Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

No, that's precisely what I am saying happens. The warmer surface heats the cooler atmosphere. The cooler atmosphere heats the even colder space. That's the direction that heat flows (from hot to cold).

How??

You continue to outright deny science...

 

Because as the atmosphere warms the transfer of "heat" from the surface to the atmosphere takes longer.
It's not difficult to understand if you try.

 

A gross oversimplification. Obviously the upper atmosphere is much colder, but near the surface it's often hotter, in case you hadn't noticed.

Yes.

I did no such thing. I merely interposed a comment, subsequently quoting the remainder.

Then "heat flows" is incoherent, as that translates to "flow of thermal energy flows".

No, in the context of thermodynamics a closed system is one in which there is no exchange of mass with anything outside the system; and for practical purposes, Earth conforms to that definition.

Yes, which contains a closed system called Earth.

What the hell that has to do with anything I said, no one will ever know.

 

https://www.instesre.org/BuildAPlanetDocumentation.htm

conversion from kevin to C (b2) 273
stefan constant (b4) 0.0000000567
sun radiance (b6) 3.90E+26
albedo (b7) 0.3076
solar constant b8 =$B$6/(4*PI()*B9*B9*1000000)
Earth/sun distance (b9) 1.50E+08
temperature of earth (b10) =(B8*(1-B7)/(4*$B$4))^0.25-$B$2

With all of that albedo (b7) is the only thing “pulled out of thin air,” which is not true.


Let us assume the satellite data is meaningless. Since satellite data is meaningless, therefore, you cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann law to figure our earth’s temperature and come close to reality, consequently, that means a greenhouse effect cannot violate Stefan-Boltzmann law because you cannot use the law to give us anything close to the average temperature or habitability of the earth.

“If Earth was completely covered in ice, its albedo would be about 0.84, meaning it would reflect most (84 percent) of the sunlight that hit it. On the other hand, if Earth was covered by a dark green forest canopy, the albedo would be about 0.14 (most of the sunlight would get absorbed). Changes in ice cover, cloudiness, airborne pollution, or land cover (from forest to farmland, for instance) all have subtle effects on global albedo. Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo

Your “science” is simply a religion, which cannot figure out why the earth is habitable; it is magic, earth be habitable because of magic temperatures pulled out of thin air and God controls the clouds… Feel free to prove otherwise.

​

You now must figure the average temperature of the earth, using Stefan-Boltzmann law and any other laws you wish to use, without useful satellite data to figure average albedo…or thermometers, and you must do so in a way that the average temperature of the earth is habitable.

 

It doesn't "take longer". It already happened as a result of the surface cooling itself.

The whole thing is continuous. The Sun is heating the Earth's surface (warming the surface). The Earth's surface is heating the atmosphere (thus warming the atmosphere and cooling the surface) and the atmosphere is heating space (thus cooling the atmosphere).

 

And when you add more CO2 this process takes longer.

 

The planet is not a closed system. Practically speaking with respect to mass transfer, yes. A closed system however is with respect to mass and energy and with respect to energy it is definitely not closed. And, all of that energy, inbound and outbound is ultimately by radiative heat transfer.

 

Yes it IS true. And that randU number ****s up everything, making the end result into a randU number as well.

Never said that all satellite data was meaningless. Just said that attempting to convert light readings into temperature readings (in an attempt to figure out the temperature of Earth) is meaningless since we don't know the emissivity of Earth. Inserting a randU number in for emissivity will yield a randU number as a result. That tells us nothing.

Define "reality".

Non-sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow from the predicate.

More randU numbers. Meaningless. We don't know what the emissivity of Earth is. Earth is made up of numerous different things with numerous different emissivities.

Inversion Fallacy.

​

I don't have to do anything besides stick with the truth that we do not know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature.

 

No it doesn't. The amount of CO2 doesn't change the equation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law any...

 

Has nothing to do with it. It's about time.

 

Yes it is.

No, that would be an isolated system.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

If you wannabe rigorous about it, then it is neither closed or isolated: it is in fact an open system.



https://m.phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html

Or do you refute atmospheric losses to space?

 

Does

suggest to you an obsession with semantical rigor?

 

must need a creator right?

 

Clever, glad to know it’s only a matter of semantics. A step up from grammar, or no?

