answer in one sentence: why is the Earth warmer than the moon?
The Earth isn't warmer than the moon... at least not the area of the moon that is in the Sun. The area of the moon that is in the Sun is 260 F.
Trust me, based on how you've been talking about this I can tell I understand this much better than you. I know you're trying to get me to say the greenhouse effect but a real greenhouse doesn't work like our atmosphere. A real greenhouse literally traps heat with a solid surface. That surface doesn't allow the heat to convect out, BUT it will never get hotter than the light coming in allows. Our atmosphere OTOH, has no such solid surface preventing convection, thus the GHG's that we're demonizing is working to help cool (to some degree). IF GHG's caused back radiation and heating of the surface beyond the Sun's input, then you'd see runaway warming in an actual greenhouse, which you don't, BECAUSE you cannot heat an object higher than the input heat allows.
Also, IF our atmosphere worked like a greenhouse, then you would have a layer near the surface that has a fairly uniform heat profile up to a certain altitude. In reality though, our atmosphere has a temperature gradient and it's very uniform which would suggest there isn't a greenhouse effect such as the one being pushed upon us.
Last edited:
One thing at a time, because that’s the only way we’re going to get anywhere. Why would you give the the temperature of HALF the moon to argue that it’s not colder than the Earth? At lunar night, the temperature is -280F. Why would you leave that out?
The moon’s average surface temperature is -23C, Earth’s is 15C. Explain why they are different if both are black bodies that are an equal distance from the sun, thus receiving the same amount of solar energy per square meter.
Last edited:
The reason why I only mentioned that the moon was 260 F in the Sun is because I wanted to show how powerful the Sun is at our distance from it. This temperature shows that our atmosphere actually cools the Earth more than anything. Think about that. The Sun unfiltered would make the surface of the Earth 260 F but because of our atmosphere only enough Sun gets through to heat us to about 60 F. That''s HUGE and actually quite the opposite of a "greenhouse" effect.
Last edited:
So our atmosphere only reflects or keeps the heat out when it comes from the sun.......but not from the earth? Only goes one way? I don't know.......but that's what you're saying.
I don't understand what you mean by not keeping out heat from the Earth. Where in my quoted statement did I say that? Or am I not understanding what you're trying to say?
Last edited:
You didn't answer the question, and I'm not going to move on until you do. So, either answer it or we're done. Explain why the average surface temperature of the Earth is hotter than the average surface temperature of the moon if both receive the same amount of solar energy relative to their size.
Last edited:
Since nobody has answered this question directly, I feel it is my duty to do so:
Energy balance of surface:
Into surface:
Absorbed by surface: 161
Back radiation: 333
Total: 494
Out of Surface:
Thermals: 17
Evaporation: 80
Surface radiation: 396
Total: 493
This is internally consistent.
Energy balance of earth system:
Into earth system:
Incoming solar radiation: 341.3
Out of earth system:
Reflected solar radiation: 101.9
Outgoing long wave radiation: 238.5
Total: 240.4
This is also internally consistent.
Energy balances of this figure are consistent with all the laws of thermodynamics.
I also don't understand why you think back radiation is against the laws of thermodynamics. All objects with a temperature emit radiation, including the earth. How much radiation the earth emits is dependent on the temperature of the earth and has nothing to do with how much it absorbs from the sun. Some of the radiation emitted from the earth is absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere which puts them into an excited state. Those molecules then remit that radiation to go back to their original energy state. That radiation is emitted in a random direction, some of which goes back to the surface and some goes up and is absorbed by molecules higher in the atmosphere which then re-emit them in a random direction. After iterating this process a large number of times, eventually some of the radiation is re-emitted back into space.
The average temperature of the moon is lower than that of earth, so how does that show that the atmosphere cools the earth?
Another example of this is to compare Venus and Mercury. Venus is way hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the sun.
You're still assuming that the back radiation is possible. Again, according to the law of thermodynamics, you cannot have heat from a cooler source (the air) heating a warmer object (the surface).
You're making the mistake of taking the average. Of course the average will be less. First of all the moon doesn't have an atmosphere. Second, the moon doesn't rotate so the dark side of the moon never sees sunlight, thus it's very cold. You're missing the point that I was making, and that point is that the Sun has MORE than enough energy given to us to account for any amount of warming, especially if the Earth's albedo goes down.
Agreed. The fact that the Earth has an atmosphere makes it warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere. You have just acknowledged an observed effect of the atmosphere on the surface that has been labeled the "greenhouse effect" by scientists.
Now that we can move on from that, next question. In what direction(s) does an object (a single object that is hotter than absolute zero) radiate heat? Again, a single sentence should suffice for your answer.