 

Do feel free to ponder the question to your heart's content.

 

You don't even know the difference between a random number and averages. Just because the earth has different areas of emissivity (like deserts and glaciers...) does not mean an average albedo cannot exist for use in calculations.

I am really sorry you don't know what reality is, it explains an awful lot.

If you are going to have a truth, you should learn the difference between an average and a random number, and since you with all the laws and math (which lacks the knowledge of averages) cannot prove why the earth is even habitable, therefore, you cannot deny whether the earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature, consequently, you are left peddling your religion that averages are random numbers.

Your use of the laws of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann law to somehow claim a greenhouse effect does not exist to keep us habitable or to make us warmer with man's intervention in the natural system, is using a random number.

You now must figure the average temperature of the earth, using Stefan-Boltzmann law and any other laws you wish to use, without useful satellite data to figure average albedo…or thermometers, and you must do so in a way that the average temperature of the earth is habitable, OR, you can admit defeat and use the satellite data to figure AVERAGE albedo and complete the math:

conversion from kevin to C (b2) 273
stefan constant (b4) 0.0000000567
sun radiance (b6) 3.90E+26
albedo (b7) 0.3076
solar constant b8 =$B$6/(4*PI()*B9*B9*1000000)
Earth/sun distance (b9) 1.50E+08
temperature of earth (b10) =(B8*(1-B7)/(4*$B$4))^0.25-$B$2

 

Sure I do.

There are three types of random numbers:
** randR is the "repeatable" random number, such as rolling a die.
** randN is the "non-repeatable" random number, such as picking from a deck of cards.
** randU is the "predictable" random number ("pseudo-random"), such as what comes out of one's head, algorithms, etc.

An average (or "mean") is the sum of a group of values divided by N, in which N is the number of values present in that group.

Strawman Fallacy. I don't deny that the value exists. I instead reject the notion that we somehow accurately know what that value is.

Sure I do.

Reality is defined by a branch of Philosophy known as Phenomenology. Reality is "an individual's personal model of the universe and how it works".

Already have. See above.

Yes, science and mathematics. Two things which you are denying. Same goes for logic and philosophy.

Already have the knowledge. See above.

It has the right amount of oxygen, is at the right temperature, and many other correct conditions that have absolutely NOTHING to do with a supposed Greenhouse Effect.

Strawman Fallacy. I am not denying any of those possibilities. I am claiming that we do not know which possibility is actually happening.

It. is. okay. to. say. that. we. do. not. know. something.

Already addressed. See above.

It is not possible to trap heat. That claim, necessarily, is a claim of radiance reduction (since that heat is being "trapped"). According to the SB Law equation, that reduction in radiance would result in Earth's surface being COLDER, not warmer. Those two values are directly proportional.

Strawman Argument. I didn't say that coming up with a theory is using a random number. I said that an average of made-up numbers is itself a made-up number. Utterly meaningless. I've already explained many times the requirements of Statistics which are not being followed with regard to measuring the temperature of the Earth. Those arguments always seem to be avoided by warmizombies for some reason...

Shifting Burden of Proof Fallacy. YOU are the one claiming that the Earth is warming. YOU are the one claiming that Greenhouse Effect exists. YOU are the one who needs to support those claims without violating logic, science, and mathematics. I need not do anything.

Satellites are incapable of measuring the albedo/emissivity of Earth. I have already explained why.

I need not do anything. YOU are the one claiming that the Earth is warming and that Greenhouse Effect exists. YOU are the one who needs to provide valid data of the Earth warming and a valid mechanism by which Greenhouse Effect works.

OR, I can keep refuting the dogma of the Church of Global Warming with the logic, science, and mathematics that stands in the way of it.

The bolded is a completely made-up number, thus the resulting "temperature of Earth" is completely made up. We don't know the albedo of Earth. We don't know the emissivity of Earth. We first need to know the temperature of Earth (what we're solving for) in order to know those values.

An equation involving a complete guess of a number will result in a complete guess of a number. Meaningless!

 

https://www.instesre.org/BuildAPlanetDocumentation.htm

conversion from kevin to C (b2) 273
stefan constant (b4) 0.0000000567
sun radiance (b6) 3.90E+26
albedo (b7) 0.3076
solar constant b8 =$B$6/(4*PI()*B9*B9*1000000)
Earth/sun distance (b9) 1.50E+08
temperature of earth (b10) =(B8*(1-B7)/(4*$B$4))^0.25-$B$2

B7 is not a completely made up number:

“If Earth was completely covered in ice, its albedo would be about 0.84, meaning it would reflect most (84 percent) of the sunlight that hit it. On the other hand, if Earth was covered by a dark green forest canopy, the albedo would be about 0.14 (most of the sunlight would get absorbed). Changes in ice cover, cloudiness, airborne pollution, or land cover (from forest to farmland, for instance) all have subtle effects on global albedo. Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo

You now must figure the average temperature of the earth, using Stefan-Boltzmann law and any other laws you wish to use, and you must do so in a way that the average temperature of the earth is habitable. You are not allowed to rely upon random numbers, such as “It has the right amount of oxygen, is at the right temperature, and many other correct conditions,” or random numbers of personal "reality," to dismiss the greenhouse effect.

 

You have nothing but random numbers of personal "reality" word salad to back up your claims the Greenhouse Effect does not exist; the burden of proof in on you.

 

Argument of the Stone Fallacy (dismissal of my argumentation in post #1618 without providing any counter-argumentation.)

Argument By Repetition Fallacy (I have already provided counter-arguments [see my post #1618] to all of these arguments of yours).


Thus, we sit at the content within my post #1618, of which you need to directly respond to in order for our discussion to move forward.

 

I have already provided you with the logic, science, and mathematics which stands in the way of Greenhouse Effect theory, as it has so-far been argued.

YOU are claiming that the Earth is warming. YOU are claiming that CO2 (and other "greenhouse gases") are the cause of this warming. Therefore, YOU need to provide valid data for this warming and provide a valid mechanism for Greenhouse Effect that doesn't violate logic, math, or science.

The floor is all yours.

 

Word salad, devoid of "okay" math.

https://www.instesre.org/BuildAPlanetDocumentation.htm

conversion from kevin to C (b2) 273
stefan constant (b4) 0.0000000567
sun radiance (b6) 3.90E+26
albedo (b7) 0.3076
solar constant b8 =$B$6/(4*PI()*B9*B9*1000000)
Earth/sun distance (b9) 1.50E+08
temperature of earth (b10) =(B8*(1-B7)/(4*$B$4))^0.25-$B$2

Since you gave an okay to the above format, all other text used to represent math is deemed word salad, remember, “Reality is ‘an individual's personal model of the universe and how it works,” so all your math must conform to the above "okay" format.

You now must figure the average temperature of the earth, using Stefan-Boltzmann law and any other laws you wish to use, and you must do so in a way that the average temperature of the earth is habitable.

You are not allowed to rely upon random numbers, such as “It has the right amount of oxygen, is at the right temperature, and many other correct conditions,” or random numbers of personal "reality" such as "I have already provided you with the logic, science, and mathematics," you must show post # and link to any math which you claim to have provided.

 

Continued Argument of the Stone and Argument by Repetition fallacies noted earlier.

Respond to my arguments made in post #1618 or else there is nowhere else for this discussion to go.

 

Word Salad, like with your refusal to watch a video professor, new rules apply:

https://www.instesre.org/BuildAPlanetDocumentation.htm

conversion from kevin to C (b2) 273
stefan constant (b4) 0.0000000567
sun radiance (b6) 3.90E+26
albedo (b7) 0.3076
solar constant b8 =$B$6/(4*PI()*B9*B9*1000000)
Earth/sun distance (b9) 1.50E+08
temperature of earth (b10) =(B8*(1-B7)/(4*$B$4))^0.25-$B$2

Since you gave an okay to the above, all other text used to represent math is deemed word salad, remember, “Reality is ‘an individual's personal model of the universe and how it works,” so all your math must conform to the above format.

You now must figure the average temperature of the earth, using Stefan-Boltzmann law and any other laws you wish to use, and you must do so in a way that the average temperature of the earth is habitable.

You are not allowed to rely upon random numbers, such as “It has the right amount of oxygen, is at the right temperature, and many other correct conditions,” or random numbers of personal "reality," to dismiss the greenhouse effect, and your math must conform to the “okay” format so that it may be easily checked by all.